Northcross greengrocers may be closed/redeveloped

[Jenny1]

Whatever the causes of the likely closure of this shop we'll all be left the poorer if and when it happens.

I sometimes wish we had local government planning regulations that were a little more in line with what I understand the French model to be. In other words that there was a proactive policy to promote a mix of 'practical' shops within a community. This would help to protect businesses that fulfill a useful role for a broad range of the population, are long established and are part of a wider retail 'mixed ecology'. There seems to be too much of a gap between the free market imperative which drives much of what remains open/closes down on our streets and big, publicity fuelled initiatives such as that run by Mary Portas - designed to 'revive' high streets. The latter are useful I'm sure - but how can we get something more helpful injected into the DNA of local decision making that helps to maintain the diversity and usefulness of our local shopping cultures?

I'd be grateful for any ideas from people who know more about these things than I do.

[LondonMix]

They aren't changing the class of shop that can occupy the space. What you are asking for are new rules (which would have nothing to do with planning) that prevented a landlord from leasing his or her space to a new tenant under any circumstances. I can't see how that could be good for anyone.

[Penguin68]

Retail economics are based around trading profits (sales revenues less cost of goods sold) per square ft (or metre) of retail space. These have to pay for staff salaries, rental, rates, overheads and cost of capital. To cover these costs, you have to sell a lot of low ticket items (like fruit and vedge) or just some high ticket items (jewellery or houses). Where rates and rentals are high, then shops which require high volumes of sales (normally related to high volumes of foot-fall) to generate profits will be less economic than shops which have a relatively high (in real terms) sales to profit ratio. The profit from selling just one house requires a greengrocer to be selling a ton of spuds (actually rather more).

As fixed overheads (rates, rent) on ED retail space increase the pressures on ?ordinary? shops escalates.

It is no use a local authority trying to ?zone? retail space without also being able to distort market prices for retail space locally. You cannot encourage ?worthy? shops like basic greengrocers or bakers to operate in an environment where they can?t make money (high-end shops like Franklins which charge premiums for quality or rarity are a different issue).

Indeed, over time, local authorities frequently have to balance a change of use with a retail space remaining empty ? the change of use is normally better for the locality than urban decay.

[davidh]

many thanks pengy for your brief lecture on the theory and practice of retail (boys an girls book of high street economics 1953). the point here is most of think that losing chris' shop is a bad thing and we wonder why the family wishes to tear itself apart

[DaveR]

"the point here is most of think that losing chris' shop is a bad thing and we wonder why the family wishes to tear itself apart"

Many thanks davidh for your illuminating explanation of the issues.

The alternative to 'losing Chris' shop' is, potentially, to impose on the freeholder not just an uneconomic tenancy, but a specific tenant. That is what London Mix and the Penguin were pointing out. In fact what is being encouraged on this thread is for people with no interest in the planning issues to oppose a fairly innocuous application, in the hope that it will achieve the same result. IMHO that would be pointless, others may disagree.

[Sue]

davidh Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

we wonder why the family wishes to tear

> itself apart

xxxxxxx

That's nobody else's business but theirs, is it (no pun intended)

[davidh]

it is a family row. don't know about you, but most on here do not want to lose chris' very long established shop. you seem not very bothered about that.

[DaveR]

davidh, most people have kind of moved on from saying what a shame it would be for the shop to close, to consider what realistically could/should be done about it. You are welcome to contribute.

[Sue]

davidh Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> it is a family row. don't know about you, but most

> on here do not want to lose chris' very long

> established shop. you seem not very bothered about

> that.

xxxxxx

Eh?

The family row has nothing to do with anybody else, and to conclude from what I said that I "seem not very bothered about that" (ie losing the shop) is just bizarre.

I moved just round the corner from Pretty's over twenty years ago, and of course I would not like it to go.

But what that has to do with what I said about the family's differences being nobody's business but their own is beyond me.

ETA: In the very first post on this thread after the OPs, I specifically said that it would be a "sad loss " if it were to close.

Edited again to correct typo.

Edited again for clarity.

[davidh]

sue. I was responding to daver and penguin. sorry if you got inadvertantly got roped in. I merely do not want the shop to go, or any other popular shop in ed for that matter.

