4th November 2021
Reference – IL Ref 0621
(The full correspondence may be view on the following dropbox link):
For the attention of:
§ Yoo Capital – Mr Lloyd Lee
§ The Hammersmith & Fulham Council – Councillor Stephen Cowan
§ The Hammersmith & Fulham Planning & Development Department
Concerns regarding Yoo Capital
seeking signatures from the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants
Dear Sirs / Madams,
It has come to the attention of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) that Yoo Capital has been asking the market tenants to sign a certain document similar to that which may be seen below on pages 4 and 5.
(Dropbox link to pages 4 & 5):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wc5yzqx3ejny6m/Page%204%20%26%205%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
There is concern that the content and implications of the document (written by Yoo Capital) may not have been adequately explained to those Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants, who are being asked to sign it.
Before signing any document, it is always recommended for the signee to ensure that they have taken the opportunity to seek legal advice on the content and significance of the document. The signee should accurately understand what they are signing.
Some market traders have reported that Yoo Capital has allegedly urged them to sign the Yoo Capital document, and, when the traders have expressed the wish to take the document away, so their legal representatives may examine the terms and conditions of the document, Yoo Capital has allegedly raised objections, preventing the intended signee to show the document to their solicitors before signing.
Some of those tenants who have been able to take a copy of the document away and defend their position, stating that they will seek advice, has resulted in Yoo Capital’s representatives allegedly changing their tone and withdrawing the urgency for the tenants to sign, and allegedly requesting for the tenants to shred the document which the tenants acquired.
It should be noted that the SBMTA has requested for Yoo Capital to provide template copies of the documents which Yoo Capital wishes the market tenants to sign, in order for the SBMTA to gain legal analysis of the documents. However, Yoo Capital has not responded and seems to have ignored the request.
It is viewed that if Yoo Capital is asking various tenants to sign these documents, there should be transparency, in the form of written explanation, as to:
(i) what is the meaning of the terms and conditions of Yoo Capital’s document?
(ii) whether the document can be taken away and reviewed by the tenants’ solicitors or advisers? and
(iii) what the purpose and repercussions of the documents are?
The SBMTA now writes to Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council to seek clarity for the market community, on the documents which Yoo Capital is wishing market tenants to sign.
It is understood that Yoo Capital is seeking to submit a planning application in the approaching weeks, to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, to build a towering housing and office development.
Yoo Capital has stated that the development is to be built on Shepherd’s Bush Market land and on an area of land owned by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council which is formerly known as The Old Laundry Site Area.
Due to the planning application being viewed as a potential associated partnership between Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, the SBMTA directs its questions to both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council.
Question 1
Question 1(a): Has Yoo Capital stated to any of the market tenants, that the presentation of this document is part of Yoo Capital’s unofficial consultation for the planning application which Yoo Capital may submit to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council?
Question 1(b): If this document is part of Yoo Capital’s unofficial consultation for their planning application, which Yoo Capital has not yet submitted to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, why has Yoo Capital not presented this document, and other documents similar to this, to the SBMTA?
Question 2
Several Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses have independently expressed concern to the SBMTA, after meeting with Yoo Capital and being allegedly urged to sign a document similar to that which may be viewed on pages 4 and 5.
Question 2(a): Does Yoo Capital agree to permit all market tenants the opportunity to take all the presented documents away, to evaluate, and consider, with friends, family, representatives, or legal advisers, before Yoo Capital asks tenants to sign Yoo Capital’s document, so the tenants may best act and protect their interests?
Question 2(b): Does Yoo Capital agree to issue, to the SBMTA, copies of the template documents, which Yoo Capital are wishing to be signed by the market businesses, so our solicitors may evaluate the documentation and our members may gain greater legal understanding and clarity?
Question 3
Surprisingly a significant number of tenants have stated that Yoo Capital has allegedly claimed that this is not a legally binding document. Yoo Capital has been asked to clarify this matter but has chosen not to offer a response, as of yet.
Question 3(a): Would Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council please state whether they believe the document which Yoo Capital wish tenants to sign is legally binding or not?
