Back off Kente!

[Tim Lund]

Can readers of this Forum contact Cllr Chris Best - Cllr_Chris.Best@lewisham.gov.uk - to ask her to back off Kente - and ask their friends to do so as well? The problem is as explained by Kente here http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3491 - but they didn't know it was in a Conservation Area. I understand that they did check with Lewisham Council, but the officer who got back to them simply did not know this was the case.

So we now have the nonsense of officers and our local Councillor trying to make life difficult for one of the best new inward investors into Sydenham Road in recent years. From the action points of today's Sydenham Town Centre Steering Group

xxx has not received a planning application and will follow up with enforcement action following the removal of the orginal shop front without planning permission in a Conservation area. xxx is arranging a meeting with legal. Cllr Best continues to chase

And the discussion took place in the very room at Kente where the old sign, after being lovingly restored, has been replaced

[Eagle]

Lovely Coffee Shop and by far the best in SE26.
The old Chemist , which I knew well, has been closed for decades , or seems like it.

The shop was an eyesore until George moved in. He has preserved the old windows and understand they were not allowed to remain as windows of the Coffee Shop because not safety glass.

Given to understand LBC are short of money , so please do not waste money chasing George on this matter.

[leenewham]

While it's a shame the old shop front has gone, there are very legitimate reasons why. I like Kente and George. They are a great new local business. It's nice having someone who always says hello whenever they see you. I don't believe they ignored planning, I just think they got bad advice from the council.

What's done is done. Lewisham Council sometimes lacks internal communication, which will explain why a council officer didn't know Sydenham was a conservation area, why they sent letters to businesses telling them the roadworks had stopped weeks before it did and why, when I asked they didn't know that any shop front guidelines existed a year after they were published.

Why are they now chasing Kente when they haven't seemingly enforced any planning regarding shop fronts in Sydenham for years? Lewisham should publicize it's guidelines and speak to all the shop owners, something that some shop owners have told me hasn't happened.

I hope the council move on and learn from the mistakes and ensure the future Sydenham is a better planned, better designed and better managed one.

[Eagle]

Well said.

Leave George alone.

[dickp]

Here's an idea.

Seeing as this problem appears, at least in part, to have been of the council's making, perhaps Chris Best should find a way of facilitating retrospective planning consent - rather than perusing enforcement.

Kente is one of the more pleasant additions to the High Street in recent years, compared with much of the other dross that is there.

I thought that Lewisham didn't have any money. It seems it does - to spend on socially useless activities such as enforcement actions. Well done. You must be proud of what you are doing.

[Chris Best]

Yes I agree we should be considering retrospective planning permission but we have been asking for some considerable time for the planning application to be submitted. The Council has clear policies set out in the Shopfront Design Guide - http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres ... nguide.pdf - and we would prefer that shops submit their application before starting to carry out any alterations.

I reported back on the outstanding applications including Paulro's at 70 Sydenham Road where one of the few remaining original shopfronts was removed in April and replaced by a shiny new yellow shopfront, Costcutters who are on site at 38 - 40 Sydenham Road without permission and we added to the list Robinson Jackson, Estate Agents, on Kirkdale Corner who are replacing their shop front without permission to remove the original curvature.

Does this matter? Yes to those who wish to see the some local heritage. The Council responded promptly when residents wanted a Conservation Area to ensure The Greyhound was not demolished.

Also under discussion was the loss of original wooden windows and installation of satellite dishes in the Conservation Area. I also have a list of estate agent boards that have remained in the core area from Cobbs Corner to Mayow Road for over 14 days.

The Town Centre Steering Group is interested in promoting the well being of the high street and that includes protecting the local heritage and ensuring planning laws are respected. Perhaps you could help in getting Kente to submit their application?

Chris Best
Chair of the Town Centre Steering Group

[simon]

I know very little about planning regulations but I do know that Kente is one of the most community conscious businesses in Sydenham. Not in a shouty, self publicising way to appeal to Dot’s middle class latte drinkers, but more practically.
George has long been Sydenham Community Radio’s “keeper of the keys”, for example, and when a local trader was suddenly evicted George allowed him to store his stock in his basement.
Perhaps it is time for us who like George and his business so much to help him out here and sort out his retrospective planning application. There seem to be plenty of local planning experts on this forum. I’m sure he would appreciate it.
Does seem wrong that someone who makes and effort, invests and works hard on something that a lot people appreciate gets grief while others appear to do what they like with apparent impunity.

[leenewham]

I totally agree with you Cllr Best.

