SAVE OUR SHOPS! Planning Application for Change of Use

[marymck]

Thought I'd post this as a new thread, as I tacked it on to the Kirkdale Beautification thread & it might get lost there ...

Just wanted to point out that we're in danger of losing yet another shop to what (in my opinion) is sub-standard residential accommodation. Haircut 3000 has lodged a planning application to convert to a one-bedroom flat. This is their 2nd attempt to do so. Haircut 3000 is in a highly prominent position at the junction of Kirkdale and Dartmouth Road. The ground floor has always been a shop - in the past the shop keeper lived above the shop. At one time it was a pawnbroker's, at another an art gallery - presumably these changes of use reflected the economic climate of the time. If we lose this type of commercial premises we will never get it back and the old heart of Sydenham that is the Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road junction will never regenerate.

You can view the planning application here:

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=63214

[Eagle]

If you want to save it USE IT.

[Annie]

Quote---------------"Just wanted to point out that we're in danger of losing yet another shop to what (in my opinion) is sub-standard residential accommodation. Haircut 3000 has lodged a planning application to convert to a one-bedroom flat. This is their 2nd attempt to do so. Haircut 3000 is in a highly prominent position at the junction of Kirkdale and Dartmouth Road. The ground floor has always been a shop - in the past the shop keeper lived above the shop. At one time it was a pawnbroker's, at another an art gallery - presumably these changes of use reflected the economic climate of the time. If we lose this type of commercial premises we will never get it back and the old heart of Sydenham that is the Kirkdale/Dartmouth Road junction will never regenerate."



It does state this in the documents

"Reverting the property back to its original use "
If they are not being honest in their application perhaps you should point this out to Lewisham Council.

[marymck]

Hi Annie - Lewisham Council are now aware that the ground floor has never been residential. In fact, in another part of the application (the Design and Access Statement, if memory serves) it is stated that the ground floor was originally commercial premises. I think it's a hang over from an application they made last year. That application was refused, but it's now resurfaced and is likely to be approved unless there are three objections. Only one objection so far.

Hi Eagle - it's a barber's shop. I'm a laydee. Actually, Haircut 3000 is always busy, but the owner owns a second, bigger barber's shop next door, which is always empty. He wants to move the successful business into the bigger shop and close the smaller shop.

[Annie]

Hi Marymck,
I am fed up with all the "developements" going on, where I live I have found another one today,
I am at odds with this "Lawful Developement certificate" I was told it is used when like for like is going to happen,Perhaps someone would be kind enough to enlighten me as to what like for like means,because it seems to me to be a certificate to build higher and wider.

[marymck]

I do get my hair cut in Sydenham though ... the amazingly talented Scott at Master Cutters. I used to trawl all the way to Nicky Clarke's in Mount Street ... Scott is better.

[marymck]

Hi Annie

I actually queried Lawful Development Certificates with Lewisham Planning yesterday. A very pretty little cottage in Charlecote Grove is having a massive loft conversion and dormer window installed under the "Lawful Development" banner.

Planning said that because Charlecote Grove isn't a Conservation Area, the owner is allowed to extend up to 50 cubic metres.

From past experience, I know that these sort of certificates are also applied for as a sort of retrospective planning permission when illegal works have already been carried out.

Where is the development you're concerned about?

As a general point of information: Sydenham Society has a Planning and Conservation Sub-Committee and if anyone needs any help the Committee would be pleased to give it. They support appropriate development as well as helping others to object to inappropriate ones.

[biscuitman1978]

That application was refused, but it's now resurfaced and is likely to be approved unless there are three objections. Only one objection so far.

It's worth bearing in mind that whether planning permission is granted or refused doesn't depend on the number of objections.

However, the number of objections does have a bearing on who makes the decision. In Lewisham, applications for small-scale development which have received fewer than three objections will be decided by an officer, but three or more objections will mean that the application has to be decided by the planning committee (which is formed of councillors).

All that said, the same considerations will be taken into account regardless of who makes the decision. You can read more about these considerations at http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/7323/Sh ... ations.pdf

[Annie]

Thank you for the information,

[marymck]

That's a very useful leaflet you posted a link to there Biscuitman. Thank you.

With three objections people can make their case before the planning committee: both for and against. Otherwise, the planning officer will make the decision. Planning officers can make some bad calls and in my opinion these decisions should not be left to just one individual. Public representation to the planning committee managed to overturn the planning officer's recommendation that Wooster and Stock be allowed to cram in a block of flats above and behind their current offices & who knows that if public pressure had been brought to bear at the time the hideous blocks either side of Wooster & Stock were erected, maybe we'd have been saved from those monstrosities too.