Please view the below image of the document, similar to that which Yoo Capital is seeking market tenants to sign.
(Dropbox link to pages 4 & 5):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wc5yzqx3ejny6m/Page%204%20%26%205%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Question 4
The initial page of the Yoo Capital’s document, under the title – Landlord’s proposals for redevelopment reads:
The Landlord wishes to obtain planning permission to redevelop the area that sits adjacent to Shepherd’s Bush Market and is currently known as the Old Laundry Yard [to include new (affordable) residential and office buildings] and, at the same time, to refurbish and upgrade Shepherd’s Bush Market (the “Redevelopment”)
The proposals set out in these heads of terms are subject to the grant of planning permission for the Redevelopment in terms acceptable to the Landlord and following expiry of any challenge period in respect of such permissions (“Planning”)
Question 4(a): Does Yoo Capital believe that the language used in this paragraph and/or the other paragraphs which follow, is straightforward enough, in layman’s terms, for the ethnically diverse businesses of Shepherd’s Bush Market to understand?
Question 4(b): Has Yoo Capital presented this document in other languages for the tenants?
if yes, then would Yoo Capital please present a copy of the translated document to the SBMTA?
Question 4(c): The above quoted paragraph, may be viewed as somewhat confusing. Would Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council explain to the SBMTA, in writing, as to what does this section means in simpler terms, please?
Question 5
Question 5(a): It has been reported that Yoo Capital is allegedly asking tenants to give their approval for the Yoo Capital planning application, is this true or false?
Question 5(b): If Yoo Capital has not yet submitted its planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, how can one adequately and comprehensively assess whether the planning application is suitable at this moment in time?
Question 5(c): The SBMTA asks both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital, If one cannot view the planning application, as of yet, then, how can Yoo Capital seek the approval of the planning application from the market tenants at this stage, prior to the submission of the planning application?
Question 5(c): If Yoo Capital has not yet submitted their planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and subsequently, the Hammersmith & Fulham Council have not yet started their official consultation for this application, should the applicate of an unsubmitted planning application be approaching the tenants of Shepherd’s Bush Market at this moment in time, and urging them to sign this document?
Question 6
The document seen on pages 4 & 5, under the title – Landlord’s proposals for redevelopment reads: - The Landlord wishes to obtain planning permission to redevelop the area that sits adjacent to Shepherd’s Bush Market and is currently known as the Old Laundry Yard (to include new (affordable) residential and office buildings and, at the same time, to refurbish and upgrade Shepherd’s Bush Market (the “Redevelopment”)
(Dropbox link to pages 4 & 5):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wc5yzqx3ejny6m/Page%204%20%26%205%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
It should be noted that the documentation has not stated to the reader that Yoo Capital’s mentioned residential and office building is intended to be built on Shepherd’s Bush Market land. This may hold significance for many, as Shepherd’s Bush Market land holds social importance to many mid to low-income communities, for many ethnically diverse communities, and provides livelihoods to market traders who could not affordably accommodate their retail market businesses in any other part of Shepherd’s Bush.
Question 6(a): Has Yoo Capital asked the Shepherd’s Bush Market community as to whether the Housing and Office multi-story planning application should be constrained to the land known as the Old Laundry Site Area and the St Mungo Broadway Centre land, and not be built on Shepherd’s Bush Market land, in order to minimize disruption, relocation, and interference to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses, whilst performing capital expenditure improvements to the market?
Question 7
The initial page of the document seen on page 4, under the title – Relocation Option reads: -
Subject to Tenant and Proposed Assignee applying for the Landlord’s consent to assign the Existing Occupational Arrangement as per the terms of the Existing Occupational Arrangement. Subject to Contract, Planning and Redevelopment works commencing, the Tenant wishes in principle to:
Continue occupation during the [2]-year construction period under the terms of the Existing Occupation Agreement, but paying nil rent, nil service charge, and nil business rates.