I think someone needs to look at how the guidelines are publicized.

Even now if you try to search for shop front, planning, guidelines or shop front guidelines on the lewisham website you can't find them! Again, from my conversations with shop owners they haven't seen these guidelines. On my what if Sydenham blog they are one of the most looked at parts of the site according to the stats. Until recently, no-one seemed to know they even existed at the council.

It appears as if Kente were misinformed by the Council about the conservation area.

It seems that planning regulations haven't been enforced in Sydenham for a very long time (please correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that way). I'd prefer original shop fronts to been restored, they always look better, but in the case of Kente, it's gone it will be impossible for the old one to be reinstated.

I hope retrospective planning is given in this case. There are other culprits who seem to flaunt the planning regulations that really do detract from the businesses that are trying and are an asset to both the high street and the community, like Kente. Kente has at least tried their best with their replacement shopfront, unlike some others.

If anyone want's to help me help George with a planning application, please PM me. I'm busy busy at the moment for a week or so but may have a bit of spare time to help out after that. After so long surely a week wont make a difference.

[dickp]

It took me more than an hour to find this, but this is the best I've come up with.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... rtisements

I'm not sure if it's applicable to conservation areas. Perhaps those of you who know more about this topic than me can advise?

So, then I thought: Wow, this is insanely complicated. I wonder if he would need a lawyer to advise him? (Well, I would do - it's what I know about).

So I hunted around quite a few firms in the area. That was blinking hard too, because so many so-called Law Society approved firms didn't mention planning expertise on their websites (if they even had a website). The only firms I found on my first sweep were insanely expensive City firm.

This is the best I came up with: unfortunately, they are not local, but they do seem to cover this area (and offer a free initial consultation).

http://www.kslaw.co.uk/site/about/nks/

All of this goes to my point on the other thread about planning law. It's bluddy difficult to find information about it, and the rules are insanely complex for "jo public" to understand.

[michael]

I retrospective planning application is relatively straightforward - take a photo of the current frontage, include a photo of the frontage before the changes, explain why it is in keeping with the conservation area.

Planning officers are willing to help out businesses and developers by explaining what forms they will need to fill in. This pre-application advice is free of charge (the application costs money but not a huge amount).

It is important that the better businesses do not feel that they can bypass planning regulations and nobody should be putting pressure on council officers or councillors to turn a blind eye to their favourite cafe. Instead let Kente submit the planning application and then members of the local community can write in to say (if they believe it) that they feel the frontage makes a positive contribution to the high street and is in keeping with the conservation area.

[Tim Lund]

Chris:

Let's think about what the best way to sort this out might be. In principle the businesses concerned should submit retrospective planning permission which can then be considered. So if the system works as it should, planning officers will at some point be considering a whole list of businesses whose actions have put them on the Sydenham Town centre management radar.

This begs two questions:

• for the Council, why wait until the retrospective permission application? Surely it would be sensible to review the cases already known about, and presumably focus resources on dealing with the worst.

• for the individual business, why offer to put your case at the head of the list for processing by going to whatever trouble and expense is involved - it may not be that great - by submitting?

I think these questions take us out of the blind alley of what should in principle happen, and allow us to think about what would be the most effective use of Council resources in improving Sydenham Road vitality, and also its appearance.

Prior to any well meaning citizens helping Kente or any other business get their retrospective planning applications in, is it possible to give any indications as to whether they would be granted, and what the penalties will be if they are not? What is the form on this?

[Tim Lund]

Michael:

Thank you for your advice - and I really don't like being in the position of asking officers to turn a blind eye to rule breaking. Maybe you could help out with some information on what will happen if retrospective planning permission is refused, and what sort of difference members of the local community writing in to say that what has been done makes a positive contribution will actually make?

[dickp]

Right, we seem to be getting somewhere here.

But: Is this all part of the unintended consequences of “saving” the Greyhound, I wonder?

Hurrah, we have a conservation area.

Oh heck, some of our favourite businesses don’t comply with conservation area rules, and now they’re in trouble.

Be careful what you wish for, chaps…

[michael]

if retrospective planning permission is refused: After a period of grace for the frontage to be returned to the original version, a new application or appeal to be submitted by the applicant, the council should take enforcement action as they are/should be doing today.

what sort of difference members of the local community writing in to say that what has been done makes a positive contribution will actually make?
No point writing until a planning application is submitted but once it has the officers and planning committee will take account of local views. That is not to say that they can ignore the guidelines that Councillor Best has provided a link to, but if the new frontage provides improved access (STC4c) and improved the window display (STC4b), then these may take priority over URB8g 'encourage the retention of shopfronts...' (note 'encourage' is not the same as 'force').

