Completely agree re the White Wood shop staying retail. In fact if it might still be up for negotiation I would be interested in talking to someone about it - do you think Sebastian Roche would be the people to ask?

ruthb: No, I think Sebastian Roche would be very unhappy at this request. Try Cantel Investments.

I find it astonishing that the director of Sebastian Roche has submitted an official document stating that nearby businesses are due to close, without confirmation from the relevant business owners.

I know if someone was wrongly suggesting my own business was on the brink of shutting up shop, I would be absolutely furious. Poor show Mr Whimperley-Dixon. *unimpressed face*

The application reads like an extension but it seems a strong possibility this is a move by Seb Roche to allow Sainsbury's to extend into 4 adjoining units. That was the assumption of one of the shopkeepers I spoke to today.

Some interesting stuff here about the future of high streets:

http://theafterword.co.uk/content/death-...macies-etc

Assumption is the mother of all ********** (insert as desired)

I doubt after all the arguing that went on with the 3 unit Saino's that they'd now decide to go for a forth.

Not that i'm assuming anything though of course

Yes, a very poor possibility this means extending Sainsburys. Especially as it is the corner premises that is owned by the same developer, not 61 (current site of Sebastian Roche). That is my understanding anyway.

I've e-mailed the council to object and point out the supposedly closing down shops aren't

This will probably be approved. Loss of retail is normally acceptable provided there is enough convenience shopping frontage left. I think there is and it would be nice to see the corner shop occupied. I feel quite ambivalent about it so won't be writing in.

"The parade itself is a mix of units with some being empty and some converted back to residential. Currently there are 3 units available to rent which have not been taken by new occupants and there are up
to 5 units becoming available soon, 4 due to the soon to opened Sainsbury local and one due to the fact that business is so poor for him
We are asking for the change of use to make use of the potential expansion of our business, to take over
an empty unit and make it into a thriving business and also the potential for new employees."

Taking the p are they?? I've given Seb Roch business twice. I'm sure they won't be bothered too much if the next sale will then be with another agent then, they clearly don't need my few little pounds any more, now that they are apparently doing so well (despite the ongoing property doom and gloom, and increased competition from other agents) that they can confidently promise "potential for new employees". Or are they.

A 4 unit Sainsbury's will dominate the parade. HOP is not as big as Forest Hill, where a couple of smaller supermarkets can happily exist alongside the Sainsbury's there. And as for the "fresh" fruit, veg and meat" in a Sainsbury's local...oh please. Have you looked at the stuff?

What I don't understand, and this is relevant both to this thread and the one about the Forest Hill laundrette, is why estate agents want to spend money on their offices anyway. Doesn't everyone look on the internet these days? Half the time property has gone even before it makes the web, never mind an agency window.

Surely these days they can lessen their overheads by cutting back on their premises, not spend more on new, more central ones?

(It's a long long time since I sold a flat. I'll never be in a position to sell, or indeed buy, one again. Maybe these fancy offices are to appeal to potential sellers? I'd love to know, genuinely.)

You're absolutely right Mighty Mouse, it's the appeal to sellers. Sellers and landlords love to be shmoozed into believing their house or flat is with the best, most prominent, agent in their area. It's all BS though because, as you point out, most prospective buyers and renters are initially made aware of properties over the internet.

Agency fees for selling an average house (say £400k) is around £6000 and fees for an £1800 per month rental could be up to £2000. So, with this scope for generating income, the £500 or £600 per week rent they'd have to pay for the advantage they get from that prominent shopfront becomes relatively insignificant.

Small retailers, coffee shops and launderettes in SE23 just cannot get anywhere near that level of potential for turnover and profitability.

In my opinion, estate agents fees have become more like some form of tax. I mean, maybe 7 years ago they did X amount of work to sell a property for £250k to earn £3750 but now inflation has sent the property's value up to £400k they earn £6000. So their charge has increased by £2250 for doing the same work whereas the rent overhead in their old shop (let's say £300 per week), will have increased very little (maybe by £100pw).

