12th October 2021
Reference – IL Ref 0610
For the attention of:
Yoo Capital – Mr Lloyd Lee
CC:
§ The Mayor of London
§ The Hammersmith & Fulham Council - Councillor Stephen Cowan
§ MP Andy Slaughter
The Condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches
Dear Lloyd,
1) The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) trusts you are well.
2) The SBMTA wrote to Yoo Capital on the 8th of September 2021- Reference - IL Ref 0590 (Please view PDF Attachment 1)[1]discussing the concern of Yoo Capital’s proposals to build a housing & office development on Shepherd’s Bush Market land. The correspondence further reiterated the worry of the structural condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches, and the reluctance from Yoo Capital, as the landlord, to adequately address the comprehensive repair of these Arches.
3) The SBMTA’s correspondence highlighted the facts that were established by the Government Inspector’s Report[2] by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI, and the Court of Appeal judgement[3] of Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Longmore, and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ, which affirms that the condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches is poor, suffering severe water ingress, crumbling brickwork, inter alia.
4) Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. had proposed in their 2014 planning application to comprehensively repair and modernise the frontages of all of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches, however, the Government Inspector’s Report pressed the concern that these proposals still inadequately addressed the condition of the entirety of the Arches.
5) The Government Inspector’s Report explained that the landlord’s failure to address the condition of the Arches to a satisfactory standard could lead to an unfair financial burden being placed on those market traders who occupy the Arches in the years going forward.
6) It is noted that although Yoo Capital has acquired 79% of Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. and that there are unfortunate similarities between the ambitions of Yoo Capital and the 2014 planning application of Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd., there persists to be an unwillingness, from the landlord, to comprehensively address the condition of the Arches.
7) The Government Inspector’s Report establishes that the market Arches require thorough repair and that placing the unfair financial burden on the market tenants residing in the Arches could severely threaten the existence of these businesses.
8) It is the SBMTA’s understanding that past attempts to repair and reduce the water ingress for two of the Arch premises in Shepherd’s Bush Market, has cost in the region of £62,000 per Arch.
9) Would Yoo Capital please state what is the current estimated cost to comprehensively repair and waterproof each Arch premises is?
10) The SBMTA thanks Yoo Capital for their response on the 20th of September 2021 (Please view PDF Attachment 2)[4].
11) It seems that Yoo Capital has chosen to disregard the severe and poor condition of the market Arches as affirmed by the Quarterbridge Report (2007), the GVA Grimley Report (2008), and the Parson Brinkerhoff Report (2008 and updated in 2013), the Government Inspector Report (2014) and the Court of Appeal judgement (2016).
12) The SBMTA understands that Yoo Capital may be more interested in building their proposed housing and office development on Shepherd’s Bush Market ground, however, it is asked that Yoo Capital accept their obligations in preserving the presence and purpose of Shepherd’s Bush Market and retaining the existing market businesses.
13) The SBMTA asks why Yoo Capital, as the landlord of Shepherd’s Bush Market, is not providing comprehensive repair of the Arches as required and recommended by the mentioned reports and authorities?
14) It is noted that Yoo Capital’s response on the 20th September 2021 states that if their planning application for their housing & office development is successful on Shepherd’s Bush Market Land then they will give all arch traders £10,000 to spend on improvements to their units with Yoo Capital’s contractors and give all arch traders between £7,500 and £10,000 in compensation to spend as they see fit if they choose to remain at Shepherd’s Bush Market during construction and will provide suggestions for upgrading the arch fronts that are affordable to traders.
15) If repairing the condition of the Arches, to an adequate standard, will cost in the region of £62,000 + per Arch, then who will cover the monetary difference which Yoo Capital does not bear?
16) If Yoo Capital’s contractors were to comprehensively repair the entirety of each Arch, and prevent inappropriate water ingress, firstly, how much would it cost, and secondly, of that cost, how much would have to be borne by the market tenants within the Arch premises?
17) Yoo Capital’s statement to provide “suggestions” for upgrading the Arch fronts, on the condition that the Yoo Capital’s housing and office development application is approved, may be considered odd and inappropriate.
18) Yoo Capital is the landlord of the Shepherd’s Bush Market and there is not only a wish for the landlord to address and fund the repair and betterment of the frontage of the Arches but also the entirety of the Arches premises.
19) Providing “suggestions” for upgrading the Arch fronts may be viewed as inadequate and deficient.
20) Yoo Capital’s proviso, which suggests that the Arches may only be offered a little improvement if Yoo Capital’s vague future planning application is successful may be viewed as disappointing and inappropriate.
21) There is a particular concern with Yoo Capital’s approach regarding their planning application as it is considered to be ambiguous and lacking in fundamental details.
22) Further to this, It is noted that Yoo Capital’s consultation process with the market community has offered little clarity regarding what the planning application will actually propose.
