Jump to content

Gail's Development of the Brick House - planning permission?

above the shops
 Share

Recommended Posts

above the shops

above the shops

Posted
Posted

There is finally some building movement in the old Brick House site. But it's of a slightly alarming nature.

Over the past week they have ripped off the existing roof and erected much a larger steel frame.


This is completely blocking our view of greenery and gardens. And is a bit odd as a commercial structure that is now going to tower over the residential back gardens of properties in Zenoria Street, Oxonian Street and East Dulwich Grove.


I've looked at length this morning on the Southwark planning portal, but the only planning applications I can find on this site are for the change from A1 to A3, and for the extension to opening hours. There doesn't appear to be an application for this building work, which surely must require it.


Does anyone have experience here? Or able to advise on what we should / could do about it.


I'm not against Gail's moving in per se, but this is worrying - and at the absolute mininum we should be able to see what the plans are for I think.

ed26

ed26

Posted
Posted
Is that the old roof coming off or the new roof going on. Doesn't look any higher than the neighbouring properties from the photo, so I'm not sure that planning permission would be an issue. But of course, the right process needs to be followed.
above the shops

above the shops

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The red steels are the new roof going on, and it is significantly higher / larger than the old one.


And even if the height is the same the current house frontage, this is right up to the back property wall. which is not really the same thing.

AylwardS

AylwardS

Posted
Posted

I think there was a planning application from 2019 (in the old planning register) that was granted

19/AP/0634 Proposal : Extending the roof structure to accomodate additional office and commercial work space with a terrace


https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9582154


One of the documents is the list of those consulted.


Another is the decision notice which states they have to start works within 3 years.

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted
Oh he is a complete dick...we can?t be the only two who think that....nice pastries though. If I buy something from there ...I think I will have to give double the money I have spent to Refugee Action https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/?gclid=CjwKCAjwi9-HBhACEiwAPzUhHNNWnzC4AA_ArRgR-FPsYK4mAXvcUSN_OwaJWlsDFNSsJ09nUafZaBoCAz4QAvD_BwE to feel clean again.
Nigello

Nigello

Posted
Posted
He is so repulsive that he is creating decent products (at inflated prices, somewhat, I grant you), paying taxes and national insurance, improving high streets and creating jobs. What an absolute scoundrel! How dare he have private beliefs that are not totally in line with mine/yours/etc. Cancel him immediately!
heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted
Well, I?m not cancelling Gail?s....oh the escalation! But he is a dick of the first order. Lovely quiches though. I can make better ones, but sometimes it?s nice to buy a lovely hot cheesy, mushroomy one from there. But yes...definitely give x2 the same amount spent in Gail?s each time to refugeeaction to cleanse myself of his dickness.
Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted
My main problem with Gails is the way they treated Brick House and how they left the site empty for so long. Pretty shoddy imo. Brick were a great, local, independent business. Didn?t know the other stuff about their owner, but makes sense. They generally seem like dcks.
northernmonkey

northernmonkey

Posted
Posted

But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out their long standing tenant?


Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the team were just speculatively contacting the landlords of existing successful businesses and just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but might be wrong on that) just at the point of the lease extension?


I too would much rather have Brick House than Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the landlord of the property. Chains can always afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of independents still to support though so you know what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's will be very successful on that site - hopefully there is room for all.

Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> But rahrahrah - isn't that a problem with the

> Landlord who was willing to negotiate and kick out

> their long standing tenant?

>

> Gails commercial team will have specs for suitable

> sites, but it would have been 'unusual' that the

> team were just speculatively contacting the

> landlords of existing successful businesses and

> just happened to contact Parkhill (I think but

> might be wrong on that) just at the point of the

> lease extension?

>

> I too would much rather have Brick House than

> Gails btw but my judgement here is 100% with the

> landlord of the property. Chains can always

> afford to pay more and weather the storm. Lots of

> independents still to support though so you know

> what to do people! I suspect though that Gail's

> will be very successful on that site - hopefully

> there is room for all.



The landlord is certainly at fault. But my issue was that Gails forced a profitable independent out and then left the space empty for? how long is it now? Maybe I?m being unfair, but it felt shoddy to me. The fact that the owner is also a bit of a knob just makes me feel less than warm towards them. I?m not calling for a boycott or anything. Just not a fan myself so won?t be using them.

fishbiscuits

fishbiscuits

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> nice pastries though.


Pretty average, I reckon. OK so their stuff is a couple of notches above Starbucks/Nero/etc but almost every neighborhood in London has better to offer these days.


Brick house were glorious... morning buns.. jam bostock... chocolate sourdough...

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted
It was shoddy, I avoid Gail?s.......I do like some of it. Because I can cook, it?s always an issue, I?m constantly disappointed. I eat out through sheer laziness. He is a dick, Gail?s is a salty, sugary, dirty hit and LL needs some protection from the chains.
NewWave

NewWave

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> My main problem with Gails is the way they treated

> Brick House and how they left the site empty for

> so long. Pretty shoddy imo. Brick were a great,

> local, independent business. Didn?t know the other

> stuff about their owner, but makes sense. They

> generally seem like dcks.


Totally agree.

And I find Gails very overpriced and over hyped.

Also I dislike the way the whole chain smacks of marketing give it a nice wholesome female name to make it appear 'homemade' flog your leftover scraps under any guise possible to maximise profit whilst pretending to be doing it 'to minimise food waste' (only a matter of time before they scrape the burnt bits off of things and market it as tooth whitening charcoal ).

Finally if we must have a bakery type chain thingy in ED I'd rather have Ole and Steen the Danish chain.

Great salads breads pastries and coffees and everything tastes less processed than Gails.

As you can gather-I won't go there.

The owner is a dick and the shops always stink of synthetic 'baked goods' smells in fact the odour is borderline sickly.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Will Mandelson be accepted across the pond.

      By malumbu · Posted

      I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • enya
      John Marx (Top Marx Kitchens): highly recommended kitchen fitter

      By enya · Posted

      We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Suggsy
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By Suggsy · Posted

      Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • vladi
      Councillor McAsh defects to the Greens

      By vladi · Posted

      My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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