| Author |
Message |
Yet another John
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 06:09 pm: | |
Cllr. David Whiting has suggested, in the thread about the Devonshire Road footpath/alleyway, that perhaps there are too many shops in Forest Hill and that rents are possibly too high - quote
'There is a real problem in Forest Hill of unrealistic rent expectations leading to unnecessarily empty shops. There probably are too many shop premises in Forest Hill, and a need for some reduction...'
A reduction in the amount of shop premises would, presumably, mean that many of the shopfronts get converted into residential units, which, IMHO, blights the appearance of a shopping parade. One wonders if Southwark's Councillors may have felt frustrated about the now thriving Lordship Lane and Northcross Road parts of East Dulwich a few years ago. Isn't it the case that there is great potential for business-people to offer their goods and services to the thousands of local residents who presently prefer to spend their money elsewhere? Oh, and as a local commercial landlord, I doubt if there are too many other places within inner London where there are shops near good stations at around £150-a-week; in fact my shops would become more valuable if they WERE converted into flats - but that's not what Forest Hill wants, or is it?? |
CR
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 09:58 pm: | |
Hello Yet another John, yes this comment by the councillor also jumped out at me. I can't understand the logic here. Surely the best way to regenerate an area is to attract a good range of local businesses by offering realistic and fair rents. The closure of the opticians for instance, is a real loss to a community like ours. I certainly don't think we can afford to lose many more shops. The place will just become a ghost town. |
BT
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Monday, 05 July, 2004 - 11:04 pm: | |
John, do I detect a note of indignation that commercial landlords like you are being exposed as charging too much? Well it's high time it was said, and you won't find much sympathy here. It is difficult to believe that a landlord would choose not to convert his shops to flats for greater profit simply "because that's not Forest Hill wants." Credit us with some intelligence - in reality it's a case of holding out for the richer commercial pickings. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 07:03 am: | |
I must admit to being surprised about the comment saying there were to many shops in Forest Hill.
Compared with Sydenham or Penge I would think we have far less. Food shops especially are very few.
I have no idea of the rents or what is reasnoble or not for the area but one person did mention to me it was the lengh of the leases, 15 years was mentioned. Surely most new businesses cannot commit to 15 years. |
Yet another John
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 08:30 am: | |
BT, intelligence has nothing to do with it; this is about integrity - something which you obviously find it hard to credit other people with.
Brian, I agree - I always offer prospective tenants terms from 6 months upwards as I wouldn't feel comfortable in trying to tie someone into something that they felt might be burdensome. |
Hilltop General
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Large number of derelict units = too many shops. Obvious, clear, simple, indisputable. Supply and demand anyone?
Make a list of each type of business you would consider desirable to have, and then go round and count the units.
It's not a particularly thriving commercial area for a number of reasons, and I understand that it never really has been. Hence Y-A-John's comment - perhaps people are spending their money elsewhere, but then he grabs the wrong end of the stick - they obviously prefer to. This does not alter the obvious surplus in accommodation.
We need a rethink, and credit to Cllr Whiting for recognising this. some demolition around the station and up Dartmouth Road would be a start, with a refocussing on a smaller, healthier commercial area. |
Brian
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Yes I intend to agree but first priority is to sort out the Sainsbury mess. |
Hilltop General
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 01:13 pm: | |
Definitely. Any ideas?
They are keeping very quiet and still haven't responded to any of my enquiries. |
Rob
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 01:26 pm: | |
HG - have you spoken to Sue Wright at Lewisham Planning Office? She will be able to give you an update. She's very helpful.
I spoke to one of the staff in Sainsbury's at the weekend. She just said that it was being postponed due to asbestos, structural problems and a rat infestation. However, I've learnt not to take their thoughts too seriously. I think the only person who really knows is the Store Manager but he never seems to be around. |
John2
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 01:38 pm: | |
Interesting points in all but the overwhelming difference between Lordship Lane and the potential redevelopment of Forest Hill is parking or lack of it. You can park on Lordship Lane whereas in Forest Hill there is only the back of Sainsbury's or the station and no one bothers with those because they are not well signposted and it is easier, for those of the less inclined, to park
on the double reds. I know there are those of you who will say that local people should walk there. Great, but there are those who live that bit further for whom the prospect of walking with heavy shopping doesn't appeal. So what do they do, off they go to the large Savacentre.
