Jump to content

Recommended Posts

WQ - I'd have to get some paperwork out ot have a real look, but isn't D1 medical treatment premises? Which would kind of make sense if it was previously used by the health care trust.


Aplication for A2 has the distinct smell of estate agent about it, i'm afraid.


UC

oh right, i was wondering what was going on with the empty units by the video shop (that sounds some what outdated 'video' shop. so bombay going there, what goes next door? or has all this been sorted on another thread? sorry if it has and please redirect me, cheers.


i remember reading about a gym or osteopath place, but i thought that was going up towards the plough end ... so much activity on one south east london high street. it's all too exciting.

No 116 LL (old packing factory on corner of Bassano St, next to Thomas More(?) hall) is supposedly being converted into consulting rooms for some Harley Street consultants - this was second hand info, but might be the gym/osteo place you are referring to. I had also heard that Bombay Bicycle CLub have pulled out, don't know whether it's true but could well be, given how long they have had to open up.
I was chatting to the friendly owner of Willam Rose some while back about the shop next door, and he said that an elderly lady lived there and they had approached about leasing/buying her shop bit to expand into. Apprently she's not terribly friendly and said 'absoultely not' and 'by the way make sure you customers don't queue outside my shop front either' !! So they now have to do this queue management thing and direct people to the kerb side when it reaches the end of their shop front.

TJS Wrote:

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

> wans't that planning request raised ages ago? -

> Back in October 2006, looks like nothing has

> happened since


Yes i know, seems a bit strange that it's taken so long. Saw the builder and his sons in there last week, asked tham what was happening but they wouldn't give anything away!

A useful way of checking what planning applications are being considered is to look at them online


Go to following link 'Planning Lists' to see how to access this information.


If you are a nosey lace curtain twitcher then you can also see what your nearest neighbours are planning as well..

:-S

Amelie Wrote:

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

> I am not sure that the lady who lives next to

> William Rose has any legal right to make such

> demands, the pavement is public not private

> property.


I think that she may be able to claim obstruction of a public highway in this situation and ask the police to enforce it, which would be a shame for William Rose hence the solution they have now is more or less the best for everyone (apart from maybe a bigger premise that is)

>>I think that she may be able to claim obstruction of a public highway in this situation and ask the police to enforce >>it, which would be a shame for William Rose hence the solution they have now is more or less the best for everyone

>>(apart from maybe a bigger premise that is)


That sounds doubtful to me as, firstly, the public highway is the road and not the pavement and, secondly, it's not an obstruction if you're actually moving - and as William Rose employ gazillions of assistants even the longest queue moves at a pretty fair lick...


But the "solution" is obviously the diplomatic way to go, especially if WR still harbour long-term aims of buying her out and need to keep her sweet.

> I am not sure that the lady who lives next to William Rose has any legal right to make such demands, the pavement is public not private property.


Long stretches of the Lordship Lane pavements are owned by the shops. It's difficult to tell which unless there are boundary markers.


It would certainly make life interesting if the shops built boundary walls.

I'd find myself wondering if the old lady should have the legal right to keep the property vacant - there should be regulations in place that prevent indivudals from owning prime commercial property and deliberately preventing it being used for the purpose for which it has been categorised? I guess not.


I certainly wouldn't bother keeping her sweet - if she's continued to turn down reasonable financial offers on the property she's got a bad attitude. She can't turn a busy commercial street into a quiet residential one just because she fancies it that way.


It's a bit like that shop next door to Blue Mountain: that one apparently is being deliberately kept off the market because the owner had an unhappy commercial experience running the place, so now he's keeping it shut out of spite. Surely qualifications for ridicule?


These vacant lots are a blight on the local environment.

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

    • Callout for help from any local experts here. Looking to find out more about the history of the property on the corner of Whateley Road and Ulverscroft road (with the green glazed bricks). Now a residential property, i'm told it was a bottle shop in days gone (the house was built around 1900) by and i'd like to learn more about the history of the business that was once here - name, photos, anything at all really! Seems to be very little from open source research so i'm hoping anyone with history in the area can provide any insight!  Starting here before i contact Southwark Archives or similar orgs to get any information and pictures (any advice here also would be welcome). Thank you
    • Portable ramps are available for businesses to use in this sort of situation, aren't they? I don't know whether one would be suitable for use here, or whether they have the space to store one. Lots of people have  permanent or temporary disabilities which mean they have to use crutches or a wheelchair.
    • I can’t remember where I read that figure but this article in the Grauniad from 2023 discusses Ocado results from 2022. The average shopping cart fell to £118 from £129 the previous year. But Ocado lost £500m that year on approximately 20 million orders (circa 400k orders per week). So, averaging out to £25 lost per order. Ocado pauses building new warehouses as annual losses balloon to £500m | Ocado | The Guardian  Obviously, the £500m loss includes various factors. But Ocado has existed for 25 years and only made a small profit in a couple of those years. The rest have been huge losses. Yet it continues to raise funds and speculation sends the share price up and down. In that respect,  it’s like the UK version of Tesla. Meanwhile, the main growth in the supermarket sector has been for Aldi and Lidl, who do not deliver.
    • download-file.mp4  Is this the sort of thing you are after?   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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