Too Many Estate Agents - what about Betting Shops?

[Pat Trembath]

Too many estate agents – what about betting shops?

I am not going to get into any discussion about Sydenham Road, save to say that try as we may, and some of us really do try, there is little we can do to influence outcomes when we have recalcitrant landlords (often living miles away from SE26), who employ agents whose remit is to let a unit for as much as possible.

Worst of all is a recent decision by Eric Pickles, Minister for the Department for Communities and Local Government that the government is cutting red tape to make it easier to get redundant buildings in our town centres back into productive use and help increase footfall on local high streets.

For a quick bit of planning education this means that A3 premises (restaurant) can now be occupied by A2 (offices – banks, estate agents and cheque shops) as well as A1 (retail, including pound shops).

Currently there is an application from Paddy Power to licence the Wimpy Bar, currently A3 with an opportunity to retain as A3 for already known local residents who want to open a licensed restaurant to assist with our identified local need for an improvement in the evening economy.

The premises in question 89 Sydenham Road are within a group of five shops which contain two other betting shops - Ladbrokes at 85 Sydenham Road and William Hill at 93 Sydenham Road. As well as this there is a Cash & Cheque Express at 79 next to Barclays Bank at 81 with a Cheque Centre at 105 so there are already a number of A2 uses in this stretch of prime retail units in Sydenham's Core Shopping area.

So in a nutshell, there is now no reason for an application for a planning application for a change of use from A3 (restaurant) to A2 (office – ie betting shop) despite the fact there are already two such business within 5 shops. The local community’s identified needs for an evening economy are on a hiding to nothing thanks to the direction of the Department of Communities and Local Government’s direction.

There are very limited grounds on which one can object to licensing betting shops. These are:

• To prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• To ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• To protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

Strong objections are being made to Lewisham Council who are hidebound by these ridiculous regulations. If anyone else wants to voice their objections, bearing in mind the restricted grounds for objection, these should be with the council by 2 September.

[Steveofsyd]

Thanks Pat...how depressing.
I suspect we will soon be inundated with more short term loan shops.
How do other areas succeed...better landlords or is it something else? Are there more existing restrictions on use in other streets I.e Beckenham High Street?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Thanks Pat...how depressing.
I suspect we will soon be inundated with more short term loan shops.
How do other areas succeed...better landlords or is it something else? Are there more existing restrictions on use in other streets I.e Beckenham High Street?

Good questions, Steve, and I certainly don't have all the answers. On the specific question of the proliferation of betting shops, a large part of the blame, I'm told, lies with Tessa Jowell and her 2005 Gambling Act - here's just one link.

However, I have looked more into the differences between Sydenham and Forest Hill, which clearly is thriving. One thing we can say for sure is that introducing more and more restrictions on planning use classes is not the solution - certainly not on its own, since Forest Hill has had far fewer properties designated as A1 - traditional retail - than Sydenham. There's a good economic reason for this, which I explained a while back in a thread commenting on an unlikely new venture on Sydenham Road:

The consequence of insisting that we maintain a higher percentage of such uses than the market will bear is to artificially increase competition - from such hopeful new ventures as this - and undermine the profitability of the sort of existing traditional businesses such policies are meant to preserve.

Such are the economic consequences of Chris Best, and perhaps a clue to why, for local businesses, planning rules seem just a nuisance, rather than what they should be, namely part of a system to allow them to deliver collectively a better high street.

To explain the rise of Forest Hill vs. Sydenham, I think there are three candidates:

(1) The proximity of two significant attractions in Forest Hill - the Horniman and the new Pools;
(2) Spending power of residents; and
(3) The climate for investment.

Of these, I think (1) & (3) are most important, although some quantitative data for (2) could change this judgment. At a Forest Hill Assembly last year, Richard Hibbert, chair of the FH Society, made a very good presentation reviewing the progress of the SEE3 project, and mentioned a figure of £10,000 as being the difference between average income of Sydenham and Forest Hill, which struck me as being on the high side. I asked him where he had got the number, and whether it was per capita or per household. He wasn't sure, and referred me to Chris Best, Chair of SEE3 as the source. At the time, I tried to research it myself, but drew a blank, and gave up. However, it is possible to put this into perspective now by comparing it with the variation in average incomes across English regions. It does not compute.

