23rd March 2022
Without prejudice
How will the Hammersmith & Fulham Council protect the Shepherd’s Bush Market Businesses?
1) With the imminent approach of the London Borough Elections in May 2022, there is the question as to whether the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, under the leadership of Councillor Stephen Cowan, has made provisions to protect the livelihoods of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Businesses.
2) The threat to the welfare of these businesses has been an ongoing concern for almost a decade. Unfortunately, the underdeveloped land of Shepherd’s Bush Market, combined with the neighbouring land, owned by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, known as the Old Laundry Site Area (which is located to the rear of the residencies of Pennard Road) has enticed developers with detrimental ambitions of profiteering from the market land to increase their building footprint of a several storey commercial and residential development across the various neighbouring land areas.
3) The ethnically diverse community of the well-established 1914 market, has fallen under siege from developers for too long and there is the query as to why the Hammersmith & Fulham Council have not prevented the developers from their attempts to weaken the position, rights, and agreements, of the long-standing Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses.
4) Due to Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s ownership of the Old Laundry Site Area, the Labour constituency may potentially partner with the developer known as Yoo Capital (who are associated with the Olympia development). If this occurs, then, it is likely that the developers may submit a planning application later this year, to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council Planning Department.
5) The planning application may bring about a troubling level of disruption and disturbance to Shepherd’s Bush Market and the neighbouring land areas for a number of years. Further to this, the scheme may allow the developers to greatly undermine the standing of the market businesses, compromising the market tenants’ existing lease terms and conditions, their entitlements and rights to existing agreements, and their viability to remain within Shepherd’s Bush Market.
6) Various governmental bodies (such as the London Market Board under the umbrella of the London Assembly) have repeatedly expressed the sentiment of support for the small businesses in Shepherd’s Bush Market, however, in practice, it is difficult to identify as to what help has been provided to the market traders throughout their continual struggle to protect their rights and safeguard their futures.
7) During the period from May 2010 to May 2014, the Conservative Party (under the leadership of Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh), held control of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. During this term, the Conservative Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and the Conservative Mayor of London, signed two agreements relating to Shepherd’s Bush Market, with private developers.
8) The first agreement titled the ‘Option Agreement etc relating to land in and around Shepherd’s Bush Market, Shepherd’s Bush, Hammersmith London is dated 22nd December 2010’. https://www.dropbox.com/s/51pbq89a4kkb7jk/Options%20Agreement%20%2022nd%20December%202010.pdf?dl=0
The second agreement titled the ‘CPO Indemnity Agreement etc relating to land in and around Shepherd’s Bush Market, Shepherd Bush, Hammersmith, London is dated February 2013’ https://www.dropbox.com/s/7o78vaibjoj2ndz/February%202013%20CPO%20Indemnity%20Agreement%20.pdf?dl=0
9) Both agreements had at the time been undisclosed from the public and remained secret for several further years.
10) Shepherd’s Bush Market had been under the ownership and protection of the public body London Under Limited (LUL) / Transport for London (TfL) for a century, from 1914 to 2014.
Tragically, the alignment of a Conservative Government, a Conservative London Mayor, and a Conservative Hammersmith & Fulham Council, led to Shepherd’s Bush Market being sold on 25th February 2014, from the public body Transport for London to private developers.
11) Unbeknown to the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses at the time, this was the start of an ongoing gruelling battle between the developers and the Shepherd’s Bush Market community.
12) The Guardian Interview titled “Stephen Greenhalgh: Localism hero or demolition man?” By Saba Salaman https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/07/stephen-greenhalgh-interview captures a view regarding the former Hammersmith & Fulham Leader and the situation at the time.
13) In May 2014 the Conservative constituency lost the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, and the Labour constituency, under the leadership of Councillor Stephen Cowan seized power.
14) Regrettably, it transpired that the new Labour Council had inherited the agreements made between the Conservative constituency and the developer.
15) In the years that followed, although the Hammersmith & Fulham Council and other Governmental parties wished the very best for the Market community, there remained a frustratingly inadequate and unsatisfactory level of assistance to truly overcome the pressures which the developers exerted onto the market businesses.
