Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I believe there have been rumours floating around for sometime that the "owner" (I only mention this as heresy) was going to open some kind of eatery regardless of the refusal for change of use.


I had hoped the owner would be sensible and considerate to the concerns already raised. A shame if that's not so...

I was told that the previous idea for a restaurant had been shelved and these guys called the black lab coffee house were interested? Think they have a shop in Clapham somewhere? As James points out though, surely a change of use would have come through had there been any truth in this?


Louisa.

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> DrinkingBuddy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > A1 can be converted to A3 for a period of up to

> > two years without permission.

>

> What's the point of classification then?


There's a Mar 2014 Commons Library briefing paper, Planning: change of use system, that looks like a useful intorduction to the topic. It's http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01301.pdf.


It covers some currently proposed changes, but does go back over recent changes as well. That includes the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1101), http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/pdfs/uksi_20131101_en.pdf which came into force on 30 May 2013. That's the one that enabled (Article 7) a new class D, for temporary changes of up to two years, which seems to be what's being talked about here. It seems to restrict the permitted development to areas under 150 square metres.


I'm more or less just relaying what I've found at a speedy first pass, and no expert, so I'm quite liable to misunderstanding, and open to education. For more material on motivation, beyond the briefing paper and the explanatory notes to any SIs, I suppose you'd have to look at Hansard and any media coverage on the policy. http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/changeofuse/ is also good for summary of the rules.

Juilet Seymour, Southwark Planning Policy Manager, issued an "Article 4 direction" effective from 17 October 2013 that was subsequently cofirmed by "full council" on 7 April 2014 and will remain in force until further notice.


This affects Lordship Lane,


Further details here http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/856/planning_policy/3289/article_4_directions

charlesfare Wrote:

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

> There's one opening inside denmark hill station as

> well. How many coffee shops does one place need?


A space which would have been put to better use as another entrance/exit for that ludicrously designed refit.

Thanks John. We're learning fast. So, as I read it, a change from A1 shop to A3 eat/drink-in establishment _will_, by virtue of the second of the now-confirmed Southwark directions, require planning permission if within one of the specified areas. I'm attaching an excerpt from the list of Protected Shopping Frontages that includes those in Lordship Lane.


There's been a lot of thinking and work going on. The planning committee full March 2014 report at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3640/protected_shopping_frontages-article_4_direction sets out the considerations that led them to override the default statutory permissions.

There are a lot of cafes in E.D. but none that do really great coffee from small-batch roasters (maybe Toasted, but it still feels like you're drinking coffee in a bar). I'd be very excited about the Black Lab coffee shop - but understand completely that people might not be as much of a coffee geek as me!

I am a coffee geek and - apart from Toasted - there isn't a consistently decent coffee to be had at any of the numerous cafes in East Dulwich.


The information I received came (allegedly) from the owner so I will be interested to see what happens to the ex-Haus premises as I thought that a change of use would be out of the question.

To clarify some of the posters here:


* A1-A3 is permitted development if the unit is less than 150 sq m (which this shop probably is)

The change is permitted for a period of 2 years, after which the unit must revert back to its original use (there is nothing to stop a planning aplication being permitted at that point in time for th euse to become permanent. Any external alterations will need planing pemrission in their own right.


KalamityKel - the point of this provision is to keep high street vibrant and occupied. A use is better than no use. IMO a vacant shop is an eyesore, employs nobody and can serve to have a negative impact on the perception of an area and potentially scare off other investment.


I look forward to the coffee shop opening. healthy competition is good for business. I agree with tfwsoll .


I also look forward to Franco Manca, the new cinema, the upgrade of Peckham Rye Station, the redevelopment of the POlice Station - very exciting times for ED/Peckham Rye

Hi clockworkorange,

So owners propose large rent rises to existing businesses. They close. Property sits empty for a few months. The owner bring in a non shop business. At some point high street like Lordship Lane stop being high streets and start to wilt as only people wanting to buy a house or a coffee visit. Doesn't sound like a recipe for long term success.


Lordship Lane has a remarkably low number of void properties. Keeping at least 50% of properties as A1 is a key part of that which is why we have such policies in place and cross-party have defended this from being userped.

cle Wrote:

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

> There isn't anywhere in LL which does proper

> 'third wave' coffee I believe.

> All pint of latte and slice of cake with room for

> a buggy...



Cle - can you explain' third wave' coffee? Do you just mean a decent coffee that hasn't been messed about with or 'frou frou'd' up?

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi clockworkorange,

> So owners propose large rent rises to existing

> businesses. They close. Property sits empty for a

> few months. The owner bring in a non shop

> business. At some point high street like Lordship

> Lane stop being high streets and start to wilt as

> only people wanting to buy a house or a coffee

> visit. Doesn't sound like a recipe for long term

> success.

>

> Lordship Lane has a remarkably low number of void

> properties. Keeping at least 50% of properties as

> A1 is a key part of that which is why we have such

> policies in place and cross-party have defended

> this from being userped.


Yet it would appear the intentions for this property are different?

I don't understand - planning for change of use was already refused yet gathering from other things already mentioned that doesn't matter because of a loop hole in the system? Is this really right?

Hi KK,

I'm not aware of a loop hole.

I am aware of people like Caffe Nero having very deep pockets. I and my then ward colleague Cllr Richard Thomas appears as the plannign appeal against Caffe Nero. Caffe Nero were able to attend with several planning barristers, and entourage of their experts. Southwark had an officer a lawyer and two councillors. But we won onthe airconditioning and lost on the coffee shop due to an inconsistency in the council evidence.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • where I've got to with left politics is very much not defined by labels - when anyone suggests (for example and without judgement) "a reformist socialist government" - my response now is: "like where? Which country is closest to this ideal and what challenges to they face?"
    • I wonder why they didn’t use Fairfield Halls with 10 times the space
    • Was anyone commenting here actually AT the meeting?  I was.  Yes David Peckham; it WAS busy. I'd estimate about 150 people filling the biggest room at Ruskin House, with some standing at the back.  And the bar was quite separate with no queue and sensible prices the twice I used it.  To Insuflo I'd say that my reading of Zarah Sultana's piece in The New Left Review accurately admitted past (Corbyn) mistakes and sought to lay a better path for the future. Jeremy is respected by millions but has not been as shrewd or tough an operator as I hope she turns out to be. Precisely the progressive point she makes despite the fact some will try to cite it as a split.  I agree The Left has been guilty of in-fighting at the cost of political success in the past, particularly given FPTP, but some of us are incurable idealists who don't just give up and snipe from the sidelines. I remember a meeting at Brixton Town Hall in the 80s where a Labour Party member advised someone from one or other of the fringe Left parties to 'get out of your ideological telephone booth'. Very funny and accurate and I never forgot the expression.  Maybe The Labour Party is the expression of liberal-thinkers who suppress their disagreements in the interest of occasionally forming a UK government, but their current incarnation is giving dangerous concessions to violent Zionists and UK fascists. Some of us have not given up hope and seek to learn from the mistakes of the past with respect to the formation of a new Left party.  The speakers listed on the poster were, I thought, intelligent and eloquent. One was determined, for instance, actually to organise people to confront the racists attacking asylum seekers in Epping and elsewhere. Another informed us about TfL seeking to change the rules to allow the expulsion of about 70 tube staff from the UK for visa-renewal reasons and that she and others are taking action to prevent that happening. Practical interventions in the real world when The Right is on the rise, emboldened by Reform and its desperate manifesto.  Another emphasised the crucial importance of ecological awareness in policy-making, although alliances with the Green Party were a matter of debate.  A youthful presence (the majority present were, like me, grey-haired) was the contributions by members of the latest incarnation of the 'Revolutionary Communist Party'. One by one they did what that party does: stand up and say 'yes we support the apparent aims of 'Your Party' but really the only solution is revolution' (they mean Bolshevik/French style).  This met with little applause, I think because most people present know that that is not going to happen here unless things get an awful lot worse. Realistically a reformist Socialist government is the furthest Left the current British population could ever countenance in my opinion.  So yes; if we let in-fighting be caused by groups who really just wish to push their manifestos at leftie forums we won't even be in a position to 'split The Left' in the way Sephiroth suggests.  I have been a union member for 22 years, helped organise a unique strike of Lambeth College Unison workers in 2016, voted twice for Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader, and canvassed for him in 2024 in Islington North. Yes; mostly I've lived under Tory governments and seen the welfare state eroded, but I will always resist cynicism and defeatism.  Last night's meeting reminded me that there are decent people out there willing to try to improve society, rather than accept this Labour government as 'the best we can do'.  Peace and love.   
    • a - you said you were done interacting with me, remember b - " police, judge, jury, prosecution and executioner"  - the not very bright person's response on any public forum when someone point out the idiocy of anything. I haven't prosecuted anyone, executed anyone, or taken part in any trial or jury.    I have judged tho but then so do you and so did the OP - so what? 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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