Upon completion of the [2}-year construction period, enter into a long-term lease with the following key terms (“long-Term Lease”)
a. Within the 1954 Act
b. Rent as current
c. Service charge as current
d. Business rates as current (if applicable)
e. 10-year lease term
f. Year 1 tenant only break option
g. Year 5 tenant only break option
h. Year 5 open market rent review
Only after legally documenting the Long-Term Lease, will the Tenant Surrender their Existing Occupational Arrangement.
(For reference of the above passage please refer to the Dropbox link to pages 4 & 5):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wc5yzqx3ejny6m/Page%204%20%26%205%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Question 7(a): Is the SBMTA correct in saying that the tenants (who Yoo Capital wishes to acquire the signature from) have not specified the above combination of terms and conditions?
Question 7(b): Has this set of terms of conditions been created to predominately accommodate Yoo Capital’s wishes?
Question 7(c): Do Yoo Capital sincerely believe that those businesses who are being asked to sign this document, comprehensively understand the terms and conditions of what is written, and understand the repercussions that may arise if this document is signed?
Question 7(d): It is the SBMTA’s view that the Relocation Option written passage is not in layman terms, and it is asked for Yoo Capital to please explain further, the meaning of each of the terms, in writing, please.
Question 7(e): Would Yoo Capital please clarify at which point in time, is Yoo Capital proposing for the requested signee of the document to relinquish their TfL lease, is it (i) prior to any approval for Yoo Capital’s planning application, (ii) after planning application approval but before the “Redevelopment” of Shepherd’s Bush Market, or (iii) after planning application approval and after completion of the “Redevelopment”?
Question 7(f): Would Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council please clarify whether signing Yoo Capital’s document will compromise the tenants’ ability to serve a Section 26 under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act to the landlord and ensure a renewal of their leases under exactly the same terms and conditions as their present TfL Leases?
Question 7(g): under the document’s terms relating to Yoo Capital’s proposed 10-year lease term, the “key term c” states “Service charge as current”.
Presently Shepherd’s Bush Market operates under one service charge regime for the one estate. The terms of this Service Charge regime, functions in a particular manner due to all the TfL leases abiding by the same stipulations, as stated within Schedule 3 of the TfL leases, and due to the vast majority of the tenancies in Shepherd’s Bush Market following this one Service Charge apportionment regime.
As Yoo Capital’s solicitors (Maple Teesdale) have written to the SBMTA’s solicitors (Seddons LLP) informing them of their wishes to implement several different Service Charge apportionment regimes over the one estate, it is asked as to how Yoo Capital will offer tenants the same Service Charge regime, as the present TfL arrangement, if the majority of the tenancies in the market are not following under the present regime?
Surely the introduction of other service charge regimes will compromise the existing Service Charge arrangement?
The information on page 10 shows captions from the present TfL leases, from the third schedule, discussing the Service Charge Formular and the Service Charge Fraction, which implements a cap, and affects what each tenant may have to pay.
(Dropbox link page 10 of 21):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ti3l1qt7ez9xxd/Page%2010%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Question 8
The document on page 4 reads: “Upon completion of the [2}-year construction period, enter into a long-term lease with the following key terms (“long-Term Lease”)”, and then, under point-d reads; “d. Business rates as current (if applicable)”
Question 8(a): If Yoo Capital is seeking to influence a degree of control over ‘business rates’ then is this document a recommendation to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council as to what safeguards and guarantees should be implemented to protect the market businesses and what may be enforced within the Section 106 stipulations?
Question 8(b): if business rates are applied at the current level to which they are now, then from the moment after the planning application is completed, how long will businesses rates remain at that current level?
Question 9
The document on page 4 reads: “Upon completion of the [2}-year construction period, enter into a long-term lease with the following key terms (“long-Term Lease”)” and then, under point h reads, “h. Year 5 open market rent review.”
At present, the TfL leases, which the market businesses presently hold, have a ‘Rent Review’ at the midpoint of the lease. The stipulation of this ‘Rent Review’ is based on the IPD Index.
