5th April 2024
Without Prejudice
For the attention of The Mayor of London - mayor@london.gov.uk
City Hall
The Queen's Walk
London SE1 2AA
CC:
- Martin Jones: martin.jones@london.gov.uk
- Katherine Wood, Team Leader – Development Management: katherine.wood@london.gov.uk
- John Finlayson, Head of Development Management: john.finlayson@london.gov.uk
- Lucinda Turner, Assistant Director of Planning: lucinda.turner@london.gov.uk
- Allison Flight, Deputy Head of Development Management: alison.flight@london.gov.uk
- Jules Pipe, Deputy Mayor of London for Planning, Regeneration and Skills: jules.pipe@london.gov.uk
- Sally Moorhead, Senior Strategic Planner: sally.moorhead@london.gov.uk
- Andrée Frieze, Research and Support Officer: Andree.Frieze@london.gov.uk
- Sian Berry, Green Party Member of the London Assembly: Sian.berry@london.gov.uk
- Susan Mary Hall, The Conservative Party Mayor of London Candidate: susan.hall@harrow.gov.uk
- Tony Devenish, Conservative Member of the London Assembly: tony.devenish@london.gov.uk
Stage 2 Decision – Objection to Planning Application Reference GLA 2023/01093/FUL Relating to Shepherd's Bush Market, the Old Laundry Site Area (owned by the Hammersmith & Fulham Council), and St Mungo's Broadway Drug & Rehabilitation Centre
Dear Mr Mayor,
As the former Chairman of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) from 2006 until 30th March 2022, and a former full-time market trader within Shepherd’s Bush Market for over 30 years, I am considered to be an expert on matters regarding Shepherd’s Bush Market. As such, I have been asked by several parties to comment on the planning application – Reference GLA 2023/01093/FUL relating to Shepherd's Bush Market and other neighbouring areas.
It is asked that you please call in and stop the planning application reference GLA 2023/01093/FUL relating to Shepherd's Bush Market and prevent YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposals as they are considered to constrain and ruin the market businesses’ long-term affordability, longevity, and viability in Shepherd’s Bush Market.
Hammersmith & Fulham Planning and Development Control Committee
Despite my repeated requests, issued in writing, with due notice, to the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, to speak at the Hammersmith & Fulham Planning and Development Control Committee hearing, it was regretful and unhelpful that I was not permitted to speak, especially due to my insightful and factual understanding of relevant matters, that may have greatly interested and possibly swayed the Planning and Development Control Committee.
Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd./YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.
The Developer, formally known as Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. now renamed YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. (who are the stewards of Shepherd’s Bush Market) wishes to gain increased control over the market land and implement their planning application 2023/01093/FUL and possible future planning endeavours that may allow them to maximise their commercial profits and exploit the market land.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s aim is considered not to bring benefit to the market businesses nor the local residents, but to remove the market businesses either in the short term by purchasing their current leases and seeking for these businesses to leave the market or in the mid to long-term by taking away the businesses’ rights which are held through the tenants’ Transport for London leases, and therefore, with the amendment of these TfL leases, to (i) lessen of the tenants’ rights, (ii) amplify rents and overheads so affordability is not viable, (iii) increase the landlord’s control over determination clauses so the landlord can sever the tenancies with greater ease, and (iv) remove the tenants’ ability to utilise the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 so the landlord may remove the tenants’ statutory rights and refuse the renewal of the leases.
The Multicultural and Ethnically Diverse Market Businesses
Shepherd’s Bush Market is famed for its multicultural and ethnically diverse array of small businesses serving the needs of the many, including low-income families. Most of these businesses are long-standing, not for just years, but decades.
Since February 2014, it has been the developer’s ambition inter alia to gain control and manipulate the market tenants to follow their bidding, however, all parties had initially unanimously stated that the market’s character and the market businesses would be cradled and protected, and yet, the actions and proposals of the developer/landlord and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council appear to propose uncertainty, detriment, and harm to the multicultural and ethnically diverse market businesses and the market’s character.
