Plans for the redevelopment of Phoenix Academy have been refused by Hammersmith and Fulham's Planning and Development Control Committee due to significant concerns regarding design, heritage impact, and the quality of proposed accommodation.
The committee voted to refuse the application for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of two residential blocks, ranging from two to eight storeys, comprising 307 flats, alongside a new two-to-five-storey school building. Objectors, including residents and the Wormholt Residents Association, raised concerns about the development's scale and massing, arguing it would cause substantial harm
to the character of the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area.
Design and Heritage Concerns
The proposed development was refused due to several problematic design elements. The scale and massing of the proposed buildings were deemed out of character with the predominantly two-storey residential nature of the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area, leading to substantial harm
. Residents described the scale as monstrous
and a gross overdevelopment
. The taller built form was considered out of keeping with the established low-rise estate character, eroding the area's openness and causing less than substantial harm
to the conservation area's character and appearance. Officers concluded that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm
to the character and appearance of the Old Oak and Wormholt Conservation Area, with no identified heritage benefits to outweigh the harm caused.
Quality of Accommodation and Amenity Impact
Further objections centred on the loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties, with some reporting reductions of up to nearly 50% in habitable rooms and gardens. Privacy was also a major concern, with widespread objections highlighting overlooking into private gardens and school playgrounds. The quality of accommodation was criticised for providing inadequate natural light. Significant areas of external shared amenity spaces would not receive satisfactory levels of light, and a considerable number of rooms, particularly at ground and first floor levels, would not receive adequate natural light. The forked, constrained layout and inward-facing elevations were seen as creating units with poor levels of natural light
and a reliance on artificial lighting.
Loss of Sports Facilities and Affordable Housing Shortfall
Council officers cited eight reasons for refusal, including issues with design, heritage impact, quality of accommodation, loss of sports facilities, inadequate affordable housing provision, biodiversity concerns, and excessive school parking. Sports England formally objected due to a net loss of sports facilities without adequate justification or replacement. The existing Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and netball courts would be removed, and Sports England requires the MUGA to be redesigned to their standards, with reinstatement of lighting and improvement of the sports hall design. The proposal included 90 affordable housing units out of 307 total residential units, approximately 29% by unit count, or 37% by habitable room. This falls significantly below the council's Local Plan target of at least 50% affordable housing. Furthermore, the proposal offered 100% social rent and 0% intermediate housing, conflicting with policy requirements for a mix of tenures. The affordable housing was also concentrated in separate blocks, failing to ensure inclusive communities.
Biodiversity and Parking Concerns
Biodiversity concerns were also raised, including the loss of on-site habitat of moderate value without adequate replacement, the potential loss of a Category B tree without mitigation, and inconsistencies in documentation making biodiversity net gain (BNG) and urban greening factor (UGF) calculations unverifiable. There were also concerns about double counting
land for both habitat and play space, leading to a shortfall in both. Regarding school parking, the council's concerns were that the development was by reason of over-revisioning parking spaces for the school without robust justification is considered to be unacceptable, as well as having an impact on highway conditions to the detriment of sustainable transport modes.
Next Steps
Despite the applicant's request for a deferral to address concerns, the committee voted to refuse the application. The meeting minutes indicate that a new application would need to be submitted if the developers wished to proceed with a revised scheme. Further details on the planning application can be found in the Public reports pack for the Planning and Development Control Committee meeting on 14th April 2026 Public reports pack.