To quote Thomson Reuters Practical Law[1] – The Investment Property Databank Index (IPD Index) is “A monthly property performance index which tracks retail, office and industrial properties. The index includes data on actual property transactions from institutional investors and property companies. It produces annual and monthly figures for the total property return. The IPD UK index is the standard benchmark for investors to analyse the performance of property in the UK market”.
The fifth schedule of the Transport for London leases stipulates the terms and conditions of the ‘Rent Review’ which is based on the IPD Index. Please see below on page 12.
(Dropbox link page 12 of 21):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2802x3wmfdv1zgc/Page%2012%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Yoo Capital’s proposal for an alteration of the Rent Review stipulations, abandoning the established IPD Index Rent Review and replacing the Rent Review arrangement for an Open Market Value Rent Review may worryingly result in rents escalating over 200% or more, by the year 2030.
Yoo Capital’s proposal for an Open Market Value Rent Review may result in the market retail businesses having to abandon their premises and leave Shepherd’s Bush Market by the year 2030.
Both the CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI[2] and the Court Of Appeal Judgement ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169[3] raises the concern of:
(i) affordability,
(ii) tenant retention in Shepherd’s Bush Market,
(iii) the prominence of Shepherd’s Bush Market’s ethnic diversity, and
(iv) the social importance which the market has on the various London communities.
Each of these concerns may be severely compromised if Yoo Capital’s proposal for Open Market Value rent review stipulation is accepted.
It is understood that a landlord may wish to acquire Open Market Value upon the start of a lease (the Lease Renewal), and subsequently, if the landlord and the tenant cannot reach an agreement on the rent levels, the tenant, under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act, may serve a Section 26 to the landlord, insisting on lease terms and conditions remaining exactly the same as the former lease, but may argue rent levels by asking the Courts to evaluate fair and realistic rent levels.
However, if Yoo Capital proposes for the tenant to enter a contract, whereby the tenant is legally bound to pay Open Market Value at the midpoint of the lease term (The Rent Review), then this may be viewed as tragic as it may result in economically strangling each market business.
When a tenant signs a 10-year lease, it is economically prudent that the signee fully understands exactly how much the full duration of the lease will cost.
Yoo Capital’s proposals wish tenants to agree to Open Market Value at the midpoint of the lease term. Therefore, a tenant entering into a new lease may calculate how much the first five years of the lease may cost; however, the tenant has no reasonable understanding as to how much the second half of the lease (from years 6 to 10) may cost. This situation is not ideal, and subsequently, a tenant may be entering into a huge commitment which they may not be able to afford.
Question 9(a): The SBMTA asks the Hammersmith & Fulham Council as to whether they will support Yoo Capital’s proposals if the consequences are contrary to the recommendations raised by: - (i) the Government Inspector’s Report by Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI, (ii) the Court of Appeal Judgement ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169, or/and (iii) if there is the likelihood of Yoo Capital’s proposal’s leading to the loss of affordability and tenant retention in Shepherd’s Bush Market by the year 2030?
Question 9(b): Does the Hammersmith & Fulham Council believe that building a housing and office structure on the Shepherd’s Bush Market land can be justified if it leads to the economical decline of the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses, resulting in the loss of Shepherd’s Bush Market within the next decade?
Question 10
The document shown on pages 4 & 5 which Yoo Capital wishes to be signed, reads, “Only after legally documenting the Long-Term Lease, will the Tenant Surrender their Existing Occupational Arrangement”.
The Transport for London leases, which are protected under the 1954 Landlord & Tenant Act, offers the market businesses the opportunity to continue their businesses with the prospect of long-term affordability and survival.
The concern is that Yoo Capital’s planning application may result in tenants having to unwillingly surrender their existing TfL lease for a replacement lease which neither offers affordability nor long-term survival.
Question 10(a):
Previously the Hammersmith & Fulham Council officers, under the direction of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Stephen Cowan, ensured that the developers, known as Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd., were not permitted to seize the market tenants’ TfL leases.
In 2015, the SBMTA, the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. entered into discussions regarding an ‘Agreement of Lease’.