16) Concerns regarding the developer’s stewardship of the Market have escalated, and even matters regarding the poor handling of the Service Charge Accounts for several years had resulted in the market community having to serve Service Charge Dispute Notices against the Landlord. Still to this day, there remains an awkward and contentious concern of possible manifestation errors within the Service Charge Accounts. Currently, the solicitors of both the landlord and the market community are trying to resolve this matter relating to the Accounts from 2014 to 2019, however, it may require the Landlord to be more cooperative and to show the greater compromise on their behalf, before a resolution is achieved.
17) Thankfully in 2016, the combined efforts of the supporting public, MP Andrew Slaughter, and the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA), good fortune bestowed itself upon the Shepherd’s Bush Market community.
18) The judgement of the Court of Appeal case: ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169[3] by The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Justice Longmore, and Lord Justice Lewison, resulted in the overturning the developer’s former plans. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/169.html
19) The win for the Shepherd’s Bush Market Community against the developers not only removed the imminent threat of the loss of many traders’ livelihoods but set legal precedence in the Country relating to the subject of reasoning and judgement.
20) The February 2014 Compulsory Purchase Order Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Mrs Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2015-0230/223452-223453_Slaughter_-_Shepherds_Bush_Inspector_Report.pdf
and the Court of Appeal judgement regarding the case ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169[3] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/169.html both pressed the importance of upholding several fundamental principles within Shepherd’s Bush Market.
Firstly, Shepherd’s Bush Market’s valuable multicultural and ethnic diversity must be retained and protected. The market holds social prominence that may not be found anywhere else for several miles. It is of the utmost importance that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council fastidiously shields the market’s diversity, in perpetuity.
§ Secondly, Shepherd’s Bush Market must retain its affordability in its entirety. Removing the Market’s affordability even in part, (either in the short or long term) may bring about unfortunate irreversible repercussions to the market’s character and social offer.
§ Thirdly, both the short and long-term retention of the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses must be preserved and secure. The Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s Section 106 Agreement in 2014 had failed to provide the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses with adequate safeguards to protect these businesses. Even now, the present developer’s ambitions will make it exceedingly difficult for the current market businesses to afford to remain in the Market, past the year 2030.
21) It had been hoped that the Court of Appeal judgement ‘Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors’ [2016] EWCA Civ 169[3] would allow the Labour Council Constituency to ensure that the mistakes of the past would be rectified and not be repeated.
22) Popular opinion has expressed the view that Shepherd’s Bush Market’s longevity had always been best protected under the ownership of the public body Transport for London. It is unfortunate that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council has not acted on this point and has not attempted to reverse the actions of the sale of Shepherd’s Bush Market to the private sector.
23) The Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s land known as ‘The Old Laundry Site Area’, that neighbours with Shepherd’s Bush Market, is viewed as the catalyst to the private developer’s ambitions. The question is, should the Hammersmith & Fulham Council entertain a potential partnership with the developer, to build on this land, if the repercussions lead to (i) the harm, (ii) the compromise of value, and (iii) the shortening of the present Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses’ future?
24) Does the Hammersmith & Fulham Council view the current ethnically diverse businesses of Shepherd’s Bush Market to be expendable for the exchange of a residential development being built on the land known as Old Laundry Site Area land and Shepherd’s Bush Market?
25) The current developer, known as Yoo Capital, has not yet submitted any planning application to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council Planning Department, however, they are wishing to commandeer the present TfL leases from various market businesses, encouraging the market traders to either (i) sell up and leave the market, or (ii) surrender their leases, accept less favourable lease terms, and take a 2-year sabbatical away from the market, or (iii) surrender their leases, accept less favourable lease terms, and remaining working through several years of disruption and disturbance, due to that the developer’s plans.
26) Either way, it seems that each Shepherd’s Bush Market business is being encouraged by the developer to surrender their valuable TfL leases and leave the market either sooner or later. As previously mentioned, the developer’s new proposed lease terms insinuate that it will not be viable, due to affordability, for many of the current market businesses to remain within Shepherd’s Bush Market, past the year 2030.
27) The long-term prospects for the current market businesses to remain operating in Shepherd’s Bush Market may be considered as deeply unfavourable. Change may be on its way and without the inclusion of the current market businesses.
28) The question which will continue to be on the minds of the Shepherd’s Bush Market community is, will the Hammersmith & Fulham Council protect the market businesses and implement smart and sufficient safeguards to ensure the longevity of the livelihoods of the current market traders, or will Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s potential partnership with the developers lead to the market traders being left in a venerable predicament and the Market businesses facing a limited life at perhaps best until 2030.