Chris Pretty on the closure of the Prettys Green Grocers on Northcross Road.

[StraferJack]

Be realistic - The Ivy House and a small recatangular unit on North X Road aren't even remotely comparable

Regardless of the plans for Ivy House, it's architectural features played a major part in saving that building from redevelopment

With all due sympathies to Chris and others affected, a tiny bland unit on a small parade of shops isn't going to swing any votes with heritage organisations

[DaveR]

As much as people might be cross about it, a dose of realism is called for. This is a private legal matter (as opposed to one involving public law) between Pretty's and their new landlord. As has been pointed out, there are conditions that have to be satisfied before terminating a commercial tenancy and Pretty's need to concentrate on any potential challenge to that. In any event, if they have to move, they have to move - it's not that unusual for tenants, commercial or otherwise, and if Prettys really do have the level of support expressed here then they will do OK.

[Sue]

Peckhamrye Wrote:

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

> As it has already been sold I would think it is

> too late to go down the community asset path?

xxxxx

Don't know a lot about it, but the Ivy House had already been sold to a developer before it was made a community asset, although the English Heritage listing may have been more relevant in their case, not sure.

Sorry don't have time at the moment to check this out, but I'm sure somebody will know or have more time than me to look it up.

ETA: I also don't know what the criteria for a "community asset" are, but regardless of size etc I would have thought it was at least worth checking out?

[Peckhamrye]

The developer was planning to sell it on with planning permission - the listing stopped that happening and gave the Ivy House team 6 Months grace.

[James Barber]

Ivy House and Community Asset is a red herring wrt to this Prettys Greengrocer situation.

Community asset application needs to show it would "further social wellbeing or social interests of the local community (e.g. cultural , recreational or sporting)" direct quotes from council officials.

It sounds like the new owner is trying to give the impression hey can force the current people out but that they legally probably can't. I had this attempted on me years ago when I live on Brixton hill is a flat.

If the new owner is successful they believe they'll add significant value to their new property. Most people will happilly use whatever new shop is installed there so the new owner is probably right.

The key for all of us is to encourage Prettys to get proper advice and then tell us how we can help support them.

I will also contact them directly and happilly obtain a letter making it clear that this unit is a shop unit and very unlikely to be granted any change of use to a cafe etc.

[joom]

Don't know that "Most people will happily use whatever new shop is installed", Let's boycott it!!

[alice]

yeah like the successful boycott of cafe nero

[newboots]

Unless I have misunderstood anything, Chris and his family have been the victims of the new landlord going back on his word. Sadly there is not much you can do to legislate against lack of personal integrity, but it sure does rankle. I will be sorry to see the shop go if it does and will have no problem whatsoever in boycotting whatever replaces it. I like to hold long grudges.

[ianr]

This was first discussed here five weeks ago. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1232388 Was legal advice ever sought?

[tomk]

Would hazard a guess that as a family business, premises owned by same family, the 'lease' may not be that watertight/official?

Re. Boycotting, this would only really affect the business coming in. Unlikely to be the new landlord'a directly-owned business. The boycott would have to last for years and make the unit unleasable to affect the landlord.

[seh]

Has legal advice been sought? I have on pretty good authority that a section 25 notice (if this is a 54 act business tenancy)needs to be 6-12 months long and this sounds like it wasn't. So a solicitor should be found to check ASAP or the landlord will be getting the property wrongly.

[Otta]

tomk Wrote:

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

> Re. Boycotting, this would only really affect the

> business coming in. Unlikely to be the new

> landlord'a directly-owned business. The boycott

> would have to last for years and make the unit

> unleasable to affect the landlord.

This

I've nothing against the greengrocers, and think they've been badly treated, but to boycott the new business for something that was probably nothing to do with them is senseless.

[binary_star]

This is obviously awful news but boycotting the new business because their landlord is a b*stard? Wrong approach IMO...

[Heart108]

I applaud 100% seh and James Barber's practical advice - this is clearly the way to go ( rather than throw in the towel and look at other premises for Pretty's).

We are lucky to have in East Dulwich such a precious and priceless asset as Pretty's - a fruit and vegetable business run by a wonderful family who have the guts, commitment and stamina to have kept it going for so many years - always utterly professional and yet always delivered with honest genuine caring about the customer.

If local bye law does not provide for protecting an asset such as this, then there is something fundamentally missing from the values of local government. Southwark Councillors other than James, where are you?

We need to pick our battles in an age where sole trader businesses are becoming unable to compete with global chain establishments on the high street. This is surely one worth fighting if there is a hope of galvanising support ( like the successful campaign not to place a mobile phone mast on Dawson's Heights a few years back).

I am sure masses of Pretty's customers would sign a petition if it was made clear and easy.

Someone please:

1) Clarify exactly the legal position if a substantial petition was presented.

2) Does the law provide protection of a trader's right to continue trading on particular premises in the same way that a sitting tenant of many years has rights?

seh Wrote:

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

> Has legal advice been sought? I have on pretty

> good authority that a section 25 notice (if this

> is a 54 act business tenancy)needs to be 6-12

> months long and this sounds like it wasn't. So a

> solicitor should be found to check ASAP or the

> landlord will be getting the property wrongly.

[honeybee79]

Hi there

I am one of the co-founder of the Ivy House and I am also a property lawyer.

I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if I am repeating what others have already said. Without knowing all the details and not having seen the lease, it is likely that this is a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which offers limited security of tenure to business tenants. If a landlord wants to end a business tenancy then he is required to serve a S25 notice and can only terminate the tenancy on grounds stated in the 1954 Act, including redevelopment. Strict notice periods apply. A S25 notice must give at least 6 months notice of termination and no more than 12 months. In addition to this, it cannot seek to terminate the lease before the contractual expiry date of the tenancy.

I am happy to help if anyone wants to private message me.

[DaveR]

"We are lucky to have in East Dulwich such a precious and priceless asset as Pretty's - a fruit and vegetable business run by a wonderful family who have the guts, commitment and stamina to have kept it going for so many years - always utterly professional and yet always delivered with honest genuine caring about the customer.

If local bye law does not provide for protecting an asset such as this, then there is something fundamentally missing from the values of local government. Southwark Councillors other than James, where are you?

We need to pick our battles in an age where sole trader businesses are becoming unable to compete with global chain establishments on the high street. This is surely one worth fighting if there is a hope of galvanising support ( like the successful campaign not to place a mobile phone mast on Dawson's Heights a few years back)."

Do you not think you are overstating the case a little here? We already have property laws that have to strike a balance between the interests of freeholders in using their asset, and the interests of tenants who need some security. We also have planning laws that allow local authorities to make plans for particular neighbourhoods and then implement them via individual planning decisions. What exactly do you think is needed in addition? It's easy to call for new rules/powers when what you really want is a particular result in a particular case.

It will be tough on Pretty's if they have to move, but if they are as good and as well supported as you say they are, they'll do OK.

[LondonMix]

Agree with DaveR. Its a shame when a tenant is forced to leave but its always a risk when as a business you rent rather than own your premises. Pretty's should have renewed there lease prior to the sale as even with the redevelopment plans, as Honeyb says, the lease couldn't be terminated.

[pinecone]

in order to punish the landlord, it needs to be a declaration of intention boycott, to discourage the lease being taken.

[Otta]

I'm sorry, but this is all getting a bit pathetic. I'm sure it's a great shop run by decent people, but come on!

[Alan Medic]

Agreed. It's all a bit 'down with this sort of thing'.

[pinecone]

wait until a phones4u or similar appears in its place

[Otta]

You reap what you sow ED.

[ednewmy]

Whilst this is very sad, call me naive, but would there not be scope to incorporate (perhaps on a smaller scale) the fruit and veg business into the cafe next door? Either by using a little space inside the cafe, or more practically, by having fruit and veg racks out front.

As I said, I'm probably naive when it comes to these things and I'm sure it's been thought about as a possibility, but it would just be nice if they could keep some sort of green grocery going even if it's smaller.

[Sue]

ednewmy Wrote:

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

> Whilst this is very sad, call me naive, but would

> there not be scope to incorporate (perhaps on a

> smaller scale) the fruit and veg business into the

> cafe next door? Either by using a little space

> inside the cafe, or more practically, by having

> fruit and veg racks out front.

>

> As I said, I'm probably naive when it comes to

> these things and I'm sure it's been thought about

> as a possibility, but it would just be nice if

> they could keep some sort of green grocery going

> even if it's smaller.

xxxxxx

I can't see any way on earth you could run a financially viable cafe AND a financially viable greengrocer's in that relatively small space?

[Otta]

Why not Sue? (Serious question, I am no expert on these things).

If allowed, then setting up basically a stall in front of the cafe seems a good idea to me.