It was established that any ‘Agreement of Lease’ given in exchange, when surrendering a TfL lease, would have to offer legal assurances, guaranteeing that the ‘Agreement of Lease’ provided the tenant with exactly the same terms and conditions as the present TfL lease.
This level of protection for the market tenants was championed with the persuasion of the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, establishing a fundamental requirement that the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants should not be compromised in the rights which the tenants currently hold, under the terms of their TfL lease.
These rights include: - (i) all of the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants following the TfL Service Charge Capped apportionment regime, (ii) the terms of the 2003 Service Charge Agreement, be retained within the leases, and (iii) the leases retaining the Rent Review agreement maintaining the established TfL IPD Index agreement.
Question 11
The top of the second page of Yoo Capital’s document (on page 5) reads: -
“During the [2] – year construction period, the Landlord shall pay to the Tenant up to 20% of any lost profit incurred per annum, subject to an annual cap of £30,000. £7,500 of this will be paid upfront at the start of year 1 as a one-off payment that will be non-refundable”.
Yoo Capital’s proposal to build on Shepherd’s Bush Market land and complete a housing and office structure reaching approximately nine stories high may take more than two years.
Question 11(a): Would Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council please explain what happens to remunerate the market businesses if the proposed development is not completed within 2 years and leads to prolonged disruption?
Question 11 (b): Yoo Capital’s wish to limit the compensation of tenants’ losses to that of only 20% may raise severe concern. The SBMTA asks the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital, why a business that suffers losses due to a planning application development, such as this, would not be entitled to be remunerated 100% of the business’s losses which are incurred?
Question 11 (c): As shown below, the TfL leases, under ‘The Railway Company’s Covenants’ do extend to the tenants the right of Quiet Enjoyment of their leased premises.
Does Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council share the view that tenants who suffer interference and disruption to their businesses, due to the repercussions of Yoo Capital’s planning application, may fittingly be entitled to seek reimbursement of 100% of the losses suffered, under the reasoning of compromise of the tenants’ rights for quiet enjoyment?
(Dropbox link page 17 of 21):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ycm0nakcl1u3bqp/Page%2017%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Question 12
The document which you Yoo Capital is asking tenants to sign appears to have a confidentiality paragraph which reads,
"The contents of these heads of terms, the discussions in respect of the proposed arrangements set out in these heads of terms and all information concerning each party and any member of such party’s group or otherwise relating to any of their business(es) are strictly confidential and may not be revealed to any other party (either directly or indirectly) other than to the parties to these heads of terms and their respective employees, officers, representatives and/or advisers.
For the purposes of these heads of terms, confidential information shall mean any information which concerns the business, affairs, customers, clients, or suppliers of a party (or any other member of its corporate group) and which is expressly identified by that party as being confidential or which a reasonable business person would identify as confidential.
This paragraph is legally binding."
(For reference of the above passage please refer to the Dropbox link to pages 4 & 5):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8wc5yzqx3ejny6m/Page%204%20%26%205%20of%2021.jpeg?dl=0
Question 12(a): The SBMTA asks both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council as to what do these two paragraphs precisely mean as the language used is beyond the understanding of the SBMTA and most probably the vast majority of the market tenants?
Question 12(b): The SBMTA asks both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council the question, If Yoo Capital are presenting these documents to tenants, for them to sign, under the form of an unofficial consultation relating to Yoo Capital’s planning application, then, why is the Yoo Capital exerting confidentiality terms for a planning application which should go through public consultation?
Question 12(c): The SBMTA asks both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council the question, why do these paragraphs refer to information relating to the market businesses, the businesses’ affairs, customers, clients, and suppliers?
Question 12(d): The SBMTA asks both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital the question, if Yoo Capital has not discussed the contents of this document to the tenants then how can any failure to explain the meaning of the document be confidential?
Question 12(e): The SBMTA ask both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital the question, if Yoo Capital’s document states that this is a legally binding document then why are tenants reporting that Yoo Capital have allegedly stated to the tenants that the document is not legally binding?
