I find it outrageous (although perhaps not surprising) that the (greedy, non community spirited) agents are demanding so much rent for the units opposite Perry Vale as they are a perfect location for so many businesses as the foot fall is so high. I don't see the logic that they would prefer to have no rent than some (reasonable) rent. Perhaps they are waiting for the big boys to appear such as an M & S or Costa who perhaps could afford this astronomical rent? Whatever the case, it makes my blood boil!

Very informative and the vacancy rate stated here (12.77%) is marginally higher than the one SEE3 publishes.

Not sure I see what inaccuracies are being corrected though.

However you are right - £22k pa can not be justified. Not only in any business plan but more by the fact that potential tenants in this market are not taking up this offer at this level.

Particularly when you have to add construction completion and fit-out costs for the shell.

Further to my earlier suggextion about withholding Completion Certifcates on a block basis there is further potential actions the LA could take.

Whilst I am sure the original legislation was aimed at bringing empty housing back into beneficial use, perhaps councils could use existing legislation to take enforcement action such as compulsory purchase or enforcement of the sale of the property, where owners fail to bring their empty properties back into use

Councils could consider serving a property notice which starts enforcement action on a freeholder, leaseholder, agent or person managing a property.

That might focus the attention of those absentee landlords who hide behind laissez faire agents.

£2,000 plus is not meant to be a sledgehammer but an upper limit. The point is that it is something for which the budget could easily be found. It's something I wrote to Liz Dart about in April 2011, but got no reply. I'm sure the real challenges would be in getting the legal position right for the sharing of official information, and organising how it could be linked to 'crowd sourced' information. But it would be nice to hear back from those in a position to lead such initiative, such as Liz Dart or now the SEE3 team.

This is something that has puzzled me for some time. Below is something I wrote on the Sydeham Town Forum earlier this year, which will explain some of it in some locations, but I doubt if it is the whole story.

.[/quote]

I think I have the answer you are looking for but you asked the two questions in the wrong order.

Simply because you cant get a haircut online.
Who even bothers shopping at actual shops anymore? I think apart from food I havent made a purchase from a shop in around 2 years. I get everything from furniture, to books and computers online and delivered.

Oh I think you know what can be done. Everything comes down to money doesnt it? I'm pretty sure you know a few Landlords that could do with a nice government subsidy.

On the other hand you could get with the times and realise that, the way the retail market is going now, the shops could be useful pickup points for goods or services ordered online. That is the future of retailing. A bit like Argos but where the customer orders online instead of at the premises and the goods arrive a few hours or days later.
Afraid that the old days of going traipsing round shops are long gone

Ah, the answer indeed. That must be why so many affluent families are moving into areas such as East Dulwich. Because of the many attractive online-order pickup joints on Lordship Lane.