Reference - IL Ref 0582
 
For the attention of:
1)       Mr Lloyd Lee – Yoo Capital
2)       Councillor Stephen Cowan – The Hammersmith & Fulham Council
3)       The Mayor of London
 
Concern Regarding Yoo Capital’s Proposal’s Affecting Shepherd’s Bush Market
 
Dear Sirs,

1)       Yoo Capital’s email, sent to the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA), and received on the 12th of August 2021, raises several concerns and may invoke further objections to Yoo Capital’s potential housing & office planning application, which they intend to submit to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council in December 2021.  
 
2)       As stated in the SBMTA’s correspondence (Reference IL Ref 0579) dated 10th August 2021, the Court of Appeal Judgement – ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169, explains that Shepherd’s Bush Market is “ethnically diverse in its nature and offers the opportunity for independent businesses to trade in an affordable environment not found elsewhere in the area...”
 
3)       This judgement[1] from Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Longmore, and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, further discusses that Shepherd’s Bush Market “provides a social function to the local community.”
 
4)       It is viewed that Yoo Capital’s actions are invoking further reductions in the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenancies, and the SBMTA are upset to read that Yoo Capital has severed a “Notice to Quit” on some of the market businesses.
 
5)       Serving a “Notice to Quit” on some traders may be viewed as premature and brash, as Yoo Capital has not yet submitted their planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and once submitted, their planning application may receive considerable objections from the various communities of London.
 
6)       One may expect responsible parties such as the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the Greater London Authority to ensure the retention of the diversity and multi-ethnic culture of Shepherds Bush Market, as this unique London market provides a social function for many communities.
 
7)       Yoo Capital’s wish for the market leaseholders to relinquish their leases is viewed to be unnecessary and detrimental to the market businesses.
 
8)       It is the SBMTA’s strong recommendation for all the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants to retain their leases.
 
9)       Yoo Capital does not need to acquire the leases of the market tenants but instead could negotiate with the leaseholders, for the leaseholders to issue a licence to Yoo Capital, allowing Yoo Capital to perform works and repairs, in the location of the tenants’ premises, on various provisos, (Including but not limited to the condition that Yoo Capital initially acquires the appropriate planning permission from the Hammersmith & Fulham Council).
 
10)      This option of the tenant merely issuing a licence to Yoo Capital to permit works, instead of the tenant having to relinquish their lease, is both feasible and imperative, especially as (i) the market businesses must retain their leases so as to retain their rights, and (ii) Yoo Capital has not as of yet presented an acceptable replacement lease contract, that proves to hold the same terms & conditions as that of the present (Transport for London) leases, whilst protecting the market businesses’ future in the short, mid, and long term.
 
11)      Yoo Capital claim, in their correspondence, dated 12th August 2021, that they have explored every option to avoid serving the Notices on various market businesses, however, Yoo Capital has provided no evidence to the SBMTA, to justify such assertions, and subsequently, the SBMTA invite Yoo Capital to do so.
 
12)      Before any market tenant relinquishes their lease to Yoo Capital, there is a need to ensure that all legal safeguards and assurances are established to adequately protect the livelihoods of all Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses.
 
13)      If a tenant relinquishes their lease, then they may no longer be legally considered as a tenant, and if their tenancy had previously entitled them to enjoy various rights and protections such as the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act, then the tenant may no longer hold this security and may find themselves compromised and vulnerable.
 
14)      Yoo Capital’s pledge to issue a new lease under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act to market businesses, at a later date, with the impairment of altered lease terms and conditions, is not sufficient, as the market businesses may experience hardship and suffering during the interim period and after.
 
15)      A market business holding a lease under the protection of the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act would customarily retain the same terms and conditions, at all times, and therefore Yoo Capital’s suggestion to alter the lease stipulations, compromising the tenants, are viewed as unacceptable.
 
16)      The existing leases held by the market businesses may entitle the tenants to various rights and must be retained, for example: -
*  Protection under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act,
*  Inclusion of the 2003 Service Charge Agreement,
*  Retention of the Service Charge provisions set out in the third schedule of the leases (including the Service Charge Cap stipulations),
* Retention of the tenant’s ‘Right to Assign’ their lease,
* Retention of the Rent Review’s terms & conditions which are based on the IPD index, as established with the former landlord – Transport for London.
 
17)      Yoo Capital’s proposal to alter the Lease’s Rent Review terms & conditions is considered unacceptable.
 
18)      A landlord may attempt to seek ‘open market rent’ upon a “Lease Renewal”, however, Yoo Capital’s ambitions to alter the Lease Rent Review’s terms & conditions and seek ‘open market rent’ upon the “Rent Review Period” is not customary for the Shepherd’s Bush Market leases, nor is this proposal considered acceptable, as it places additional uncertainty upon the market businesses, after the ‘midterm/halfway period’ of the lease.  
 
19)      Yoo Capital’s further proposal to remove the reference of the 2003 Service Charge Agreement from the lease terms & conditions is viewed as unacceptable.
 
20)      Yoo Capital’s ambitions to alter and be rid of the Service Charge restrictions are frowned upon, as it is likely to place a repetitive, accumulative, financial burden onto the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses.
 
21)      Yoo Capital’s proposal to build a housing and office development on top of Shepherd’s Bush Market land brings the threat of disruption and disturbance to the area and the livelihoods of the existing Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses, for several years.
 
22)      Yoo Capital has proposed that they may recompense a minor proportion of the financial losses, which are suffered by the market businesses, for a partial duration of the Yoo Capital development scheme.
 
23)      Yoo Capital’s offer may be viewed as derisorily, as it may be argued that if Yoo Capital’s housing and office development leads to financial losses for any the market businesses, then 100% of these losses, for the entire period of the development, must be reimbursed to each aggrieved party.
 
24)      It is viewed as unacceptable and improper for a scheme to inflict damage and loss to numerous parties, yet for the instigators of the scheme to evade responsibility and not compensate every suffering party, in full, for all the incurred losses.
 
25)      It is viewed that Yoo Capital’s ambitions to build a housing and office development could easily be contained on the neighbouring land areas, formally known as the Old Laundry Site Area and the St Mungo’s Drug & Rehabilitation Broadway Centre. There is insufficient reasoning for this housing and office development to encroach onto Shepherd’s Bush Market land and cause excessive uncertainty and interference to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses.
 
26)      Yoo Capital’s planning application raises pertinent social questions, such as: -
 
“Should the social importance of Shepherd’s Bush Market, which serves many communities be compromised, as well as, the ethnically diverse market businesses be threatened with interference and personal loss, all merely in order for a private developer to maximise their profits and gains?”
 
27)      The SBMTA wishes to remind Yoo Capital that the 2016 Court of Appeal judgement regarding Shepherd’s Bush Market reads: “any redevelopment scheme should repair and improve the market's physical fabric, expand the diversity of retail and: " crucially maintains existing traders and provides them with the security to ensure that the market can continue to operate without interruption and serve existing customers and communities."
 
28)      It is viewed that Yoo Capital’s proposals for Shepherd’s Bush Market do not adequately heed the concerns and recommendations which are discussed in the Court of Appeal Judgement ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169.
 
29)      For the avoidance of doubt, the SBMTA wishes to highlight that although these matters raised in this correspondence, may alone be considered as ample reason for various communities to submit strong objections to Yoo Capital’s potential application, this is not the entirety of the complaints and concerns relating to Yoo Capital’s proposals.
 
Yours sincerely,
The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association


 [1] Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 169