The Section 106 Agreement dated 30th March 2012
Despite the failure of the Hammersmith & Fulham Council to implement adequate safeguards to protect the market businesses both within and outside of the Section 106 Agreement (dated 30th March 2012), the market businesses managed for a decade to fend off the developer’s attack and initial planning application. It may be argued that this was partially feasible due to the tenants’ rights, under the Transport for London leases, which include the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.
The Section 106 Agreement dated 30th March 2012 may be viewed via the DropBox Link:
What Are the Main Points of The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954?
What Are the main points of The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954? ‘The Act’ confers protection known as “Security of Tenure”.
(i) The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 provides “statutory continuation” of the tenancy,
(ii) The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 provides the right for the tenant to apply to the Courts for a new lease,
(iii) The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 provides rights for the tenant to remain in occupation at the property at the end of the contractual term of the lease on the same terms as the old lease,
The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 within the Transport for London leases has allowed the Shepherd’s Bush Market tenants to ward off many of the threats and advances of the developer, so far.
The hurdle for YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. is that the Transport for London leases with the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 restricts them from exploiting the use of the market land for their wishes.
It is evident that the developer may wish to remove the protections of the Transport for London lease terms and conditions from the market businesses and incapacitate the tenants’ use of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, although it may be viewed to be ethically wrong.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Unfavourable Heads of Terms
In 2021, YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. sought for the market tenants to sign newly proposed Heads of Terms. At the time, there were objections from the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) to the way in which YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. approached the tenants for their signatures. The lack of consultation regarding YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Heads of Terms, and the negative ramifications of these unfavourable proposed Heads of Terms raised controversy amongst the community.
Three letters from the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA) were sent to YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd., the Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and the Mayor of London in objection to the conduct of YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.
The three SBMTA letters are: -
§ 4th November 2021 - Reference IL Ref 0621 – Titled: Concerns regarding Yoo Capital seeking signatures from the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants, and may be viewed via the Dropbox Link
§ 18th November 2021 - Reference IL Ref 0631 – Titled: The Meaning and Significance of Yoo Capital’s Alleged Documents, and may be viewed via the Dropbox Link:
§ 12th December 2021 - Reference IL Ref 0641 - Titled: Meeting between Yoo Capital & the SBMTA At 9 AM on 19th November 2021 at The Yoo Capital Offices, and may be viewed via the Dropbox Link:
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Proposed Heads of Terms Document
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposed Heads of Terms document presented to some of the tenants during 2021 by YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. (but never to the SBMTA’s Chairman) may be viewed in the Dropbox Link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gjfzmbki0uqh3ai/Yoo%20Capital%20HEADS%20OF%20TERMS%20Document.pdf?dl=0
Under Point h, Clause 7, YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposed Heads of Terms seeks an alternative ‘Rent Review’ arrangement that may lead to massive increases in the rent in the latter half of the lease period.
Instead of the tenant being allowed to retain the favoured and well-established Transport for London Rent Review methodology, YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposals seek to make the tenant pay Open Market Value at the halfway period of the lease. This adverse Rent Review approach is reckoned to cause considerable rent increases and economic uncertainty, devastating the viability of the existing market businesses, especially to those who wish to remain in the market for the full duration of the next lease term.
It is considered that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. has acknowledged the potential outpricing of the existing businesses at the time of the Rent Review for they have placed within their lease amendment proposals of a “Tenant Break Clause” at the midpoint of the tenancy agreement, so the tenants may abandon their businesses and lose their livelihoods when they cannot afford YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s escalated rent demands.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Heads of Terms and their proposals to alter the Transport for London lease terms and condition is considered to be a method of ensuring that they, or other future landlords, may have the ability to remove all of the market businesses within the mid to long-term, from Shepherd’s Bush Market, if they so choose.
Recently, on 5th March 2024, YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. issued a letter to all the market tenants regarding their Heads of Terms. The letter may be viewed via the following Dropbox Link
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. claims that they will honour their proposed Heads of Terms because it is allegedly “the right thing to do”, yet this may be considered nonsense for it must be remembered that: -
(i) YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. did not consult on the Heads of Terms,
(ii) these terms were YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposal, and they took a non-negotiable stance when asked to amend the terms, including the Rent Review proposal, to that of the same methodology as the Transport for London Lease Terms & Conditions, and
(iii) YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Heads of Terms regarding the Rent Review proposal potentially delivers massive harm to the life and longevity of the existing market businesses.
