28th September 2021
Reference IL Ref 0603
For the attention of the Mayor of London,
CC: Hammersmith & Fulham Council – Councillor Stephen Cowan
CC: MP Andy Slaughter
Dear Mr Mayor,
1) The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) writes to you on behalf of our members regarding recent concerns between the businesses of Shepherd’s Bush Market and the landlord/developer known as Yoo Capital.
2) Yoo Capital has the aspiration to build a towering housing and office block development on Shepherd’s Bush Market land (London W12).
3) Yoo Capital has insinuated that they may submit their planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council by Christmas 2021.
4) Yoo Capital is therefore required to consult with both residents and businesses, before submitting their planning application.
5) Concern in how Yoo Capital may conduct their consultation had been previously raised with the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and it had been requested for the Hammersmith & Fulham Council officers to be appointed and to monitor the approach in which Yoo Capital conducts their consultation so as to ensure impartiality and correctness.
6) Unfortunately, the Hammersmith & Fulham Council has failed to heed and act upon the SBMTA’s requests.
7) To date, no Hammersmith & Fulham Council officer is actively addressing the matters relating to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses’ concerns and the alleged consultation process.
8) The SBMTA thanks our courageous members for their recent reports of concern, regarding Yoo Capital’s approach in conducting their consultation with market traders.
9) Sadly, Yoo Capital has been managing the consultations in what may be considered as a ‘veiled’ manner.
10) Yoo Capital’s consultation process has been reported to be predominately done by isolating each tenant in individual meetings and separately censoring information. Subsequently, Yoo Capital’s consultation method has raised concerns regarding the distribution and consistency of information.
11) The SBMTA has requested for Yoo Capital to comprehensively share the information issued within each consultation, however, Yoo Capital has demonstrated delay and reluctance, in being adequately forthcoming to this request.
12) For example, it has been reported that Yoo Capital’s alleged consultation meetings are offering little information concerning the actual details relating to the design of housing and office planning application, and instead, these consultations are being predominately used as a vehicle to isolate and persuade individuals to unsuspectingly sign legal agreements for the support of Yoo Capitals’ unknown planning application, and to catch tenants off guard in order to for them to sign new heads of terms for future tenancies in Shepherd’s Bush Market, without the guidance of each tenants’ individual’s solicitor.
13) Yoo Capital’s signature collecting exercise is considered to have been unfairly sprung upon each tenant and may unknowingly be used to undermine the tenancy agreements, and prospects for many of the market businesses.
14) It is the SBMTA’s view that Yoo Capital should not be using the excuse of consultation to lure individual market tenants to provide signatures of support for the planning application when full details of the planning application have not yet been revealed.
15) Nor should Yoo Capital be using a planning application consultation to isolate market traders and attempt to separately influence each individual to sign legal documents regarding future terms and conditions of the tenancies in Shepherd’s Bush Market, without clear warning and without the advice of the tenants’ solicitors.
16) It must be remembered that Shepherd’s Bush Market is wonderfully ethnically diverse and for many of the market tenants, English is not their first language.
17) Below is an example of one of the varying documents which Yoo Capital had shockingly attempted to get tenants to sign. It should be noted that no translation of this document, in other languages was attached.
18) This document may also be view on the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ujflw32dl7523fh/Yoo%20Capital%27s%20alleged%20consultation%20documents%20.pdf?dl=0
19) It is viewed that Yoo Capital is acting inappropriately, and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council are again encouraged to actively monitor the conduct of the consultations relating to the proposed housing & office development on Shepherd’s Bush Market land.
20) Market tenants should not be placed in this position of susceptibility.
21) As Yoo Capital’s ambitions of a housing and office development on Shepherd’s Bush Market land is to be partially built on the land known as the Old Laundry Site area which neighbours Shepherd’s Bush Market and is owned by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, it is trusted that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council will ensure fairness and good conduct.
22) Yoo Capital’s attempts to reap signatures for an alleged legal document from unaware market tenants during these consultation meetings has led to mistrust in Yoo Capital and its methods.
23) Yoo Capital has issued little information about the actual detail of their designs for the area and the consultation information that Yoo Capital has issued to some tenants, yet not all, are considered vague especially regarding the looming height of the housing and office development, and the designs of future market stalls and shops.
24) It is feared that Yoo Capital may be delaying in revealing their proposed designs of the market shops and stalls as there is an indication that these designs may result in detriment to the existing market businesses and may not offer adequate appropriateness or the equal replacement value.