Question 12(f): The SBMTA ask both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital the question, will this issuing of this document to the tenants and the content of this document be acknowledged by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and registered as part of the applicant’s actions in conducting an unofficial consultation for a planning application for a housing and office development on Shepherd’s Bush Market land?
Question 12(g): if a tenant signs Yoo Capital’s document, and the document holds the confidentiality clauses, shown on pages 4 & 5, then, how might this affect the planning application process which should receive a fair, transparent, and public consultation by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council?
Question 13
The final paragraph of Yoo Capital’s document is titled, Governing law and jurisdiction and reads: -
“These heads of terms and the negotiations between the parties in connection with the proposed arrangements contemplated in these heads of terms and any dispute or claim (including non-contractual disputes or claims) arising out of or in connection with them, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law.
Each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court in relation to all matters arising out of or in connection with heads of terms and their negotiation.
This paragraph is legally binding.”
Question 13(a): like much of the document this paragraph does not use layman terms and subsequently it is difficult to understand the meaning of the language. The SBMTA ask both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital to please explain what this section means, in terms in which both the SBMTA and the market tenants will understand?
Question 13(b): In the past, when Transport for London was the landlord of Shepherd’s Bush Market, a lease proposal with heads of terms would be presented, allowing both prospective tenants and their solicitors to view, evaluate and consider the landlord’s proposals.
The SBMTA asks both the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and Yoo Capital as to:
(I) Whether they believe that the tenants of Shepherd’s Bush Market have been presented the head of terms in a professional and proper manner?
(II) Whether they believe that the tenants have been given a reasonable and fair opportunity to present the heads of terms to their solicitors and gain assessment prior to any agreement?
(III) Whether they believe that the proposed heads of terms are the same and of equal value as the heads of terms stated in the present TfL Leases?
Question 13(c): The last sentence of this section reads; “This paragraph is legally binding.”
Some of the tenants who have been shown this document by Yoo Capital but chosen not to sign have been allegedly told by Yoo Capital that this is not a legally binding document. Considering this further section, would both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, please provide their written view as to whether this document is in any way a legally binding document?
Question 14
Question 14(a): The SBMTA asks the Hammersmith & Fulham Council as to whether they have been fully aware of how Yoo Capital is precisely engaging with the market community?
Question 14(b): The SBMTA asks the Hammersmith & Fulham Council to please comment on whether they endorse or disapprove of the approach which Yoo Capital has demonstrated, regarding their actions in seeking signatures from various market tenants for the mentioned Yoo Capital document?
Question 14(c): The SBMTA ask as to whether the Hammersmith & Fulham acknowledge that the head of terms, which Yoo Capital have listed, is neither favourable for the long term survival of the existing market businesses nor in line with the recommendations stated within the Government Inspector’s Report by Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI, and the Court of Appeal Judgement ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169?
Question 14(d): The SBMTA asks the Hammersmith & Fulham Council whether they believe Yoo Capital has acted in an understanding and transparent manner whilst seeking documents to be signed by the Shepherd’s Bush Market community?
Question 15
Question 15(a): If the Hammersmith & Fulham Council choose to provide the land known as the Old Laundry Site Area, to the developers known as Yoo Capital, to assist the building of a housing and office development on the Shepherd’s Bush Market land, then how will the Hammersmith & Fulham Council evaluate what terms and conditions must be implemented in the Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s Section 106 Agreement, to provide adequate safeguards and assurances, to protect the existing businesses of Shepherd’s Bush Market?
The SBMTA reiterates its view and recommendation that a market tenant should only consider signing any document issued by Yoo Capital, once the market tenant has sought the independent guidance of their own solicitor and has acquired a full understanding of the document and the repercussions which may occur.
The SBMTA looks forward to receiving a reply from both Yoo Capital and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council regarding the matters raised.
Yours sincerely,
The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association
[1] Thomson Reuters Practical Law
[2]CPO Report to the Secretary of State -
[3] Court of Appeal Judgement -
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/169.html