Planning Application for 1 Lordship Lane

[StraferJack]

"My conservative guess is 10k takings per week for EDT,"

even if we take your fag-packet as accurate it isn't taking into account the cost of planning, designing and fitting out these rooms. And then ongoing maintenance and cleaning.

Going to take more than a few weeks to pay that back

[Penguin68]

The EDT is a large building - it is mainly the ground floor which is being used commercially (the upstairs for events like the Big Picture and private parties does earn some money, but not loads)

A commercial firm will want to sweat its assets, it is having to pay for the whole building (including rates, maintenance etc.) and will want the whole building, if it can, to be revenue earning. Why wouldn't it want that?

This proposal is actually less locally disruptive than many others, as I and others have pointed out, offering rooms tends to lead to a quieter use rather than the opposite. Neither does running a B&B create excessive additional amounts of rubbish.

If the EDT is only 'taking' ?10k a week then, on a 'reasonable' net return of 12% it is only making ?63k a year - which is not much. I would guess it is probably taking more and making net less than that. If it is only making a net 5% (not uncommon) then it is earning for its owners only only ?26k on ?10k a week takings.

As a return on capital employed (ROCE) this is not convincing.

Another thread is discussing the possible re-use of the old Grove Tavern (Harvester) which looks to be dropping out of the licenced trade. Pub economics do not look good at the moment.

[Freddy1929]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The EDT is a large building - it is mainly the

> ground floor which is being used commercially (the

> upstairs for events like the Big Picture and

> private parties does earn some money, but not

> loads)

>

> A commercial firm will want to sweat its assets,

> it is having to pay for the whole building

> (including rates, maintenance etc.) and will want

> the whole building, if it can, to be revenue

> earning. Why wouldn't it want that?

>

> This proposal is actually less locally disruptive

> than many others, as I and others have pointed

> out, offering rooms tends to lead to a quieter use

> rather than the opposite. Neither does running a

> B&B create excessive additional amounts of

> rubbish.

>

> If the EDT is only 'taking' ?10k a week then, on a

> 'reasonable' net return of 12% it is only making

> ?63k a year - which is not much. I would guess it

> is probably taking more and making net less than

> that. If it is only making a net 5% (not uncommon)

> then it is earning for its owners only only ?26k

> on ?10k a week takings.

>

> As a return on capital employed (ROCE) this is not

> convincing.

>

> Another thread is discussing the possible re-use

> of the old Grove Tavern (Harvester) which looks to

> be dropping out of the licenced trade. Pub

> economics do not look good at the moment.

Why just look at the application from cost/profit etc, what about the things you can't put a price on? People who live around the development and their wellbeing?

I don't want to hear the argument that if this development does not go ahead the building will be left to go to ruin and it will be worse.....

Also explain why a B&B doesn't create additional waste?

[Loz]

Look at it this way, Freddy - currently you think that the waste generated is only just being handled by the current system. If waste does increase significantly because of the B&B they will have to out another, better system in place.

Winners all round.

[Freddy1929]

Then why wasn't it mentioned it in the planning application?

[Jimi Henrdrix07]

very interesting

[Loz]

Either waste is going to increase and they will have to fix the issue (since by your account they have no spare waste capacity). Or it's not and you'll have the same issues even if there wasn't the B&B change.

[Freddy1929]

Why wait for a problem before you fix it? how about Planning....

[Loz]

My point is, you are objecting on the basis that a small piece of simple logic by the applicant will see your objection almost certainly put aside.

[Freddy1929]

The Developer has withdrawn the Application for this development, I would like to think it was because of the objections, but I'm sure they will be back, with some alterations to the Plan, I wait in anticipation...................

[ribrob]

The plans have been resubmitted...

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9549420

The changes only cover the handling of refuse - which is a start at least and a great improvement on how it's (mis)handled at the moment.

However, as far as i can see there are no other changes, so nothing tackling any of the other issues raised in the objections, of which there were many.

[the-e-dealer]

UncleBen Wrote:

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

> Yes Penguin, but pubs are not shutting down in ED,

> it is the opposite so moot point.

> Harvester-perfect for a small hotel or B&B - not

> extending an existing pub negatively impacting on

> residents.

Heber Arms.