CAMPAIGNERS fighting the redevelopment of The Oaks Shopping Centre have been granted a second and final chance to fight their case in the High Court.

The redevelopment of the centre in Acton High Street which includes a nine-storey tower block was voted through by Ealing councillors in October last year. The Oaks Action Group’s application for a judicial review of the decision was turned down at the end of June. Their lawyers Leigh Day still believe they have grounds to challenge the ruling which a High Court judge will decide on November 7.

Oaks Action Group spokesman Doug Carnegie branded council bosses ‘cowards’ for not insisting on a better design which would have less impact on the light of neighbouring homes, connect Acton High Street with Churchfield Road and open up St Mary’s Burial ground and other public space.     

He said: “Make it high density but make it a good design and include a public space where people can be safe and have their lunch.” Campaigners have been backed by celebrities including architect George Clarke and actress Emilia Fox.

Developers Acton Regeneration Company reject the criticisms, pointing out the £40 million project will provide 142 new homes, better open spaces and shops, as well as jobs for 500 people.

The campaigners’ case rests on two main claims: the council fixed the planning committee responsible for passing the scheme and a report by the town hall’s conservation officer criticising the development was omitted from the meeting’s agenda. Councillor Abdullah Gulaid was removed from the committee ahead of the meeting. The town hall claims this was because of earlier statements he made against the scheme, showing he could not make an impartial decision.

Oaks Shopping Centre
Oaks Shopping Centre

Mr Carnegie said Mr Gulaid always remained neutral and when questioned at an Acton Central ward forum in July, said he was not aware of the council’s claim and he had made no such statements. Mr Carnegie said this reply was then omitted from the minutes of that meeting.

The council’s conservation officer’s report omitted from the October 2013 planning meeting agenda was scathing. She said the height was ‘oppressive and overbearing’ and had a ‘detrimental impact on the burial ground’. It added: “The fragmentation of the site has left an unfortunate and potentially detrimental relationship between the new build and the High Street.” Mr Carnegie said: “The planning officer could've ruled against her but he didn't have the right to delete her.”

A town hall spokeswoman said the council was ‘satisfied’ it ‘followed the correct process’ when it granted permission. And added: “Because of this, it is right for the council to defend the claim. Last June, the judge who considered the  judicial review application supported the council’s position and ruled the council had not broken any rules in its planning process.”