It is hard to say why the climate for investment should differ between our two town centres, but it certainly appears so. The results, in terms of new business coming to invest, could be quantified, but it's harder to quantify the causes, although it might be possible to identify the relative frequency of complaint about greedy and recalcitrant absentee landlords, with grasping agents just out to maximise profits. It may all be true, and it's possible - though why I can't imagine - that there are worse landlords here than in Forest Hill, but it really is unhelpful to go on about it, especially if the person doing so is a respected person in the community such as Pat. (See also Pat's comments in the most recent Sydenham Society newsletter, posted here)

The fact is that Sydenham has a bad reputation for inward investment. I know this because, when I was Chair of SydSoc, a remark was passed on to me by a senior figure in the local business community that it was 'a nest of vipers'. It was to counter this that I wrote an article for the Sydenham Society newsletter of Summer 2009 called 'Investing in Sydenham', identifying the investment which has now arrived thanks to TfL, and concluding

With the investment that is coming, Sydenham Road will be a more attractive place to visit, and will give those of us who use it a stronger feeling of community. We will also still be able to pick up good value for money items at the (sometimes scorned) pound shops – let’s not forget this is how Marks and Spencers and Tescos started out!

To publicise these changes, the Sydenham Society will be inviting speakers from TfL, local businesses and Lewisham
Council to a public meeting this September, where residents will be able to learn more about these developments and ask
their own questions

It is a matter of regret to me at least that this meeting never happened, although it is something that SEE3 would now cover.

[Steveofsyd]

Thant you...very enlightening.
As I said...I lived near Lordship Lane in the 70's and 80's. I then moved to Forest Hill (my first buy) as at the time it was nicer than East Dulwich. In the Late 90's I came to Sydenham as that was nicer than Forest Hill. I still think Sydenham has the best housing Stock in this part of London with a great mix of Victorian and Edwardian houses from "cottages" to "mansions". It also has the best transport links of all...
Penge East - 18 mins to Victoria or Blackfriars
Sydenham - 15 mins to London Bridge or Canada Water (for Canary Wharf)
House prices recently (this Summer) are going through the roof - as more families move in....partly I suspect from East Dulwich, the effect of Sydenham being on a few property TV shows and the new Overground. Awareness is on the increase for our "little Gem".
In my humble opinion...the biggest blight on Sydenham is the Greyhound development (or lack of it).
I apologise that I have mentioned it here as there is an existing thread but wanted to link it to my wider thought.
Notwithstanding the issues with Purelake, planning, the preservation of the building etc...let us think of a "clean sheet" proposal.
In an ideal world what would make Sydenham enticing for businesses that we want to see? unfortunately the flats are here to stay so we would have to work with them...
A Town Square -The Sydenham Gateway
Lamps, planters with small trees, tables and chairs,
A place for the community to congregate.
No pub.... Sorry....
Lots of light as it is a great sun trap
Surrounded by things like a Cafe Rouge or Costa Coffee or independents...as long as it provides a convivial addition to the square..
Driving into Sydenham one souls see this first....
A dream of course......

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Maria]

No dream about it... you'll see! Given 2 or 3 years (I used to say 10 when I moved in 3 years ago so there's been huge progress since) and your image will most probably (and mostly) become a reality.

You just left out the discreet white LED lights illuminating the town square and maybe even all the smaller pocket ones, not to forget the "Literary Piazza" (fantastical title whose ever idea it was)

But now I will add newly received news to the partly related thread re "Christmas trees".

[Eagle]

Maria
You are risking the wrath of the good Burghers of the Sydenham Society , even daring to suggest , their precious Greyhound , which most of them never entered , must to demolished.

