I really do hope that the dry cleaner does not close. I have used him since I moved here over 15 years ago and have always found him friendly and efficient. I will always remember his kindness when our mother died - he refused to take payment for the clothes we were dress her in for the funeral - this meant a great deal to me and acts of compassion are rare from businesses. Some people are being somewhat harsh in their comments about the smaller businesses yet seen starry- eyed about Sainsbury's. Given the frequent complaints on this forum about the Forest Hill branch, perhaps these hopes might be misplaced.

It's also quite noticeable that some of those smaller businesses have taken on board the feedback on here - Honor Oak Supermarket has started to stock quite a few fresh products it seems, and the Premier/Concard Express has started to look more tidy and also stocks some new products. It's not much in terms of change yet, and has a long way to go, but it's a start. Doubt that many of the SB fans want to notice though.

hear hear - I use Honor Oak Supermarket to get milk on the way to work and they have a good selection of vegetables. I would like to know exactly where the information came from that these shops are closing down - there must be some reason Sebastian Roche drew up this list. Robert says "The parade information was never intended to be uploaded or be any part of a planning application" but they must have drawn up this list for a reason and if not them then who?

Sebastian Roche should be ashamed of themselves. Robert Whimperley - Dixon...I can understand you want to dominate the corner position of the parade so to increase visibility and further ramp up profits for your sales / rental business, but to try and achieve change of use through stating untrue information on other businesses...very bad form indeed, gladly this has not gone unnoticed. The end unit would have been much better placed for a small business to set the scene for what we all hope will become a greatly improved parade. However as you have now taken ownership of the unit (which I believe is the case?) I am sure everyone would agree that you should be sympathetic in your refurbishment / signage of that corner unit so it is in keeping with its victorian features. It looks a complete eyesore at the moment so improvement is needed.

I dont want to hijack this thread but would it be possible to get an update on the sainsburys, are we still looking at June next year?

I am in the process of moving to Honor Oak Park from somewhere not dissimilar in South West London. When a Sainsburys Local opened here there was the same scare mongering that all the other shops would close down. Years later all the convenience stores, newsagents, off licences etc are still open. The prices of some items in a Sainsburys Local (ie veg) are a lot higher than other shops so if the existing shops could offer products at a lower price I am sure they will continue to do business. Also some people like a more personal shop. I personally like the little sainsburys because it's easy to find stuff and they sell scotch eggs.

Indeed. While I think that there is a place for estate agents on the parade and have no problem with Sebastian Roche, their frankly rather clumsy Design & Access statement beside, I still feel that the viability of the parade is adversely affected by having a non-retail business in such a prominent position.

If the new Sainsburys is to have the impetus many hope for, the remaining retail space is precious IMO. This application is only of benefit to the applicant and does nothing to further the commercial interests of the parade. I will be writing to object on this basis and urge any others of like mind to do likewise.

talking about ugly, the old bank is a disgrace. the facade is getting really dirty and rubbish is piling up. those gingerline people that are running private events in it could at least make it look presentable for the neighbourhood. seems very selfish to me.

I won't be writing to the council to object to Sebastian Roche taking over the corner unit. It will be better than seeing the current boarded up facade that is currently there. I don't want Honor Oak to be known as a place of empty shops and moaning residents.

Despite their hugely embarrassing 'error' which didn't exactly endear themselves to the local community, I hope they have the foresight and sense (on this occassion) to be sympathetic to the building and understand the impact the first unit has on the image of the parade as a whole.

I'm pleased that Robert Whimperley-Dixon has also asked the council to remove this inaccurate list of 'due to close' shops from the planning portal. I'm even more pleased that there is no truth behind the list.

One question I have on the planning application is that it states that there are currently 7 full-time employees on this site and there will be 9 employees after the application is granted. 7-9 full time employees in a shop of this size seems quite surprising, especially since it appears to be empty at present. I could understand this if the two shops are to be combined into a single unit and the employment numbers includes existing staff in the neighbouring unit, but the application makes no mention of any plans to combine the units. Would permission not be required to combine these units?

Either the floor plans are incomplete or the employment numbers are likely to be wrong. Perhaps this could be clarified on this forum and/or in the design and access statement.

I'm not trying to be obstructive, but I do believe that all planning decisions (and comments on the application) should be based on accurate information and diagrams.

It seems that SR are asking for an extension rather than moving to the former Whitewood shop.

Robert Whimperley Dixon says in his application: "We are looking to extend our current operation to include the office next door."

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/ACOLLATEDOCS/94927_1.pdf

It would be lovely to have a new shop on the corner (my vote would be for clothes or fresh food).

However, I think a smart estate agents complete with a new overhaul making that corner plot look nice will also be a good thing. You never know, the more shop fronts looking nice and units being used, we might have a full parade one day.....

Wouldn't dispute that but the application is to do with change of use. The test, as I understand it and paraphrasing a little, the council will apply is whether this change of use has a benefit for the parade of shops. If you think that an extended estate agent is more beneficial than a shop then fair enough.

As michael has already pointed out, the occupancy rate is not bad at the moment. Only 2 empty units once you take into account the pending Sainsburys development.

I agree that it looks bad at the moment and this is only exacerbated by both the prominent corner premises appearing to be emtpy. Am not suggesting it will but would we want the Old Bank to be A2 too?

michael, am also interested to know the answer to this:

As an aside, have noticed another error in the SR unit list - 58 is listed as a Picture Framers but is Barbaros Hair.

I agree we need clarity on this application. As I understand it Sebastian Roche is applying to extend into the former White Wood Shop so it would have a double shop front.

If the intention is to move out of its previous premises and into the White Wood Shop then it would be helpful to know. In that case there would still be the same number of retail premises empty - including a unit convenient to the new Sainsburys that they could theoretically apply to move into.

The planning application design and access statement talks about extension but the drawings suggest that they would not knock through the wall and would only add two employees in the expanded space. It seems odd to run an estate agent in two disconnected properties with two front doors (and the final employee density would seem luxurious by many standards).

This still looks like a move to me, not an extension. They would be under no obligation to retain their current property (nor should they be).

I don't object to either a move or an extension in principle but hope that SR will do the right thing and be completely transparent about their intentions and clarify their application & drawings.

Or perhaps it's Cantel who need to do the clarification. The root cause of the problem on the parade in recent history has been mostly about landlords, not tenants.

Totally agree that clarity is what's needed.

Their plan is to knock it through and have both units - spoke to one of the guys there and they have actually bought the unit from Cantel Investments. They will (subject to planning) be renovating the unit and I have been told the facade will be in keeping with the rest of the parade.

This application has been rejected by council officers:

Very interesting! Well hopefully they will rent it out at a fair rate to someone as it is in Sebastian Roache's interest to have a vibrant parade too.

Yes indeed! That is reassuring that the council see the value in its retail zoning.

This post was last modified: 22-11-2012 12:33 AM by lacb.