If the new shop provides a positive contribution to the conservation area (however that is defined) then it can be granted permission. For example the new Sainsburys store in Forest Hill Conservation Area was approved despite the loss of a number of older shopfronts.

[Tim Lund]

Thanks again Michael. Have you any idea how Lewisham prioritises enforcement?

[Billie]

I think George might want to give me a slice of cake and a coffee when he reads this...

But before I reveal why, I want to express my view.

I personally think that Kente could have done more to re-create the original window, but I suspect that the barrier was cost. I expressed my disappointment on this site in May 2009 and I wrote to Lewisham Council to see if the premises are in the conservation area. They wrote back and said it was not. Based on this response, I believe they have no ability to bring an action against Kente. I actually support not taking any legal action in this case. I see little point in making an issue of it now. Lewisham Council knew for months that the window was being changed and did nothing to prevent it. They sat back and let it happen. Even when I complained they said they had no issue with what had been done. The failure to re-create the window was wrong. However, the fault lies with Lewisham Council who should have decreed that this should be done when building work started. The blame should not rest with George at Kente.

I posted this on this forum on 20 May 2009, regarding 'The old Chemist next to HSBC':

My letter stated:

Complaint Re: 16 Sydenham High Street (formally Machray Chemists now Kente)

I am writing to complain about the removal of the shop frontage at the above address. A beautiful and intact 1930s shop window that was an asset to our highstreet has been removed and replaced with a characterless modern frontage. This is dismaying considering the fact that there are many empty shops on the high street with modern frontage that could have served the requirements of this business.

This is a link to some photographs of the original shop: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevegrind ... 025965041/


I have a number of questions I would like you to answer please:

1. Is this building/shop part of the Sydenham conservation area?
2. Was this glass/frontage protected i.e. listed?

If the glass/frontage was listed/protected/part of a conservation area:

1. Who was responsible for ensuring that a protected frontage/glass was not removed?
2. What action is Lewisham council/the conservation department taking against the person responsible for removing the glass/shop frontage?

On 21 May I made this post, detailing a response I got from the planning dept:

The message:

I am writing this email in response to your complaint about the removal of the shopfront at the above-mentioned site, I have been down to see the replacement shopfront and can confirm that what they have down (typo - done) is similar to what was previously there. As such we the Council consider these changes to be acceptable and will not be enforcing against it.
Furthermore the property is not Listed and does not fall within a Conservation Area as per the questions in your email.
I hope that this clarifies the situation with regards to the above-mentioned property and should you any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Regards
Jody Solomons
Planning Enforcement

[michael]

I can't understand how the council can reasonably take enforcement action having made such a statement.
'...can confirm that what they have done is similar to what was previously there..'. Assuming that the frontage did not substantially change after the officer's visit, can they suddenly move the goal posts and say that it is not in keeping?

In this case officers seem to be wrong on a number of counts, the question I have is who should 'suffer'; the owner - who may have reasonably assumed that he was doing everything expected of him, or the wider public - who now have to live with this monstrosity in the middle of a conservation area?

[leenewham]

Great post Billie. I admit that I wrote to the Council also with a similar email to yours. Unlike you I didn't get a reply (which is the case about 50% of the time).

Clearly the Council didn't think it important. Until now it seems. Over a year later.

I think the council need to have a bit of a word with themselves. Not only so they seem to have a 'few' communication problems, they have made guidelines on their own website almost impossible to find and have broken their own conservation guidelines on their own buildings in the Thorpes. It's not, frankly, good enough.

[biscuitman1978]

All of this goes to my point on the other thread about planning law. It's bluddy difficult to find information about it, and the rules are insanely complex for "jo public" to understand.

Indeed! As others have suggested, your first port of call should be the duty planning offer at the local authority.

If further advice is required you can turn to:
- a professional planning consultant - see http://www.rtpiconsultants.co.uk
- Planning Aid for London if you are unable to afford the fees of a professional consultant - see http://www.planningaidforlondon.org.uk and click on 'Get Advice'

[se26]

Why is it that NOT ALL SHOPS are having the problems when making changes???
I am aware of several shops that have changed their shops front WITHOUT permission and are NOT being hasseled. The food/drink open all night shops are removing glass adding what looks like a 'tacky market' wanna be type of shop. ARE they being hasseled???