25) Details of Yoo Capital’s consultation information may be view on the below link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2gtu936x71m5irm/Yoo%20Capital%27s%20consultation%20.pdf?dl=0
26) Yoo Capital has proposed for the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses to either:
(i) sell up and leave the market,
(ii) leave the market for two years on a sabbatical,
(iii) stay working in the market but suffer the disruption and disturbance of the 3 years + development, with the added constraint that market tenants may only be able to claim for a minor proportion of the losses incurred due to the development, from the developer.
27) Both the second and third options may worryingly lead to the tenants receiving a tenancy agreement that is weaker and less favourable than the current tenancy terms & conditions, and which may lead to the demise of each market business by the year 2030.
28) None of these options are considered to realistically secure the majority of the existing market businesses a long-term future within Shepherd’s Bush Market.
29) Yoo Capital’s proposals are considered to be a short term financial ‘spoonful of sugar’ for the market community to swallow the unfortunate fact that by the year 2030, the existing market businesses may have either already left or would have to leave the market, due to Yoo Capital altering tenancy terms and conditions, and forcing an obligation of the rents to be set at Open Market Value and creating an unaffordable environment for Shepherd’s Bush Market.
30) Yoo Capital does not wish the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants to exercise their present rights that many hold under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act. Market tenants may choose to serve a Section 26 on the landlord of Shepherd’s Bush Market and insist on exactly the same lease terms and conditions as currently enjoyed.
31) To quote Penningtons Manches Cooper[1] “A Section 26 is a notice given by the tenant requesting a new tenancy upon the termination of the old one”.
32) Yoo Capital has chosen to be vocally bullish stating that they are adamant not to permit tenants to renew leases with exactly the same terms and conditions as previous, despite the tenants’ rights under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act.
33) Yoo Capital’s attempts to convince unprepared and unsuspecting market tenants to sign documents whilst attending alleged consultation meetings is feared to be a further tactic for Yoo Capital to undermine the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act and prevent the market tenants from exercising their current rights, such as serving a Section 26.
34) Yoo Capital’s wishes to obligate the market businesses to pay ‘Open Market Value’ by the midpoint of the next lease term raises concerns regarding: -
(i) the affordable environment of the market,
(ii) the retention of the existing market tenants, and
(iii) the retention of the ethnic diversity of the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses
35) Each of these points were considered as significant principles which were raised within the CPO report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Mrs Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI[2]
36) These timeless matters of concern were further highlighted in the Court of Appeal in the court case ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169[3]
37) Yoo Capital neither wishes for the existing capped Service Charge Agreement to govern over the whole of Shepherd’s Bush Market, but instead, wishes for several varying Service Charge Apportionment Schedules to be implemented for the one estate of Shepherd’s Bush Market. This proposal is considered to be unusual and another of Yoo Capital’s proposals to weaken the existing tenants’ position in the long term.
38) The SBMTA strongly advises all of the SBMTA members to be exceedingly cautious and not to sign anything without prior guidance from their solicitor. Those market tenants who do not presently have a solicitor yet seek representation may wish to contact Seddons LLP[4]
39) The current situation now raises various questions: -
§ Will the Greater London Authority and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council oversee the conduct of the consultation regarding the planning application for Yoo Capital’s housing and office development, ensuring transparency and appropriateness?
§ Will the Greater London Authority and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council ensure that the misguided market tenants who have been inappropriately coaxed into signing Yoo Capital’s documents within the consultation meetings be permitted to retract their signatures if they now choose?
§ Will the Greater London Authority and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council set robust safeguards to ensure that Shepherd’s Bush Market: - (i) retains an affordable environment, (ii) maintains the retention of the market tenancies, and (iii) retains the ethnic diversity of all the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses?
40) The ethnically diverse Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses and the social importance of the market should neither be belittled nor disregarded.
41) It is understood that developers may wish to release the value of Shepherd’s Bush Market land for their profit and gain, however, this does not mean that it should be tolerated.
42) The support that is shown on the Change.Org ‘Save The Shepherd’s Bush Market Businesses’ petition of 14,000+ signatures may be considered as an indication that the Shepherd’s Bush Market traders should not be overlooked but should be fiercely protected and cradled.
To view the Change.org petition please use the link below:
https://www.change.org/p/save-the-shepherds-bush-market-businesses
Yours sincerely,
The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association
[1] PENNINGTONS MANCHES COOPER - A GUIDE TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/archive-news/2012/a-guide-to-the-landlord-and-tenant-act-1954
[2] CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI.
[3] Judgement relating to ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169 –
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/169.html
[4] Seddons LLP – Mr Daniel Robin
https://www.seddons.co.uk/our-people?name=Daniel+Robin&department=All