I am also of that view after talking to many ordinary residents of the area.

getting back to use of shops. If one thinks back to one's childhood the vast majority of shops were grocers , greengrocers , bakers , butchers , fishmongers , ironmongers etc.
Most people , unfortunately , now take their needs for these products to that large warehouse down the road.
Also had outfitters and shoe shops.

We are not going to get many of these niche shops back.

I agree what we do not want is betting shops , tattoo shops , tanning studios , money shops , nail parlours and chicken shops , also far less convenience stores and one that are left not selling alcohol all the time.

How is it we did without betting shops , tattoo parlours ( only nautical gents or criminals had in 60's ) tanning studios ( fast link to cancer ) , money shops ( a disgrace) , nail parlours ( people seemed to manage their own nails or go to a chiropodist ), chicken shops ( obesity corner ) .

We need some estate agents .

Problem is who are going to fill all the empty spaces left by the rubbish outlets leaving.



True we need nice coffee shops and restaurants , niche foodshops

[Rachael]

Out of interest, how many tattoo parlours are there on Sydenham Road? I'm only aware of one.

[Eagle]

That is one to many.

[wrightie]

Too many estate agents – what about betting shops?
Strong objections are being made to Lewisham Council who are hidebound by these ridiculous regulations. If anyone else wants to voice their objections, bearing in mind the restricted grounds for objection, these should be with the council by 2 September.

Possibly late, but can objections to submitted online via the Planning Applications portal on the Lewisham council website?

[Pat Trembath]

It's Licencing at Lewisham, not Planning.

Objections can be made on the following grounds only

• To prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• To ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• To protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

[wrightie]

It's Licencing at Lewisham, not Planning.

Objections can be made on the following grounds only

• To prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• To ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• To protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

Thanks

[biscuitman1978]

Worst of all is a recent decision by Eric Pickles, Minister for the Department for Communities and Local Government that the government is cutting red tape to make it easier to get redundant buildings in our town centres back into productive use and help increase footfall on local high streets.

For a quick bit of planning education this means that A3 premises (restaurant) can now be occupied by A2 (offices – banks, estate agents and cheque shops) as well as A1 (retail, including pound shops).

That's been the case for some time. It's not something the current Government has introduced.

You may be thinking of the recent changes which relax the requirement to seek planning permission in certain circumstances. These are summarised at http://portal.cbre.eu/uk_en/imgs_styles ... rights.pdf

This is in addition to existing permitted development rights (where, for example, you don't need permission to change from A3 to A1/A2, from A4 to A1/A2/A3 or from A5 to A1/A2/A3).

It's Licencing at Lewisham, not Planning.

Objections can be made on the following grounds only

• To prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• To ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• To protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the opening of a new betting shop (a) will result in crime or disorder/be associated with crime and disorder/be used to support crime, (b) will mean that gambling isn't conducted in a fair and open way, or (c) will result in the exploitation of children and/or other vulnerable people? If so, which of those do you fear will arise?

Out of interest, how many tattoo parlours are there on Sydenham Road? I'm only aware of one.

That is one to (sic) many.

Why?

[Eagle]

Biscuitman

Tattoo Parlours only bring misery and increased NHS bills.

Why does one disfigure ones body. Too be frank no idea. I cannot believe people who have a tattoo at say 18 still like it at 38 , let alone 78.

The NHS should NOT pay for removal.

I have no problem with hidden tattoo's , but reluctant to be served by anybody with a visible one.

[Pat Trembath]

Biscuitman, you are correct, as usual - I was thinking about the recent changes and plead guilty of trying to simplify matters.

No, I am not suggesting that (a), (b) and (c) will arise. I am pointing out that objections against issuing a licence can only be made on very limited grounds, in the same way objections to a planning application must be made on planning grounds and not "because I don't like it."

Admin - can you please change the heading to this thread - it should read Too Many Estate Agents... Thanks

[Tim Lund]

Worst of all is a recent decision by Eric Pickles, Minister for the Department for Communities and Local Government that the government is cutting red tape to make it easier to get redundant buildings in our town centres back into productive use and help increase footfall on local high streets.