[Penguin68]

Just for the record, I also said it was sad when a business couldn't continue in its old location - I am, in that sense, bothered, but I also believe that there are realities, which include both economic and (in this case, apparently) inter-personal which necessarily transcend my personal preferences. I am not party-pris to this family dispute, and as I do not know the details (and don't want to) taking one side apparently against the other, whatever my own wishes for an established ED trader to continue to trade, seems otiose. My point has been, all along, that expressions of sentiment and support to the shop, whilst no doubt morally good, will have little practical application in what is a technical planning issue. Indeed planners absolutely should not be being influenced by sentiment - what if their sentiments were racist or sexist or religiously biased?

[Jenny1]

Thanks to Penguin for clearly laying out the current system as it applies in the UK. I had some knowledge of that - but it's useful to have it reiterated.

I would not - of course - suggest that it would be advisable or possible for anything to be done differently in this particular case - it's simply way too late in this instance and the shop in its current situation will close I expect. we can but hope that the business will enjoy a new incarnation elsewhere.

What I am suggesting is that we start to put our heads together about how the current system might be improved in order to promote the development of a more varied and useful shopping culture - not simply in our own community but throughout the UK.

But there may not be anyone here with adequate knowledge of alternative systems - French or otherwise - to sustain that debate. I understand that French regulations altered in 2011 - although not in such a way as to too closely resemble what we have here. People may have knowledge of other European models.

[DaveR]

"What I am suggesting is that we start to put our heads together about how the current system might be improved in order to promote the development of a more varied and useful shopping culture - not simply in our own community but throughout the UK"

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1512/lets_talk_about_your_local_high_street

Obviously this is not about changing the system, but rather how the system we currently have is implemented.

The current Southwark Plan is here:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2284/the_southwark_plan

It includes this:

"Changes of use between Class A uses should be carefully considered to ensure that proposals would not result in an over-dominance of one particular use or a deficiency in A1 use, which again might impact on the vitality and viability of the centre."

so likely to be difficult to get change of use from greengrocer to estate agency in that location.

What the plan doesn't say is "applications by relatives you've fallen out with will be refused, provided enough people like your apples and pears", and it's difficult to imagine a system that would accommodate that.

[LondonMix]

The point is that the owner is not applying for a change of use at all. This discussion is entirely missing the point. Nothing about the planning application is changing the nature of the retail provision on the street.

What some appear to be asking for is that Pretty's get some permanent right to occupy the space regardless of what the terms of their lease say. Why that should be the case isn't clear to me. It?s even more peculiar to suggest that new government regulation is needed to accomplish this.

[nxjen]

"This discussion is entirely missing the point"

EDF has form on this re planning issues - see the endless M&S v Iceland thread where many thought the planning application would be decided by showing support for their favoured store like it was some great X Factor vote.

[speedbird]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point is that the owner is not applying for a

> change of use at all. This discussion is entirely

> missing the point. Nothing about the planning

> application is changing the nature of the retail

> provision on the street.

>

>

> What some appear to be asking for is that Pretty's

> get some permanent right to occupy the space

> regardless of what the terms of their lease say.

> Why that should be the case isn't clear to me.

> It?s even more peculiar to suggest that new

> government regulation is needed to accomplish

> this.

Well said LondonMix. Very few businesses have the permanent right to occupy a space, Pretty's obviously had the opportunity to buy the business under a year ago, when it went on the market. They clearly chose not to.....

[newboots]

Can anyone say roughly what the wording on the petition is? And how could a petition to the council help in these particular circumstances?

[peckhamasbestos]

really sad to hear this, have been shopping here every weekend for the last 15 years, one of the top traders in ED. Not sure what the lease situation is, protected tenancy under '54 Act should give automatic right to review in all but a few circumstances. If the lease outside the act then probably little that can be done other than look for new premises.

will continue to support weekly.

[seh]

In answer to the question about sitting tenants - yes. Tenants who occupy their premises for the purpose of a business are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, unless the relevant provisions of that act have been excluded by agreement, which sounds unlikely in the circumstances. Having a tenancy which can attract the protection of this act doesn't depend on having anything written down. Where the Act applies a landlord cannot evict a tenant on less than 6 months notice. A 1954 Act protected tenant is entitled in any event to apply for a new tenancy and ask his landlord to prove the intention to redevelop. While this can be expensive, there are steps that need to be taken to protect a tenant's position so Chris really should seek legal advice as soon as possible.