Therefore, when YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. suggests that they are obliged to honour the Heads of Terms (HOTs) because it is ‘the right thing to do’, it should be understood that this is YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposal that may severely compromise the market businesses, and consequently, it is considered merely to be ‘the right thing’ for YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s profits and ambitions whilst causing significant negative repercussions to those tenants who currently hold Transport for London leases and wish to remain in Shepherd’s Bush Market for the long term.
Is YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposal lease the same as the Transport for London Leases?
The current Transport for London lease and YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposed lease are viewed to be very different.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposed lease has been carefully reviewed and is considered to be “a devil’s agreement” and very unfavourable.
Tenants are urged to seek further independent legal advice and to get their solicitor to compare their current Transport for London lease against YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposal lease.
It is essential that every market tenant completely understands what YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. is precisely wanting each tenant to sign, for once a tenant relinquishes their Transport for London lease terms and conditions, they may have lost their protection to save their business and their negotiating leverage.
The current concern is that tenants may be currently urged to sign new agreements with YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. without the tenants completely understanding what they are fully agreeing to.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s planning application is not favourable and furthermore may well be stopped.
Tenants must be given the time that they require to seek legal advice and a gain thorough understanding of the proposed tenancy agreements.
Some have already raised the concern that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s lease proposals are ambiguous and incomplete in various sections. It is viewed that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. is even seeking for the entitlement to change or add terms and conditions to the proposed lease even after it is signed by both parties.
It is truly felt that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. may have to retract this prejudicial lease proposal and reoffer that which is the same as the Shepherd’s Bush Market Transport for London leases with the inclusion of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.
Prior to that offer, YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s hasty advances to seek for tenants to sign what is considered to be a contemptuous lease may be viewed as badgering.
The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954
The Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 may be viewed on the legislation.gov.uk website via the link:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/56/contents
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s lease proposals regarding the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954
The developer (Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd./YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.) had previously made promises that those tenants entitled to the inclusion of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 would continue to benefit and have the Act in their future leases.
The following is an image of YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposal lease, whereby they appear to be suggesting that the tenants may retain the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 yet if one studies the detail you will see that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. is offering the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 with the removal of Section 24 to 28, so to neutralise the principal use of “The Act”.
One of the main points of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 is the “Security of Tenure” allowing commercial tenants, under the Act, to have the right to a lease renewal and the ability to remain in occupation at the property at the end of the contractual term of the lease, on the same terms as the old lease.
Sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 provides that a business tenancy will not automatically come to an end at the expiry of a fixed term.
You may observe that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s lease proposal under clause 9.1 reads: -
“The Landlord and the Tenant have agreed that the provisions of Sections 24to 28 (inclusive) of the Landlord & Tenant Action 1954 shall not apply to the tenant created by this [underlease/ease]”
If a lease excludes the security of tenure provisions set out in Sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 then, this will serve to extinguish a tenant’s right to automatic lease renewal.
This should alarm the market businesses for several reasons.
The developer Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd./YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. had promised that there would be no attempt to retract the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 from those who held entitlement to the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954. Yet, it appears that they are now proposing to renege on this agreement and to remove the guts of the protection that the Act offers.
The tenants should rightfully be able to retain the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 without sections being excluded.
Tenants should be allowed to keep the value of their leases and retain all of their Transport for London lease terms and conditions so these may assist the businesses to remain in the market for the long term.
A significant proportion of the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses hold Transport for London leases that include the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, whilst others hold Transport for London leases that are exempt from the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954. Yet, this latter tenancy group may have developed business rights allowing them to gain the protection of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, due to the fact that the landlord’s oversight and neglect of not renewing the leases and leaving the tenants to ‘hold over’ for several years means that these tenants whose tenancies were exempt of “the Act” may now also have eligibility to the protection of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.
