I have just re-read that post and apologise for the appaling spelling, typos and punctuation; but you get the idea!

That is a fair summary Calm1, thanks for taking the time to post that.

It was good actually to hear such a wide range of views expressed. I was left with a couple of impressions:

1. Most of the objections related to Sainsbury's (or large supermarkets) in principle. Much could and has been debated on that subject but the council are not empowered to block specific businesses.
2. The issue of the reference to 57-59 referred to in the letters, is also present on the title of the application (I checked this while in the meeting, but we had run out of time before I could point this out). Though it is evident that 3 premises are involved if you study the plans, this will probably have the least favourable result of all - more time spent consulting. This is a bit of a cockup by the Developer and the Council.

Thanks for the update.
I'm confused, though. Does that mean the White Wood Shop will also be part of Sainsbury's?

No Hoona. The little shop the other side of the old restaurant which currently houses some nice decorative furniture and is only half the depth of the building. It will form back office space for the new unit.

Hi hoona,

No. I believe that number 55 is the one that used to be Constable & Toop before they moved next door. (If you look at Google - it is the view from a couple of years ago).

The White Wood shop is not part of the Sainsbury's application, though is owned by the same landlord - so the landlord owns the 3 in a row, and the one on the corner, with someone else owning the unit in-between.

(There are a number of conspiracy theorists who suggest evil landlord etc etc)

Excellent notes calm1.

The only addition I remember is that the landlady whose tenant is the new/moved funeral parlour wanted some assurance re the vehicle access during the works. Her tenants are the only people with access to the back of the buildings as part of their business, ambulances arrive at the back and hearses leave from the front. Their access has been reduced due to the new housing development, so they can only access the back via Ballina St and obviously need to keep this clear.

The agent for the developer gave assurance that there was access from the front and that works that had been done on nearby properties in recent years had been on good terms with the parlour, recognising this issue.

Common sense and good communications are needed to ensure this does not become an issue during the development.

Thanks for the report Calm1.

I agree with your comment that the Council wouldn't usually hold a public meeting unless they had already decided to approve the application.

It is the kind of token consultation exercise that Lewisham excels at.

Even so, in this case I am in favour of the proposals and am looking forward to our choice of local retail options being improved.

I attended the meeting. Calm1's notes are spot on, I don't think anything relevant is missing. All in all the meeting served as a forum for people to raise heartfelt objections and support, but little in the way of planning policy was discussed. As this is - rightly or wrongly - the only thing that will have an impact on the approval of the decision, I personally think it is an inevitability that the application will go through after the re-consultation period has been completed.

Thanks for your report Calm1.
I personally am strongly in favour of a sainsburys Local and can't understand how three empty units on a small parade is good for anyone. Unlike Dominos ( which I opposed ) I think it will bring more footfall to the parade and could encourage other businesses to venture into the parade too. The only people I can understand being strongly opposed are the owners of the small convenience stores. But small newsagents and off licences often still thrive near local supermarkets, although I think there are too many on this parade already. I think the stronger of the convenience stores that adapt could survive and I am quite frankly surprised the weaker, shabbier looking units that appear to make little effort are still in business anyway.
A Sainburys local could be the business that ignites further interest in the area / parade from smarter more useful local shops that local people actually want which would bring the parade and local area up in general. This is all just in my opinion and unfortunately I could not make the meeting last Thursday but thanks to the people who did go and support this venture.
I remember people and certain local society's being rather negative and shortsighted about the arrival of the new Overground link which is now a huge success. I know this is not really related but am just puzzled by some peoples negativity.

I think it is worth pointing out a couple of things regarding the history of the shop premises in question. I understand that whist operating as a restaurant the front of 57 always gave the impression that it was closed.Most of the local traders were appalled and requested on numerous occasions that the landlord's agents intervene to force them to make it open. In any event the maximum number of employees were four ( against a potential 25 for Sainsbury ) and the maximum covers were thirty. This suggests at least four or five cars needing parking for most of the evening on a busy night v. the fifteen minute stop and shop that might result from the few that are not actually on foot. Arguments that most of the customers at the restaurant would have been on foot will not be accepted. You can't have it both ways !
It would also appear that the previous landlords had tried everything to resolve the rent issue because at the point at which the property changed hands the arrears were in excess of one year's annual rent.