For a quick bit of planning education this means that A3 premises (restaurant) can now be occupied by A2 (offices – banks, estate agents and cheque shops) as well as A1 (retail, including pound shops).

That's been the case for some time. It's not something the current Government has introduced.

You may be thinking of the recent changes which relax the requirement to seek planning permission in certain circumstances.

Biscuitman, you are correct, as usual - I was thinking about the recent changes and plead guilty of trying to simplify matters.

For connoisseurs, unreasonably blaming the Tory Eric Pickles here was a fine example of the left shimmy. A difficult manoeuvre to execute without tripping yourself up, so best left to professionals.

[Pat Trembath]

" Left shimmy"?

Thanks very much, Tim.

I've lived in Sydenham for over 40 years and this is the first time I have ever been accused of a political bias. I am not, and have never, joined a political party during this time (let alone before), as I have not wanted to have any label put around my neck.

I have been involved with planning matters for most of those 40 years, but realise that this is an anorak subject to lots of people and try, maybe incorrectly, to make planning as simple as possible so that others can understand its complexities.

Biscuitman raised a point of clarification, which I was happy to make.

Your comment was a trifle thoughtless and you might consider retracting?

[michael]

On the more substantive issue, Pat is quite right to highlight the potential damaging effect of the proposed changes (link provided by Biscuitman). The idea that any A1 retailer could become a betting shop or chicken take away without a change of use must be worrying (I would support a limited change to selected A2 and A3 only).
But these proposed changes would not apply to conservation areas with article 4 direction (such as Sydenham Road or Forest Hill town centre), so the impact would be worst in Kirkdale, Honor Oak, Lower Sydenham, and similar areas with no such protection.

[Pat Trembath]

Correction, Michael - Sydenham Road Core Shopping area (although an extension to the Thorpes Estate)is not under an Article 4 direction - the Thorpe Estate (residential) is.

Still waiting for Tim to retract

[biscuitman1978]

Biscuitman, you are correct, as usual...

You're too kind. I now fear a fall from grace can't be too far away...

Thanks for explaining your position on possible grounds for objecting to the betting shop licence. I had assumed, wrongly it appears, that you are objecting on those grounds. Apologies if I had indeed misunderstood.

On the more substantive issue, Pat is quite right to highlight the potential damaging effect of the proposed changes (link provided by Biscuitman). The idea that any A1 retailer could become a betting shop or chicken take away without a change of use must be worrying (I would support a limited change to selected A2 and A3 only).

Don't panic too much:
- Chicken take aways are A5 uses, and the new arrangements don't allow for a change from A1 to A5 uses (or from any other use to A5 uses)
- You're unlikely to see a rash of new betting shops (an A2 use) opening up in former shops (A1 use) under the new arrangements as they only allow the change to be made for two years, at which point the unit must revert to its previous use. Most betting shop operators will want a lease which lasts for more than two years, so they'll still go down the full planning application route (which is a higher hurdle to jump in terms of satisfying planning policy) if they want to convert an A1 unit.

Tattoo Parlours only bring misery and increased NHS bills.

Really? I know plenty of people with tattoos who are very cheerful. As for increased costs to the NHS, I'm not sure what evidence you have for this, but even if you are correct it isn't a sensible reason to prevent tattoo parlours opening. After all, we don't prevent shops opening which sell alcohol or cigarettes, despite the fact that alcohol and cigarettes both cost the NHS a good deal of money.

I'll leave you to start a new thread on this in the Town Pub if you want to discuss it further.

[Pat Trembath]

As Biscuitman says it is the A3/A4 retail units which, without an Article 4 direction, are threatened by change of use to Betting shops, Cheque and Pay-day Loan shops, Pound shops, etc.

As part of the objection to Paddy Power taking over the Wimpy we are asking that Lewisham Planning consider issuing an Article 4 direction on this threatened change of use of an A3 unit in order that it can be retained for future restaurant use, one of the very few available in Sydenham Road. Loss of this A3 unit will undermine a local objective, namely, improvement to Sydenham Road's night time economy.

Tim, are you still there? Retraction?