This is a most important matter that both YC Shepherd’s Bush Ltd. and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council have appeared to disregard and not comment on when raised.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. has also been reluctant to admit that those tenants with Transport for London leases that include the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 may have full right to retain exactly the same terms and conditions as their current lease and may have no obligation whatsoever to accept less favourable proposals like YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s Heads of Terms.
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. appears to be taking no chances, for a tenant with a Transport for London lease, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, may choose to argue rent levels when they reach the end term of their lease, whilst negotiating the new lease.
If the tenant and the landlord cannot agree on the rent amount and terms & conditions (upon the lease renewal period), the tenant may serve the landlord a Section 26, under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, which allows the tenant to appeal to the courts and to argue the matter with the assistance and reasoning of the legal system.
The Devil May Often Be Found in the Detail
YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. appears to be proposing to eliminate the possibility for tenants to argue against the Landlord, in the future, including matters relating not only to rent levels but also to the right to renew their leases. YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposals seek to exempt Sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, and this will mean that the tenant will lose the fundamental use and protection of the Act.
The Judgements of the Experts
It cannot be forgotten nor dismissed that after a decade of the market businesses fighting to protect their rights and their livelihoods, due to the developer’s greed, there are wise and insightful judgements of both the 10th February 2014 CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI and the Court of Appeal judgement 03/03/2016 - Horada v SSCLG - Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 169 before the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Justice Longmore, and Lord Justice Lewison.
The 10th February 2014 CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI may be viewed via the Dropbox Link
The Court of Appeal judgement 03/03/2016 - Horada v SSCLG - Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 169 before The Lord Chief Justice Of England and Wales, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Lewison, may be viewed via the Dropbox Link
Additionally, further to this, the 21/06/2016 Court of Appeal - Grafton FINAL Judgement [2016] EWCA Civ 561 before Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Longmore, and Lord Justice David Richards, is shown via the Dropbox Link
Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s Limited Consultation with the Market Tenants
The Hammersmith & Fulham Council had chosen only to consult with the SBMTA committee and whilst the SBMTA committee may have made alleged claims that they held the majority of the voice of the market, the Hammersmith & Fulham Council made no due diligence investigation as to whether such facts were accurate and true.
It is considered that the SBMTA had lost the majority voice of the market tenants after my retirement as Chairman of the SBMTA (30th March 2022).
The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association’s Constitution
The SBMTA’s Constitution may be viewed via the DropBox Link:
The Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association’s Constitution is most clear and states: -
“Contribution Fees: Fees shall be £40 per member per year. Non-payment of fees shall lead to exclusion from membership”.
Upon my retirement as Chairman of the SBMTA in March 2022, it appears that numerous tenants chose not to renew their membership with the SBMTA from April 2022 and there onwards, and subsequently, they ceased their membership by non-payment.
The SBMTA committee collected no contribution fees for the year April 2022 and there onwards, and therefore, in accordance with the SBMTA’s constitution, it may be deduced the SBMTA had no members whatsoever from April 2022, as ‘Non-payment of fees shall lead to exclusion from membership’.
The SBMTA Committee
It is also important to note that upon my retirement as Chairman of the SBMTA on 30th March 2022, the SBMTA committee fell from nine representatives to only three representatives.
These remaining three individuals on the SBMTA committee are tenants and have allegedly made it public knowledge that they seek to retire in the short term, and may apparently sell their leases to YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.
If this is correct, then there may have been ‘a conflict of interest’ depending on what arrangement these SBMTA committee members have agreed upon with YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.
Usually, these matters might be considered private between Landlord and Tenant, yet these individuals have chosen to hold the responsibility of representing the SBMTA, and consequently, they may have obligations and accountabilities to others, other than themselves.
There is the concern that an individual who is planning on retiring from Shepherd’s Bush Market in the short term may have little interest or worry in how YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. is proposing to amend the leases because they are leaving. However, those tenants who wish to remain in the market for the long term would naturally be very concerned if YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s lease amendments limited the tenants’ future.
- Have these three committee members actively protected the interests of those market businesses that wish to remain in the market for the long term?
- And if not then Why not?
- And if they have, then where is the evidence?