23) Inter alia, there is ambiguity and concern regarding: -
§ (i) the design, value, suitability, stability, and size of the proposed market shops and stalls,
§ (ii) the shadowing height of the proposed housing & office tower development,
§ (iii) Yoo Capital’s intentions to remove the established ‘Capped Service Charge Arrangement’ and instead, place several detrimental service charge apportionment schemes across the one estate, threatening additional costs to the market businesses,
§ (iv) Yoo Capital’s intentions to alter the lease terms and conditions, bringing detriment to the long-term affordability to Shepherd’s Bush Market’s environment, and
§ (v) Yoo Capital’s proposals, which may greatly harm the tenant retention of the retail market businesses within Shepherd’s Bush Market during the short, mid, and long term.
24) Considering the reports and recordings received, it is viewed that Yoo Capital has urged individual tenants to meet with Yoo Capital, under the guise of the ‘consultation regarding Yoo Capital’s future housing and office planning application’ but has digressed away from that which is considered as fitting, leaving tenants feeling misled. Tenants have complained about Yoo Capital’s approach, stating that they have felt ambushed and pressured to unwittingly agree to relinquish their leases. Reports have shown, that in some cases, tenants have been led to believe that Yoo Capital’s legal documents are not legally binding when the reality is contrary to this.
25) Why has Yoo Capital asked tenants to sign detrimental ‘lease heads of terms’ without fair and reasonable awareness, and without the presence and guidance of the tenants’ solicitors in a consultation meeting, which should have been focusing on Yoo Capital’s housing and office planning application?
26) There have been queries as to who should be monitoring Yoo Capital’s consultation process, and it is hoped that both the Greater London Authority and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council will actively ensure fairness.
27) Has the Hammersmith & Fulham Council provided Yoo Capital with parameters of conduct and engagement, when performing these mandatorily planning application consultations?
28) It is viewed that Yoo Capital should consult with market traders and residents in a suitable and appropriate manner. At no time should Yoo Capital discourage the consultees to overlook the planning application details. Seeking agreement for a planning application before openly presenting the details of the application may seem hasty and pushy.
29) The Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants’ hold rights and protection under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act, and subsequently, they should have the entitlement to renew their leases under exactly the same terms and conditions as previous.
30) It is viewed that Yoo Capital’s defiance to provide the tenants with the same lease terms and conditions is unhelpful and uncooperative.
31) It is understood that Yoo Capital may wish to claw back control of the market land from the leaseholders, in order for Yoo capital to capitalise and profit on Shepherd’s Bush Market land, however, threatening the market businesses’ livelihoods is not the way.
32) Yoo Capital’s attempts to implement altered lease terms and conditions (in the way of several new service charge regimes and detrimental lease review terms) may compromise the affordability and tenant retention in Shepherd’s Bush Market.
33) The repercussions of Yoo Capital’s altered lease terms and conditions may result in market businesses neither being able to maintain nor sell their businesses within the duration of the next lease period, but instead, may force market tenants to abandon their premises by the year 2030.
34) Market businesses are now placed in a position of uncertainty and must consider what may be the best course of action to take, considering the damaging prospects of being outpriced and having to leave the market by 2030 or sooner.
35) It had been hoped that Yoo Capital would work in good faith with the Market community however, Yoo Capital’s advances for tenants to relinquish their leases with inadequate assurances and safeguards are viewed as inappropriate and unacceptable.
36) Market businesses are encouraged to seek legal representation and consider the option of serving the Landlord with a SECTION 26 under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act, therefore insisting on the same lease terms and conditions as previously enjoyed, in order to preserve the longevity and affordability of their market businesses.
37) Sadly, Yoo Capital’s approach is considered to have already brought stress and tension to the market businesses. The SBMTA has received reports of tenants being interrupted during working hours and not being granted the quiet enjoyment of their premises that they are entitled to.
38) The SBMTA is aware of certain market tenants feeling threaten due to recent happenings and we are pleased that they have found solicitors to legally protect them.
39) It is requested for Yoo Capital to please appreciate that all of the existing market businesses must be treated fairly and respectfully.
40) Addressing lease heads of terms is a matter which should be tackled under the watchful and understanding eye of legal representatives.
41) Market tenants should never be harassed into signing any document in haste or without complete understanding.
42) Will Yoo Capital pledge not to pressure market tenants to sign revised lease head of terms in the planning application consultation meetings?
Kind regards,
The Shepherd's Bush Market Tenants' Association
[1]SBMTA’s correspondence dated 8th September 2021 - Reference - IL Ref 0590
Dropbox link:
[2] CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI. An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Date: 10 February 2014 - http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2015-0230/223452-223453_Slaughter_-_Shepherds_Bush_Inspector_Report.pdf
[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] Yoo Capital’s response dated 20th September 2021
Dropbox link: