Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 26/05/2025 at 20:22, Insuflo said:

The application in Tesco’s name is on the council’s website dated 23rd May. I’m presuming Tesco couldn’t make an application for a property they don’t already control?   

I think that presumption's a false one and that there's no such requirement.  If in doubt try asking 'Who can make a planning application?'   So it's firm evidence at most of just their belief that they might be  setting up shop there.  Putting in an early anticipatory application for their display signage, to lessen any dead time waiting for the permission, might well be a worthwhile expense.  They don't seem to have withdrawn the application, so are at least presumably still interested in taking over the premises.

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
2 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

And this thread was started in May 2025, I don't understand the relevance?  Is it a different notice then?

No, I thought someone on here was saying it was relevant to the Tesco planning application, and all I meant was that apart from Tesco not being mentioned on the notice, the date on it was over a year ago.

28 minutes ago, Sue said:

No, I thought someone on here was saying it was relevant to the Tesco planning application, and all I meant was that apart from Tesco not being mentioned on the notice, the date on it was over a year ago.

I see what you mean.  Perhaps the "alcohol licensing flyer for Tesco Express on the Poundland site" confirmed by the OP has been removed then.

 
16 hours ago, researcher said:

I think that presumption's a false one and that there's no such requirement.  If in doubt try asking 'Who can make a planning application?'   

I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation?

I suppose we’ll have to wait while this plays out. There’s applications re this site on the Southwark planning portal dating back over 70 years. In 1954, Woolworth’s applied to convert the original 4 shops here (Nos 29-35) into one Woolies but the council refused because the flats above the shops would be lost and there was a local housing shortage following the war.

Small businesses being displaced by big chains on Lordship Lane was already a trend back then.

 

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, Insuflo said:

I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation?

 

What's probably happened here is an assignment of Poundland's lease. This means that Tesco would purchase the remaining terms of Poundland's lease from Poundland. It could be contingent on the council approving the plans for the signage change and ATM. The landlord would be happy because then a stronger tenant moves into their space. Poundland gets a bit of cash in the form of a premium. Tesco gets a fully baked lease to take over. 

Companies don't submit these plans unless it was going to happen. It takes time and money to draw up these plans, and if you review them you'll see the drawings of the frontage are clearly 29-35 Lordship Lane. Meaning someone had surveyed the space and drawn up plans based on the specific property. 

I agree with Lurky's analysis.

No doubt Poundland have been in discussions with the Landlord about ending hte lease early or renegotiating it (given the broader group's position) and so the Landlord has sought a new tenant who would need licences and possibly planning for new signage to be approved before signing a new lease.

  • Agree 1
21 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

It’s being reported that Poundland has written to all its landlords stating that they will stop paying rent until all leases can be renegotiated at a lower rate. 

There's a bit more on bbc text.about shutting 68 shops straight away .including 2 distribution wharehouses

Edited by teddyboy23
4 hours ago, Insuflo said:

It’s being reported that Poundland has written to all its landlords stating that they will stop paying rent until all leases can be renegotiated at a lower rate. 

😮

That seems a very strange way of going about things.

Who is reporting it? Is it based on any actual facts?!

4 hours ago, teddyboy23 said:

There's a bit more on bbc text.about shutting 68 shops straight away .including 2 distribution wharehouses

Do you have a link?

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
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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