AN EDWARDIAN style property has been given a reprieve after planning officers refused permission for its demolition.

But criticisms have been made of Richmond upon Thames Council's planning department as many of those opposed to the development at 175 Sheen Lane, East Sheen, claim they were not informed of the decision.

Vacant since 2000, an application for the demolition of the property and erection of 17 flats was refused on August 16. Reasons given were the loss of a building of townscape merit, and harm to the conservation area, its overbearing impact on neighbours and the lack of educational contribution.

Over 150 letters of objection were received by the council but one resident claims no one was notified of the decision.

"Although Richmond thinks they sent out a number of letters, no one we know knows anything about it," said campaigner and Shrewsbury Avenue resident Budd Margolis.

But despite his frustration Mr Margolis is pleased with the council's decision. "I think the refusal could have come much earlier however I feel we are in a very good position now to continue."

The significance given to the conservation area, in which the building is situated, by the officer in his reasons for refusal is key, according to Mr Margolis. He believes it could help others fighting planning applications.

Mr Margolis is determined to ensure the building is not left to rot, saying it should be sold to someone who would develop it more sympathetically and promising to oppose any appeal.

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Housing Trust (MHT) who own the property said: "We are disappointed with this decision. We had hoped that consultation with the local community would have led to the successful development of much needed affordable homes in Richmond. We are still hopeful that in due course we will be able bring the site into productive use for the benefit of the community."

A Richmond council spokesman said: "Following careful consideration, the application for 175 Sheen Lane was refused under delegated powers as an overdevelopment of the site and loss of a Building of Townscape Merit. There was no support for the scheme, therefore it could be a delegated decision.

"Those people who wrote in were advised of the decision as soon as possible."