I rented my house through a local agent 2 years ago for £2300 per month. It was on Rightmove for a day-and-a-half before it was spotted online by someone in France; and they came over and took it straight away. At the end of their 12 month tenancy I decided to try to get it onto Rightmove myself. I found a firm called VISUM.co.uk and I put it with them at a cost of £53 for getting it onto all the top property portals PLUS credit referencing prospective tenants PLUS letting agreement. Guess what - it went live on Sunday afternoon, I had a call Monday morning, viewing on Monday evening and it was occupied that Saturday - and the tenants have extended their 12 month stay!

Dear Sirs

My name is Robert Whimperley-Dixon and I am one of the Directors of Sebastian Roche Ltd.

I would like to offer an unreserved apology to all those concerned for the reference in our planning application (for change of use of number 63 Honor Oak Park) that several businesses are due to close. This is incorrect and the list of shops on the parade should never have been included in the application. Lewisham planning have been sent (uploaded) new documentation for the application. We have already asked Lewisham planning department to remove these references and to upload the new version of our application.

Our intention when submitting our application was to emphasise to Lewisham planning department how it would be in the interests of the parade for number 63 and other empty shops to be in use rather than remaining vacant. In error, we made references to existing businesses which was not our intention.

I am available to speak to anyone who so wishes. My direct number is 020 8291 9441.

Once again please accept our unreserved apologies.

Robert Whimperley-Dixon

Tinkerbell - you're right of course about the discernable quality of the produce you're gonna find in a mini Tesco or Sainsbury's but this could work in favour of someone who'd be prepared to jump in and fill the niche for satisfying the local demand for higher-end stuff. Look at Lordship Lane,(I know it's on a different scale to HOP), a few years ago there were run-of-the-mill supermarkets like Tesco and Iceland as well as a few ordinary food shops. The demographic changed (as is happening in HOP) and loads of expensive top quality shops turned up to fill in the gaps and supply the demand. For years people have been talking about what they want to see in the parade but no-one's been bold enough to really go for it. So most of HOP is still kack and it needs a kick up the bum; and I reckon the arrival of this Sainsbury's will be catalyst to get things moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, it seems like the way it works is that some business people need a kind of assurance of knowing that a big player has seen fit to invest in the area before they will. So let's hope the Sainsbury's offerings aren't top notch and, you never know, a mini-Waitrose might beat Sebastian Roche to the corner shop!

Oh, and with a letter like that, are Sebastian Roche estate agents or polititians? (or are those two groups not dissimilar! (and does this confirm my comment about tax?))

Absolutely right that you apologize. You guys are playing with the livelihoods of hard working people by speculating about their businesses closing in that way.

I feel quite sorry for them.

You are right, Pico. I don't know who has been spreading the rumours about the Honor Oak Supermarket on the North side of the Honor Oak Park shopping parade closing down, but these are false. The owners have stated, at last Wednesday's Open Meeting of the Honor Oak Park Residents Association, that they have no intention of closing their shop down. They are worried, as are other local food shops, about the potential impact of the coming Sainsbury's but they have every intention of carrying on trading, and call on locals to continue using them.

Hi lacb. I am appalled at the claimed list of closures on the parade. Frankly, I don't believe it as I know for certain that 66, the Honor Oak Supermarket, has every intention of staying and I have heard nothing about the other traders deciding to go. I feel that this list has been compiled as a sort of "wish list" rather than on the basis of any decisions taken by the traders themselves and I don't like it one bit. Naturally, the traders are worried about the potential effects of the new Sainsbury's on their businesses, but that's a far cry from stated assertions that they are to close down. We need to respond to this planning application and put the planning department straight on this.

Also, I understand how the existing small shopkeepers must feel about the new competition. It's unfortunate that such a big company has come along and threatens to trample them down but they will have to do their best to stand their ground and adapt - possibly with some tweaks to their product range or whatever. The good thing is that some of them will have the benefit of the undying support of lots of locals all the time that they appear to be making an effort.

This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:36 AM by Anotherjohn.

Well might you apologise, Mr Whimperley-Dixon. That was disgraceful. Had it not been for the vigilance of the posters on this site, your company would have got away with this self-serving mistake. I doubt that Lewisham planning department would have picked it up on their own initiative.

The information of the error was picked up on Wednesday and a new document uploaded to Lewisham at the planning portal for Lewishams Website - this can take up to 10 days to upload. The parade information was never intended to be uploaded or be any part of a planning application. I have profusely apologised and given my number for anyone to call and I will verbally apologise if required.