Morals and ethics may dictate that those in a position of representation and responsibility should do their utmost to ensure that those market tenants who wish to remain for the long term in Shepherd’s Bush Market are able to do so.
There is an abundance of written evidence from the SBMTA to show that the SBMTA was strongly against YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposals, prior to March 2022. This written evidence explains in detail the detriment of YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s proposals.
However, there is now the question as to what written evidence can this new SBMTA committee provide to suggest that they have remained diligent and consistent in their efforts, from April 2022 and onwards, to protect the interests of the market businesses, including those who wish to remain in the market for the long term. Or has this new SBMTA committee allowed YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. to propose whatever they like without rebuttal or opposition?
This is considered to be a matter that should be investigated.
Shepherd’s Bush Market the Institution
Shepherd’s Bush Market may be thought of as a culture and institution. There is a social obligation to ensure that those market traders who wish to remain for the long term, have protections, safeguards, and good viable options to continue their livelihoods
§ Has the Hammersmith & Fulham Council overlooked their responsibility to the market businesses that wish to remain for the long term?
§ Has the Hammersmith & Fulham Council shown adequate due diligence in monitoring what deals YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. may have allegedly done with market tenants and with the SBMTA committee, and whether there is a conflict of interest?
§ Has the Hammersmith & Fulham Council investigated whether these alleged deals may have been on the proviso that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s planning application is carried through?
These questions must be considered, especially as it is felt by many that there has been a lack of democracy, very little transparency and still many questions to be explained.
Exemplary ethics, morals, and good values should have been the chief guide for all parties. Is it ethical for long-standing ethnically diverse businesses to be forced into accepting detrimental lease proposals that crush their future and rip away their long-term business prospects of affordability, viability, and longevity?
Residents
The planning application not only brings the demise of the character of Shepherd’s Bush Market, whilst ridding many loved market businesses from the area in the mid to long term but also threatens detriment and disruption to those residents who live in the surrounding area.
The residents have raised complaints regarding several alarming matters including, but not limited to, the vast size of the proposed towering development that will loom over and shadow the homes of many.
It seems that these legitimate concerns have fallen on deaf ears. Subsequently, many residents from several Shepherd’s Bush communities have expressed their anger and frustration relating to the inexcusable disregard shown by both the developer and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council.
Agreement of Lease
In the event of the developer gaining the agreement of the tenant to temporarily move the tenant from their leased premises to allow for works to be done to the land, the tenant should be permitted to retain the lease relating to their premises.
If the tenant agrees to operate from a temporary location on a licence whilst their premises are being bettered, then the tenant should still keep possession of their lease for their original premises despite holding a licence for another temporary premise.
The tenant must retain their lease otherwise they will lose their status and protection as a tenant.
If the tenant is asked to relinquish their lease but wishes to remain for the long term within the market then the tenant should be issued, before relinquishing their lease, an Agreement of Lease, with the same terms and conditions as their current TfL Lease so the tenant’s rights are legally retained and protected. YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. appears to have no proposal of any Agreement of Lease.
It is considered strange that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council had seen the requirement of an Agreement of Lease to be fundamentally essential whilst Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market was seeking control of the market in 2015, and yet, since the renaming of the developer, to YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd., the Hammersmith & Fulham Council has expressed little opinion on the matter despite these concerns being raised.
Condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches
It should be noted that YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s planning application offers inadequate action and funds to address the poor condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches.
The Government Inspector Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI discussed and pressed this exact concern in the 10th February 2014 CPO Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government as shown in the Dropbox Link.
As explained by Government Inspector Ava Wood Dip Arch MRTPI, if the developer inadequately addresses the poor condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Arches it may result in prejudice falling on those tenants who lease the Arches.
Condition of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Drains
Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s 2011 Planning Application proposed to address the Shepherd’s Bush Market Victorian drainage system and spend in excess of 1 million pounds to renovate and repair the market drains. However, the proposals of the renamed development company – from Orion Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. to YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. are vague in explaining how extensively it will now address the matter of the market drains and the extent of the funds that have been allocated to accomplish the task.
