Further this post last month I have been given an update by Matt Butler, Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s Head of Policy & Spatial Planning.
He says:
“We have recently been approached by U+I who advise us that they are now taking over from Orion.
“U+I advise that they aim to resolve current matters with the market tenants before consulting and discussing any new proposals that may come forward.”
A note of the meeting with the Council and the Shepherds Bush Market Tenants Association says that Richard Upton of U+I..
“…advised that he would send a letter to all the market tenants introducing U+I and updating them on the current situation. He would also send a letter in both legal and layperson terms setting out how U+I intends to resolve all the outstanding issues with the tenants, as documented by the SBMTA, which will be followed by a meeting in September with the SBMTA. The aim being to resolve all issues before the end of September. In the meantime U+I will review market issues including management , increasing appropriate diversity and footfall for the benefit of all.”
That’s fine so far as it goes.
But according to a report in the Evening Standard the number of customers has been falling rapidly. We need to crack on with an attractive, sympathetic regeneration scheme – which means a design brief specifying that traditional architecture must be used.
I would expect that new homes will be needed for a viable long term solution. It is important to get on with it – not go back to square one.
Hammersmith and Fulham Forum 
Let’s clarify when you say “but according to a report in the Evening Standard the number of customers has been falling rapidly.”
The person who is saying that is Richard Olsen, the chairman of Orion Land & Leisure, the property company behind the planned development.
The Standard is quoting him and he would say that, wouldn’t he?
I would say that in phrasing it the way you did you were – and I’m being charitable here – being economical with the truth.
Don’t you respect the courts? The Standard report also recalls that In March, Appeal Court judges backed a group of traders over their opposition to a compulsory purchase order essential to the project.
So, no, let’s not “crack on.”