Sort the parking and you sort the problem, as well as congestion and other effects. |
Hilltop General
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 03:26 pm: | |
Sainsbury: as far as I know, the delay is not attributable to Lewisham so will Sue Wright be much help, assuming I can get through?
Parking: so where is all this parking going to go then? Might be some scope to the E of the railway I suppose.
PS you aren't supposed to park on Lordship Lane either! |
Cllr David Whiting
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 04:07 pm: | |
I've obviously started an interesting discussion.
There are other differences between Forest Hill and Lordship lane, namely:
1. Look at the A-Z. There are many little streets running directly into Lordship Lane, with small terraced houses, often divided into two flats. Pedestrian access to Forest Hill is restricted, and population densities much lower most houses are large and semi-detached. There are several times as many people able to walk easily to Lordship Lane as can walk into Forest Hill.
2. I suspect the population of Lordship Lane is on average younger, with a substantial proportion of young professionals.
3. Lordship Lane has more shops and therefore more commercial 'weight'.
One could go on. I think we have to think about the problems and the opportunities in Forest Hill, not spend too much time making comparisons with other areas which have different problems and opportunities. I spend some of my time looking at shopping streets around London. It is impressive that, despite the pressures from the chains, there is a very wide range of shopping mixes, activities and so on.
The feeling I get from most people I talk to is that they want Forest Hill centre to be a much nicer place than it is, but, provided there are enough shops for their daily purchases, do not particularly care if we end up with a smaller but nicer centre along the lines suggested by Hilltop General.
The new UDP provides more flexibility for change of use, and I and my colleagues will be very interested to hear what people have to say.
Parking is a problem, and it isn't obvious where you put it. Twenty years ago, people might have suggested demolishing the old buildings behind Dartmouth Road and turning them into a car park. Now they are in the process of development, and within three or four years will have become an interesting and attractive place to live and work. Would a car park be a better use of this land?
Maybe we should be designing a town centre of a scale and nature which can survive without much convenient parking. |
Rob
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 - 05:07 pm: | |
David
I wholly agree with your comments relating the number of shops. I live on the residential part of Stanstead Road. Two of the shops opposite Co-Op have recently been converted to flats. Before, the shops were neglected and tatty. Now they have people who live there and care about their community. In turn this has created a better shopping environment and less competition for the remaining shops. This, ultimately, is the key.
Residents become frustrated when retail outlets are left neglected and detract from those shops that do their best to survive. Foret des Amis on Perry Vale has done much to improve its image. However, its neighbouring shop has remained unoccupied and increasingly deteriorated, which in turn puts people off visiting the area.
I would ask the Council to think about ensuring future committment from landlords to improve the buildings that remain unoccupied. Sainsbury's is a good case in point and residents will not put up with the lack of communication from the store's development indefinitely. While you and Susan have done your bit to keep the residents up to date, I have not seen one piece of communication from Sainsbury's. This is ultimately what puts people staying in the area long-term. People's patience can only be tested for so long.
We need clearer communication channels from our local businesses. Without them, there is no sense of accountability and no measures by which they can improve. |
BT - the ORIGINAL
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Friday, 09 July, 2004 - 09:15 am: | |
Please note that the views put forward by 'BT' are not necessarily those of myself - the 'ORIGINAL' BT who posts on this site |
Henry
Joined N/A
| | Posted on Saturday, 10 July, 2004 - 08:47 am: | |
Councillor Whiting's comments get to the root of the problem of vacant shops- there is little demand. This is the only attempt I have seen of anyone trying to analyse the particular economic and retail situation of Forest Hill. The issue therefore is how to restore the integrity of the ' town centre'to avoid further dereliction and apparent abandonment which would do Toxteh and Bootle proud- in the old days , anyway. We need a carefully tailored approach to making the best of the situation. This should be the focus of the Steering Group and of the Town Centre Managers, the latter I have no idea of what they do, and clearly whatever it is, it isn't producing the goods. |
|
