63 Honor Oak Park (ex White Wood Shop)
|
Author |
Message |
hopper
Posts: 65
Joined: Jan 2008
|
04-12-2012 12:24 PM
Glad to hear it - important that the parade is in good state of repair to attract new landlords for shops.
|
|
|
|
|
Codrington Brill
Posts: 67
Joined: Mar 2012
|
07-12-2012 02:12 PM
I see that the church has also been "unsheathed". Adds to setting I find.
|
|
|
|
|
hopper
Posts: 65
Joined: Jan 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Tinkerbell
Posts: 361
Joined: Dec 2007
|
19-12-2012 01:37 PM
That is a nice idea, at least it's being used for something worthwhile for the moment!
|
|
|
|
|
HOPcat
Posts: 40
Joined: Feb 2008
|
19-12-2012 07:46 PM
More good news - the parade will keep the Whitewood Shop as a retail unit. The council has refused planning permission for Sebastian Roche to take it over and turn it into an estate agency. This will keep more variety on the parade and keep the new Sainsbury's within the agreed limits.
|
|
|
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,261
Joined: Mar 2005
|
01-02-2013 10:59 PM
There has been an appeal against the council decision has been lodged against this decision with the planning inspector.
|
|
|
|
|
lacb
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
|
02-02-2013 10:07 AM
To be expected I suppose.
So positive noises to the contrary, this would imply that Sebastian Roche have had no intention of letting this site to a shop.
|
|
|
|
|
michael
Posts: 3,261
Joined: Mar 2005
|
13-06-2013 02:44 PM
The inspector's decision has been made and is allowing the conversion of this shop to an estate agency.
|
|
|
|
|
lacb
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
|
13-06-2013 03:16 PM
Dire news. Decision is here:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs...id=2122368
I find clause 12 of the decision notice quite stunning:
Little evidence was put to me
to show that it has been actively marketed since then, but it is not a
requirement of UDP Policy STC 8 or its supporting text. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, it would seem unlikely that the shop would have
remained unoccupied for what is now over a year in the face of significant
demand.
Quite contradictory in fact - surely, it would have to be marketed in order to satisfy any demand.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheeky
Posts: 215
Joined: May 2009
|
13-06-2013 03:36 PM
Rather this than a dirty chicken shop
|
|
|
|
|
Ruddiger
Posts: 20
Joined: Nov 2010
|
13-06-2013 05:17 PM
I agree. I'm sure we could all think of uses we'd prefer in that location but a nice smart estate agency is a lot better for the appearance of the parade than many other businesses that could have ended up there. I just hope Seb Roche get on with it now, the sight of the empty shop every time you leave the station is dispiriting.
|
|
|
|
|
Tersie
Posts: 272
Joined: Feb 2007
|
13-06-2013 05:18 PM
[Post temporarily on hold at request of Robert Whimperley-Dixon, Director of Sebastian Roche Estate Agents, alleging potential libel.]
|
|
|
|
|
edpaff
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 2012
|
13-06-2013 05:56 PM
[Post temporarily on hold at request of Robert Whimperley-Dixon, Director of Sebastian Roche Estate Agents, alleging potential libel.]
|
|
|
|
|
daveherne
Posts: 212
Joined: Jul 2012
|
13-06-2013 09:19 PM
well, i am not so down on this, as I think it is good to see a local business investing in HOP.
although I do have high hopes for the old bank - a foxtons or peddar would be too much. i, like most people, want a pub or restaurant.
|
|
|
|
|
redrobert
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct 2012
|
14-06-2013 11:30 AM
It seems that, once again, a number of people are labouring under certain misapprehensions relating to 63 HOP. If anyone wants to contact me directly, I am (and have always been) more than happy to explain things. My direct number is 020 8291 9441 and my email address is robert@sebastianroche.com.
In the event that you choose not to contact me directly, let me clarify certain facts:
1. We acquired only the lease ground floor shop unit (front part only as the rear was taken away by the freeholder to create a separate flat to the rear - thus reducing greatly the square footage in the business unit to the front to what was originally there when the white wood shop occupied the premises) 63 HOP in order to expand into these premises. As such, we have never sought to advertise it for rent.
2. Anyone who has made enquiries about 63 HOP has been advised that we have acquired the lease and are waiting to hear about our appeal for planning permission (there is nothing ‘underhand’ about this, merely a statement of fact).
3. It was clear from the initial rejection for planning permission - which is in the public domain - that the shop at 63 HOP is/was for retail or A1 use only. As no application had been granted for a change . Anyone making an enquiry through Sebastian Roche was told that the unit could only be used for A1 use at that time based upon the fact that the initial decision for change of use was turned down.
As it stands the unit it does not have an A3 A4 or A5 lease.
If any of the above is not clear, please feel free to call or email me directly and I will be more than happy to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
lacb
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
|
14-06-2013 01:50 PM
redrobert,
I appreciate your community spirit in replying on the forum so, though it is good to know that you are happy to explain directly, I think for the sake of clarity a forum response would be more appropriate.
Sorry if I have misapprehended but am finding it hard to square your statement in point 1:
As such, we have never sought to advertise it for rent.
with your previous communication:
the unit is too small for a retail unit according to some ventures that were interested in it - we have had enquiries but come to nought - we welcome any interest?
found in message 71 on this thread. What was the non-rental interest you were welcoming?
As the decision has been granted, at least in part, because the shop has been vacant for at least a year, I think that locals will be very interested to know why this is.
This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 01:51 PM by lacb.
|
|
|
|
|
redrobert
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct 2012
|
14-06-2013 02:04 PM
Hopefully to answer your query:
We did have people calling into the office who expressed interest in the unit - or similar locally. (we did not advertise in any media for an occupant)
They were updated as to the unit being owned by us and the process that we were pursing in gaining a change of use.
We were more than happy to have a 'pop up unit' as long as it satistfied the current usage set out by Lewisham Planning Authorities. None of the people who came into our office had ventures of that type.
We therefore allowed a local foodbank to use it as a food delivery location to help them increase the amount of charitable donations that they receive for what is an increased number of applications for food parcels
Please e-mail me on my normal account at Sebastian Roche if you want further information
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
danieljon
Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2008
|
14-06-2013 02:52 PM
SR set their sights on that plot and were going to secure it no matter what - we want - we will get - we will put of anyone else with a vested interest.
Seems fair.
Sadly, that's the power of these agents over the High Street - Bushells did a similar thing when they moved in all those years back and had the monopoly of the entire parade - around the time of the demise of Visualise, Bar Equal, Red Room etc.
It's a brutal business when it comes to bricks and mortar - it's a shame we won't see anything new to the high street on such a prime position; mind you thankfully Bushells didn't last long either.
|
|
|
|
|
redrobert
Posts: 9
Joined: Oct 2012
|
14-06-2013 03:42 PM
For all concerned it would be advisable that the facts within your postings are correct. Please also review your comments on Bushells - whoever gave you this information is incorrect
In regards to the Old Wood Shop, The lease was available for sale on the open market and we aquired it.
I again can be reached as previously mentioned
|
|
|
|
|
lacb
Posts: 627
Joined: Mar 2005
|
14-06-2013 03:49 PM
redrobert,
For all concerned it would be advisable that the facts within your postings are correct.
Do you mean incorrect? Most people would be rather pleased if everything they posted was factual.
Actually, either way, whose postings and which "facts" do you refer to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|