New coffee Shop

[tfwsoll]

It looks like there is a new coffee shop/patisserie opening where Haus of Wood was located. Couldn't see this mentioned anywhere else on the EDF....does anyone know any details?

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[James Barber]

I would be surprised as a coffee shop would be A3 use and the premises has A1 shop use.

[KalamityKel]

I believe there have been rumours floating around for sometime that the "owner" (I only mention this as heresy) was going to open some kind of eatery regardless of the refusal for change of use.

I had hoped the owner would be sensible and considerate to the concerns already raised. A shame if that's not so...

[Louisa]

I was told that the previous idea for a restaurant had been shelved and these guys called the black lab coffee house were interested? Think they have a shop in Clapham somewhere? As James points out though, surely a change of use would have come through had there been any truth in this?

Louisa.

[edanna]

What happens if someone opens a business in a unit not approved for that use?

[charlesfare]

There's one opening inside denmark hill station as well. How many coffee shops does one place need?

[DrinkingBuddy]

A1 can be converted to A3 for a period of up to two years without permission.

[KalamityKel]

DrinkingBuddy Wrote:

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

> A1 can be converted to A3 for a period of up to

> two years without permission.

What's the point of classification then?

[PSJ]

It'd be nice to have a proper independent artisan coffee house. Something like Flying Beam (the Denmark Hill place).

[adsyb99]

PSJ Wrote:

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

> It'd be nice to have a proper independent artisan

> coffee house. Something like Flying Beam (the

> Denmark Hill place).

If it is Black Lab then this is what you are getting. Kiwi run cafe' with very good coffee.

[JohnL]

seeing as so many people seem to work from coffee shops (I really don't know why but they do)

I suppose the coffee shop event horizon is yet to be passed.

[cle]

There isn't anywhere in LL which does proper 'third wave' coffee I believe.

All pint of latte and slice of cake with room for a buggy...

[ianr]

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> DrinkingBuddy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > A1 can be converted to A3 for a period of up to

> > two years without permission.

>

> What's the point of classification then?

There's a Mar 2014 Commons Library briefing paper, Planning: change of use system, that looks like a useful intorduction to the topic. It's http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01301.pdf.

It covers some currently proposed changes, but does go back over recent changes as well. That includes the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1101), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/pdfs/uksi_20131101_en.pdf which came into force on 30 May 2013. That's the one that enabled (Article 7) a new class D, for temporary changes of up to two years, which seems to be what's being talked about here. It seems to restrict the permitted development to areas under 150 square metres.

I'm more or less just relaying what I've found at a speedy first pass, and no expert, so I'm quite liable to misunderstanding, and open to education. For more material on motivation, beyond the briefing paper and the explanatory notes to any SIs, I suppose you'd have to look at Hansard and any media coverage on the policy. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/changeofuse/ is also good for summary of the rules.

[Chener Books]

Juilet Seymour, Southwark Planning Policy Manager, issued an "Article 4 direction" effective from 17 October 2013 that was subsequently cofirmed by "full council" on 7 April 2014 and will remain in force until further notice.

This affects Lordship Lane,

Further details here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions

[edcam]

charlesfare Wrote:

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

> There's one opening inside denmark hill station as

> well. How many coffee shops does one place need?

A space which would have been put to better use as another entrance/exit for that ludicrously designed refit.

[ianr]

Thanks John. We're learning fast. So, as I read it, a change from A1 shop to A3 eat/drink-in establishment _will_, by virtue of the second of the now-confirmed Southwark directions, require planning permission if within one of the specified areas. I'm attaching an excerpt from the list of Protected Shopping Frontages that includes those in Lordship Lane.

There's been a lot of thinking and work going on. The planning committee full March 2014 report at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3640/protected_shopping_frontages-article_4_direction sets out the considerations that led them to override the default statutory permissions.

[philosophie]

There are a lot of cafes in E.D. but none that do really great coffee from small-batch roasters (maybe Toasted, but it still feels like you're drinking coffee in a bar). I'd be very excited about the Black Lab coffee shop - but understand completely that people might not be as much of a coffee geek as me!

[tfwsoll]

I am a coffee geek and - apart from Toasted - there isn't a consistently decent coffee to be had at any of the numerous cafes in East Dulwich.

The information I received came (allegedly) from the owner so I will be interested to see what happens to the ex-Haus premises as I thought that a change of use would be out of the question.

[clockworkorange]

To clarify some of the posters here:

* A1-A3 is permitted development if the unit is less than 150 sq m (which this shop probably is)

The change is permitted for a period of 2 years, after which the unit must revert back to its original use (there is nothing to stop a planning aplication being permitted at that point in time for th euse to become permanent. Any external alterations will need planing pemrission in their own right.

KalamityKel - the point of this provision is to keep high street vibrant and occupied. A use is better than no use. IMO a vacant shop is an eyesore, employs nobody and can serve to have a negative impact on the perception of an area and potentially scare off other investment.

I look forward to the coffee shop opening. healthy competition is good for business. I agree with tfwsoll .

I also look forward to Franco Manca, the new cinema, the upgrade of Peckham Rye Station, the redevelopment of the POlice Station - very exciting times for ED/Peckham Rye

[cle]

Fully agree Clockwork Orange. I do worry for the Peckham Refreshment Rooms though...and the businesses in the arches.

[James Barber]

Hi clockworkorange,

So owners propose large rent rises to existing businesses. They close. Property sits empty for a few months. The owner bring in a non shop business. At some point high street like Lordship Lane stop being high streets and start to wilt as only people wanting to buy a house or a coffee visit. Doesn't sound like a recipe for long term success.

Lordship Lane has a remarkably low number of void properties. Keeping at least 50% of properties as A1 is a key part of that which is why we have such policies in place and cross-party have defended this from being userped.

[hpsaucey]

cle Wrote:

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

> There isn't anywhere in LL which does proper

> 'third wave' coffee I believe.

> All pint of latte and slice of cake with room for

> a buggy...

Cle - can you explain' third wave' coffee? Do you just mean a decent coffee that hasn't been messed about with or 'frou frou'd' up?

[KalamityKel]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi clockworkorange,

> So owners propose large rent rises to existing

> businesses. They close. Property sits empty for a

> few months. The owner bring in a non shop

> business. At some point high street like Lordship

> Lane stop being high streets and start to wilt as

> only people wanting to buy a house or a coffee

> visit. Doesn't sound like a recipe for long term

> success.

>

> Lordship Lane has a remarkably low number of void

> properties. Keeping at least 50% of properties as

> A1 is a key part of that which is why we have such

> policies in place and cross-party have defended

> this from being userped.

Yet it would appear the intentions for this property are different?

I don't understand - planning for change of use was already refused yet gathering from other things already mentioned that doesn't matter because of a loop hole in the system? Is this really right?

[James Barber]

Hi KK,

I'm not aware of a loop hole.

I am aware of people like Caffe Nero having very deep pockets. I and my then ward colleague Cllr Richard Thomas appears as the plannign appeal against Caffe Nero. Caffe Nero were able to attend with several planning barristers, and entourage of their experts. Southwark had an officer a lawyer and two councillors. But we won onthe airconditioning and lost on the coffee shop due to an inconsistency in the council evidence.