To be honest Calm1, I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference whatever you say to those against Sainsbury's coming to HOP, even if it was to say that it would create 100 jobs and bring a thousand more people to the highstreet by foot a day they would still be against it. I went to the meeting and those against were very set in their ways, even when facts from surrounding areas were read out by Sainsbury's reps about it being a positive thing for neighbouring shops and the facts staring them in the face like having 8 empty units on the street already and having no where to buy fresh fruit veg and meat in close proximity are laid down in front of them. The amount of tuts and tsks that could be heard when Sainsbury's were talking or when something pro Sainsbury's was being said was deafening.

I must say it was a shame there was not more people in support of Sainsbury's coming who could have attended the meeting, bit of a poor show to be honest (especially after all the positive response it has received on this website), well done to those who did attend.

Fair enough the newsagent style shopkeepers (especially the honor oak supermarket people) being worried as no doubt Sainsbury's will be direct competition to them but I for one am not living my life making sure their shop survives, that's up to them. It's dog eat dog and if you're strong enough and supply things the public want they WILL survive. All this can only benefit the consumer.

I must say it did make me laugh a little when the biggest furore of the evening was around them not putting the building number 55 on the letter even though in the plans and all other documents it is clearly shown. Blimey it was like someone had commited the most heinous crime known to man the way they were all reacting over this oversight. I wonder who's fault that was, was it a council error I wonder?

Watch this space I guess, but I really do hope these plans are approved as our highstreet desperately needs something like this so we can all stop living in the dark ages

...and we can all buy a bit of fresh fruit veg and meat on our way home from the train station of an evening

This post was last modified: 23-04-2012 02:30 PM by Cheeky.

Thank you to all of you that provided feedback on last week's meeting.

I was unable to attend, but contacted both the planning office and Councillor Morrisson directly stating my support for the proposal (and reasons), apologising for my inability to attend.

A formal meeeting would usually note of the attendees and formal apologies, not sure that happened in this case but felt it a worth while exercise just in case.

The planning website has been modified to reflect the correct address (55-59):

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSL...mkey=65150

Getting closer to a decision...

Two new documents added to the planning application last week. Still no decision.

They've now added a Delivery and Service Plan to the proposal.

Just a short note to say I'm in favour of the proposed Sainsbury's in Honour Oak, provided the consultation process irons out any sensible concerns that people have. However, I think those concerns will not prevent this from ultimately going ahead.

Got back to hop at 8.30pm after working late in the office and nothing was open apart from off-licenses and the fish & chip shop

Rubbish what if I wanted to buy milk or something useful

If you keep walking and turn right onto Brockley Rise, there is a store near Babur on Brockley Rise (about a 1 minute walk once you turn right) - always open until around 11pm (it has a few bits of veg as well - not a lot though). and if for any reason that is closed, keep walking another 3 minutes and there is a Costcutter just past the Kebab Shop.

Or go straight on towards La Querce and their are two stores there open I think til at least 10pm prob 11pm.

If you can walk 3-4 minutes past where the Sainsbury's may be, you can always get milk until around 11.

i went to the saino local at the top of east dulwich just now, so useful if you are in the area

why would anyone veto this plan, shame of you if you did and are reading this. Busy bodies.

Only the council, and ultimately the planning inspectorate, has power to "veto" this or any other plan. However, some residents are concerned about the effects that a fair-sized Local and a big flats development to the back of it will have on residents who live over the shops or who will be coming in to the new housing development we have just behind the shopping parade. So, some of us have objected to the present proposals as is our democratic right to do so.
A Local will need around five deliveries a day, at least two of which will involve great big lorries. It will need daily waste collection as well. The potential for noise and disruption to traffic is considerable and there will be further pressure on parking on an adjacent road which is already very congested. Only a few years ago, the council and TfL put in a considerable amount of traffic calming on the shopping parade, which may well be rendered useless by these potential deliveries.
Yes, it would be very convenient to have somewhere where people can pick up the ingredients for their evening meal on the way home from work, but we need to look at the bigger picture for the whole neighbourhood here.

On the Overground issue, it looked at first as if they were going to give a much reduced London Bridge service, a service that many residents used to get to work and which was already overcrowded. Had local associations and others not protested, how likely is it that we would have gained the vital platform extensions that now allow for longer trains? OK, we are down to 4 trains an hour instead of the former 6, but with extra carriages, the London Bridge service seems to be coping and yes - the Overground's great. Only downside is a surge in planning applications to build houses and flats or offices just about everywhere. Organic development in line with the character and needs of the area is fine but I am not too happy when developers simply see our neigbourhood simply as an opportunity to make a pile.