Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Happy enough that its going to be a vet, but from a business perspective to me it seems like a waste of money for a vet to take high street commercial space. Vet's are the type of business that I wouldn't think really need high street exposure or footfall, so could easily save some cash with back street premises. but hey, their business, so I could be wrong....

Yes, but they have been pushed out of the right spot opposite the park by a bloomin' developer supermarket combo, so glad they will have somewhere and not be forced out of the area altogether.


Also looks like they will keep integrity of HSBC building for most part. Would hate to see yet another homogenised brick and render bland-build a la M&S and Harris.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Yes, think the PR site was being scoped for the

> usual, a supermarket with flats above. Ah, that'll

> add character.



That application was a year ago and was later withdrawn, so not sure if it is still something the landlord is interested in continuing with, or if they will be looking for different retail options when they next submit it...

Great they are not moving out of the area, I am sure they will make use of being on the high street by extending their range of pet products that have in stock in their store area, something to replace the loss of the pet shop on Northcross rd... be interesting to see how they use the space.

As for the carpark, I think they will have more space as there is parking around the back of the bank, They have terrible problems with people using the rye parking in the present space, and on more than one occasion someone has parked right across the entrance blocking people in or from going in (happened to me with a van driver, had to leave the cat in the vets until he eventually turned up, then was really rude when questioned about his parking choice)

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...