On a general planning point: what's always amazed me is that devaluation of one's property is not seen as a valid reason for objection. Our properties are our main assets and will probably have to keep us in our old age. Inappropriate and ill judged developments can devastate a property's value (I'm not commenting on 190 Dartmouth Road in that respect, I hasten to add) and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

It is interesting though that, for all their talk of regenerating Kirkdale as a shopping area, not one trader seems to have written to the Council with a comment on this particular application.

[Robin Orton]

The demand for retail premises appears to be falling, whilst the demand for housing seems to be rising. Unless some retail premises can be coverted to housing, all we shall get, surely, is more and more empty shops. Why don't we accept that the character of Kirkdale and Sydenham Road is going to change and concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the change is decently managed and the overall town environment is kept (made?) nice?

[leenewham]

The problem is that changing shops to housing is something that is never reversed. Areas ebb and flow, are popular then not popular. Sometimes it takes planning, vision, ideas, patience and balls to revive a shopping district.

The shop that is being closed could be a office, a studio space, an art gallery (as it was once before) or all manor of different things

In this instance however it appears as if the owner is closing it to stop another hairdresser opening next to him and to concentrate on the premises next door which is larger.

[Robin Orton]

The shop that is being closed could be a office, a studio space, an art gallery (as it was once before) or all manner of different things

(My memory of it is as a picture framer's).

But, given its location, how much rent would people be prepared to pay for it as an office, studio space or art gallery, compared with as a flat?

[Robin Orton]

The problem is that changing shops to housing is something that is never reversed. Areas ebb and flow, are popular then not popular

.
I've been thinking about this, Lee. Obviously what you say is true, so far as it goes. But aren't there some social and economic trends underlying the decline in demand for traditional High Street retail outlets which it is difficult to see being reversed? I'm thinking of the virtual extinction of the stay-at-home housewife who nips down to the shops two or three times a week, as my mother did; the rise in car ownership which makes possible the big weekly shop, for virtually everything, at the superstore or shopping centre; and the rise in internet shopping particularly for things like clothes, books and electrical goods.

[Roukies]

I have to say that corner is grim.. the traders particularly Sparkles are questionable.. just yesterday I noticed that they had dumped cotton wool with nail varnish in the alley next to their shop! How eco is that"! Not.

[marymck]

I'm not convinced the link I posted earlier is still working. And I really think that if people view what's planned they'll agree that what's proposed is of a very low standard of accommodation/street appearance and will be a permanent loss of potential amenity to the area.

Here is the planning application reference number for those interested in seeing what's proposed:
DC/11/77291/X

You can find the plans at:

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=63214

or if that's not working then via http://www.lewisham.gov.uk;
choose "go straight to Planning";
click on "View planning applications and decisions"
click on "View the searchable online database for comprehensive detail on planning applications"
click on "Advanced search of planning data"
in the box "search planning application number" paste: DC/11/77291/X & click "search"
When the summary of the application appears click on "DC/11/77291/X" and you can see full details, view the documents, etc.

[leenewham]

The problem is that changing shops to housing is something that is never reversed. Areas ebb and flow, are popular then not popular

.
I've been thinking about this, Lee. Obviously what you say is true, so far as it goes. But aren't there some social and economic trends underlying the decline in demand for traditional High Street retail outlets which it is difficult to see being reversed? I'm thinking of the virtual extinction of the stay-at-home housewife who nips down to the shops two or three times a week, as my mother did; the rise in car ownership which makes possible the big weekly shop, for virtually everything, at the superstore or shopping centre; and the rise in internet shopping particularly for things like clothes, books and electrical goods.

Yes, agree. All challenges. On top of that you have increasing rents and rates which aren't realistic and sometimes daft. These don't take into account the points you raise above. When I lived in Ilfracombe a number of shops had to shut down or move to other areas due to their rents and rates being increased. Process rather than common sense ruled the day. Where I worked in Central London a new office opened up where they charged far more per m2. So the office where I worked had their rent almost doubled to 'keep in line with the area'. The other office is now empty and has been for some time and yet the rent for my old employers has stayed the same.

There will be a time when the internet creeps onto the high street. Shops have opened where you can take your goods for them to sell on ebay for instance, a friend of mine who had an internet only sofa company now has a showroom. Supermarkets are returning to the high street (where they started) with Sainbury's local and Tesco Metro etc. People have far more disposable income than they ever have done (if you ignore the current recession) and there are growing trends for people to buy more ethically and locally.

It's difficult, but there is a future for the high street. But it has to change to meet the changing demand. Making high streets into rows flats made from of badly converted shops is not the answer. Wherever there is change there is opportunity.

It all depends on whether it's taken advantage of. I hope the council see sense and refuse this application. I'm sure they will.