These queries have been raised yet neither the developer nor the Hammersmith & Fulham Council appear to have responded to these questions.
A Concerning Authoritarian Regime
If this was not bad enough, it is feared that the proposals of YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd. may place a concerning authoritarian regime on the whole of the market community. A regime whereby the landlord may excuse themselves from various liabilities, whilst gaining further control to increase rents, determine tenancies, dictate the day-to-day running of the individual market businesses, and perhaps even gag the voices of the tenants from complaining against them.
Conclusion
Sadly, the developer’s planning application is considered to be ‘rotten to the core’. The excuse of regeneration is being used to place all of the market community on a weaker footing so the developer/landlord may, in the long term, and when they are ready, remove all of the traders from Shepherd’s Bush Market.
It should be remembered that the market tenants are not seeking something that they have not already had. They merely wish to protect themselves and ensure that what they have is not taken from them.
This is what is so infuriating about YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s planning application and proposals, for it claims that it will give when in actual fact it may repeatedly take and take again.
The prejudice of the planning application that may fall on to the market businesses in the long term cannot be disregarded. The failure to provide ethical and moral assistance for this 110-year-old Market is shocking. YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s plans are considered to bring unreasonable harm to both the local residents and those market traders who wish to continue their businesses and retain their viability, affordability, and longevity in Shepherd’s Bush Market for the decades to come.
It is understood that some market tenants may wish to retire in the short term and YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s offer of buying the leases from these market leaseholders may have swayed some support. Yet what of those tenants who do not wish to retire or be removed from Shepherd’s Bush Market? Should they have to lose their livelihoods?
These tenants must be given the support and backing of the Mayor of London and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council to retain their rights and entitlements and continue their livelihoods with the same Transport for London lease terms and conditions.
Why should they be bullied or disregarded or threatened into accepting terms that they have no wish to agree to and that may lead to impairment and ruin of their livelihoods?
The Hammersmith & Fulham Council own the land known as the ‘Old Laundry Site Area’. This ‘Old Laundry Site Area’ is without doubt, pivotal to YC Shepherd’s Bush Market Ltd.’s planning application.
It is considered that The Hammersmith & Fulham Council has had a huge amount of leverage to protect the market businesses due to their ability to dictate what may happen to this land, yet it is viewed as shocking that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council has supported the developer’s proposals that seek to weaken the market businesses and remove and compromise the longevity, affordability, character, and viability of the market business within Shepherd’s Bush Market in the mid to long-term, not to mention the disregard that the Hammersmith & Fulham Council have shown to nearby residents.
Those market businesses with Transport for Leases should be permitted, without suffering or any prejudice, to renew their TfL leases with the same lease terms and conditions and retain all sections of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954.
The developer’s proposals to amend the leases, and amongst other things, exclude Sections 24 to 28 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 are viewed as devious and contrary to the spirit of helping Shepherd’s Bush Market.
Those market traders who understandably wish for a long-term future in Shepherd’s Bush Market are not being provided with fair and reasonable options. There is a moral and ethical duty to protect the future of the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses and it is viewed that both the developer and the Hammersmith & Fulham Council have blatantly failed to do this.
There is a way to invest, repair, and improve Shepherd’s Bush Market’s infrastructure. However, it should not harm nor bring detriment to the market businesses or the local residents. It should not ignore democracy, nor the need for transparency and fairness. It should not disregard the words, lessons, and judgements of the Government Inspector and the Court of Appeal judges. Nor should there be neglect to perform due diligence appraisals and investigations, especially if there may be concerns of misrepresentation, wrongdoing, or a removal of an ethnic and cultural community.
It is asked, that as Mayor of London, you please call in and stop this damaging planning application GLA 2023/01093/FUL.
Yours sincerely,
Mr James Horada
Former Chairman of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association (SBMTA)
Email: jameshorada@gmail.com
The Change.org petition - Save Shepherd’s Bush Market Businesses, raises concern and awareness and seeks for the Mayor of London to cradle and protect the Shepherd’s Bush Market businesses. This petition currently holds the support of 14,267 signatures and may be viewed via the link:
https://www.change.org/saveshepherdsbushmarket