Northcross greengrocers may be closed/redeveloped

[DaveR]

From looking at the planning application, the proposed works are to extend the ground floor to occupy the rear yard area and expand the shop space by doing away with the hallway housing the stairs to the upstairs flat. The flat is not being extended but is reconfigured, with access via external steps to the rear coming up to a decked area.

Nothing there, and nothing posted here, to indicate whether there is any substance to this scare story, or to suggest why anybody (other than neighbours who might be overlooked by the new decked area) should oppose the application. Has anybody been into the greengrocers and seen the petition? What does it say?

[paulc]

The petition basically says no to the planning application (because they will have to vacate) and that they have been there for 45 years.

[nxjen]

Is it known if they will have to vacate permanently or just while the works are being carried out?

[EPB]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> If the freeholder wants to sell the property, why

> should he be stopped?

I believe the freeholder is a member of the family, and sold the property as an act of retaliation during a family dispute.

Until this thread started we knew nothing about the change of use and planning proposals. No letter from the council, and the notice on the lamppost doesn't identify the property to which it refers.

And I've been told that the greengrocery will be replaced by an estate agency.

[spider69]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Is it known if they will have to vacate

> permanently or just while the works are being

> carried out?

At the end of the day it will come down to a legally documented agreement or not, as the case may be.

Petitions will not override legal leasehold or rental agreements.

What agreement in writing do they have?

[paulc]

From their concern, it sounded fairly permanent. It's unlikely they'd go to the trouble of organising petitions and contacting councillors if they were moving back after the works. Either way they would be critically disconnected from their cafe.

[EPB]

If the new owner is applying for planning permission for change of use, surely it's down to the council to decide whether the street needs another estate agent more than it does a greengrocer?

[*Bob*]

That would be a shame if it happened.

Wouldn't be the first family business to come a cropper on account of .. the family .. unfortunately.

Is the estate agent thing actually real, or just a mobilising-call-to-arms rumour?

[Penguin68]

The planning permission (which, on the face of it, doesn't look to be for something too obtrusive and makes logical sense - separating the shop entrance from the flat entrance - and doesn't change the occupancy levels, it's still a shop and a flat) will be made on planning rules - a 'petition' which does not reflect planning issues will be irrelevant in any planning decision - sentiment is not part of the rule set.

It is sad when a business cannot continue in its old location (I think of Callows) but changes do happen.

I am not sure why the current owners should be swayed by public opinion, and certainly the planners shouldn't be (outside the planning rules).

I am also not sure that there isn't a moritorium currently on planning being able to decide what sort of commercial premises should occupy a space (apart e.g from sex-shops) - so change of use from a greengrocer to an estate agent (if that is true and intended) may also not be 'influenceable' through the expression of public opinion.

By all means sign petitions if you want to, it does express a 'solidarity' with the petitioners, but do not expect such a petition to have (to be able to have) any impact.

[nxjen]

EPB Wrote:

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

> If the new owner is applying for planning

> permission for change of use, surely it's down to

> the council to decide whether the street needs

> another estate agent more than it does a

> greengrocer?

I'm unable to see on the planning application anything to do with change of use and no it's not down to the council to decide whether the street needs another estate agent more than it does a greengrocer. As has been stated on the thread already the application will be granted or refused on what the proposed building alterations are.

[LondonMix]

Agree, the planning application isn't for change of use and only the planning rules regarding how they are extending the site will be considered.

The owner, once the lease is up or if there is a break clause, can remove Pretty's if they want to regardless of whether or not they redevelop the premises.

If its all down to a family dispute that's rather sad though not that unusual...

[alice]

hurrum the planning application seems to have disappeared from the council website.....

[LondonMix]

Its still there. I just tried tiddles link again and it took me straight there.

[alice]

sorry thanks yup - website needs you to spell northcross as two words

[pinecone]

> And I've been told that the greengrocery will be replaced by an estate agency.

This makes my blood boil and want to shout and scream like Alf Garnett.

[LondonMix]

That's probably why whoever started the rumour said that. It's not true though if that calms you down!

The current shop is A-1 use under planning law. An estate agent would be A-2 and if it was the owner's intention to lease to an estate agent they would need to apply for a change of use as part of the planning application, and they haven't.

See use classes below:

http://p4l.co.uk/guidtocomuse.html

[pinecone]

Thank you LondonMix, I am calmer now :-) Learn something new every day. I will study an EDF'ers guide to planning law tonight.

[esme]

Please nooooo more estate agents

[alixandjames@btinter]

yep march apparently

[Loz]

esme Wrote:

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

> Please nooooo more estate agents

OK. See LondonMix's post a mere two above your own.

[EPB]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> The current shop is A-1 use under planning law.

> An estate agent would be A-2 and if it was the

> owner's intention to lease to an estate agent they

> would need to apply for a change of use as part of

> the planning application, and they haven't.

>

>

So does that mean that we wouldn't necessarily be losing Pretty's?

[Penguin68]

So does that mean that we wouldn't necessarily be losing Pretty's?

No, it means that Pretty's will not be replaced by an estate agent without change of use being agreed (unless, as I have said earlier) there is a moratorium on this part of planning.

It depends what the lease terms are and when they expire. If Pretty's say they are going, as I believe from the OP that they have, then I assume that they will know. Whether they are being forced to leave, or choosing to leave because circumstances are no longer right for them I do not know - clearly a re-build which would close the shop for some time cannot be very satisfactory and I am assuming that the lease has terminated - unless there are safety reasons most leases would protect the lessee from unforced building works disrupting their tenancy.

The fact that they are getting people to sign a petition would suggest that they see no other clear paths to continuing to trade there. The suggestion that this is part-and-parcel of a family dispute also suggests that (in my experience) paths of complete rationality may be obstructed by sentiment.

[Sue]

EPB Wrote:

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

> I believe the freeholder is a member of the

> family, and sold the property as an act of

> retaliation during a family dispute.

>

xxxxxxx

If this is true, then it's all very sad but surely nothing to do with anybody else?

Shops may close for all sorts of reasons, unfortunately.

ETA: I mean nothing to do with anybody else in terms of signing petitions etc.

ETA: Sorry, hadn't seen the post above while I was writing this ....

[LondonMix]

Penguin is right. The only thing the information I shared means is that the current plans don't allow for an estate agent as a future tenant.

Whether Pretty goes or stays will be entirely dictated by their lease and the commercial negotiations they enter into with the owner. You can only remove a sitting tenant if the lease allows for it. That you may or may not want to extend the property is not really a factor.

[davidh]

is the juice bar next door, occupied by chris' firm, not able to become a greengrocer. of course, the juice bar may be more profitable than the veg