Harrumph. That would explain the appearance of a mystifying (and thoroughly irritating) sign at the station that reads: “The home of Chase Buchanan”. Check it out - it’s affixed directly beneath the sign on the platform nearest Amyand Park Rd that used to read, simply: “St Margarets’. A real bewdy…

Hilary Ivory at 13 June 2007 3:36 PM

Am really disappointed.

Maddie at 13 June 2007 5:03 PM

The proposal is at: http://tinyurl.com/2kfxdx [I know you have included a link to it which makes me think that others, particularly those less savvy, will also miss it]. I think it is more sensible to accept the inevitable change which will at least put a thriving business [whose employees will support local traders] into what is now an eyesore. I do not believe the bakery [a patisserie, actually] was ever more than a fantasy business plan. There are in fact fewer estate agents overall than there were 25 years ago; here in E Twickenham one [from whom I bought my flat in 1974] is now occupied by Mencap; another was vacated this year by Milestone and has been derelict for months.

Chris Squire at 13 June 2007 8:37 PM

Chris Squire please note: There has never been a shortage of retail businesses wanting to open on the Koblers site. The reason that the site has been empty for so long is mostly due to the buildings owners being reluctant to let the property.
I have details of three food based retailers that are still looking for premises in St.Margarets and would be willing to take the Koblers site.

simon chapman at 13 June 2007 9:11 PM

This is really disappointing. There was a rumour about Gregg’s, which would be infinitely preferable. I bet Chase Wotnot don’t do a mean sausage roll.

I live near this person’s derelict shops and they are a real blight on the area.

Rog at 14 June 2007 8:58 AM

Apologies: the platform signs at St Margarets Station read “Churchill”, not “Chase Buchanan”. (They do tend to morph into each other in the memory.)

Hilary Ivory at 14 June 2007 10:02 AM

Perhaps all we objectors to this proposal should let Chase know that if they proceed we will, when the time comes to move on, market our property with Churchills. Now THAT might scare them.

David Bertram at 15 June 2007 12:20 PM

I think you will find Hairpin Bend is a thriving business and has been for many years. I really do think you should get your facts right before going into print.

glenn hardy at 15 June 2007 2:14 PM

Glenn Hardy is right. Hairpin Bend is a thriving business - I go there! It is in fact not owned by Kimberley Foster but by a gentleman I know quite well. I have been told that the shop next door is and this may well be the fact as that has been closed for some considerable while now. This lady has for some time now been trying to purchase Thomas (the butchers) but he owns the building and refuses to sell to her. We are also very disappointed to learn that Kobler’s is not going to be another baker’s shop.

M & R at 15 June 2007 5:00 PM

It would be a great shame to see another Estate Agent’s office open up instead of a bakers or other local retailer. Is St. Margaret’s going to be forced to submit to the proliferation of such offices, a blight which has affected so many villages and small towns in our country?

Malcolm & Alison Mathew at 15 June 2007 11:11 PM

Thank you for the statements from those who have said that Hairpin Bend is a thriving business of 23 years, and is definitely not owned by Kimberly Foster.
There have been many offers over the past years, to occupy the empty site at 296 St Margarets Rd, all of which have been turned down.

Kay Simonson at 16 June 2007 8:35 AM

What puzzles us is why Kimberley Foster wants to own so many derelict shops. Anyone any ideas?

M & R at 16 June 2007 7:48 PM

Does anyone know this Kimberley Foster? Would she like to make a statement? Why does she spoil the area by keeping shops empty? Why did she keep Koblers empty for so long and did she sell it to chase buchanan ? was this the plan all along ? keep koblers empty so people will not be bothered if another estate agent opens ?
Have we seen through you Kimberley?

Mary at 16 June 2007 10:16 PM

I think I may have found Kimberley, or at least some information anyhow.
http://www.firstlearning.co.uk/history.html

Maddie at 17 June 2007 1:06 PM

The local trade directory offers these contact details:

‘First Learning 3 Union Court, Richmond, Surrey TW9 1AA Tel: 020 8940 0744 Fax: 020 8939 2280 Email: admin@thefostergroup.co.uk Contact: Miss Kimberley Foster ‘

However this may be just a coincidence of names.

Chris Squire at 18 June 2007 2:21 PM

Have just been reliably informed that it is the same Miss Kimberley Foster who wishes to open another Nursery in this area.

M & R at 19 June 2007 7:05 PM

She boarded up the premises on the corner of Talbot and St M’s Roads (“Artefact”), but I heard that the council made her take the boards down - only to reveal the rusting tat inside the shop. That’s how it is now - and a neighbourhood blight, as is the derelict “Laisy Daisy” a few doors away.

Can the council help us, I wonder?

Rog at 20 June 2007 12:07 AM

This is a well known ‘business’ ploy. Buy up retail properties in affluent middle class areas, refuse to rent them out, let them become an eyesore, and then offer them for sale at a price that is out of the range of local would be independent trades people. Therefore when a change is use is required it’s usually then granted by the local authority who have panic attacks about every other local shop ending up derelict and the area going ‘downhill’ - which in local authority finance speak means loss of income. It will be interesting to see the the Planning Committee fall for this one.

Harry Jacobs at 20 June 2007 8:20 AM

Interesting, Harry. Thanks for that disturbing info.

I’ve seen the aforesaid Kimberley knocking about round here and am pretty sure she is the woman in the centre picture (with the mayor) of Maddie’s link.

Rog at 20 June 2007 9:18 AM

Hope everyone has objected and is encouraging others to do so?

David at 20 June 2007 10:44 AM

I didn’t intend to be quite as presumptuous in my last posting (above), as I omitted the word ‘if’ between ‘see’ & ‘the’ on the last but one line.
Mind you, based on previous recommendations by planning officers and decisions taken by planning committees, my cynicism probably overruled my typing hand.

Harry Jacobs at 20 June 2007 1:42 PM

Harry, rates for commercial properties although are collected by the local council they are passed straight onto central Government and are in no way any part of the council’s income.

In this case the shop in question is within a “Key shopping frontage” which means Chase Buchanan will have an uphill struggle to get a change of use.

Cllr Ben Khosa

Ben Khosa at 20 June 2007 4:05 PM

Thanks Ben, but I wasn’t referring to council income from business rates - and ‘Key’ or ‘Primary’ shopping frontage is unfortunately no longer the strong barrier to a change of use it once was.

Harry Jacobs at 20 June 2007 8:47 PM

It seems to me that Koblers has been kept deliberately empty. Chase Buchanan are claiming that they should be given permission for change of use because the property has been empty for two years and so nobody wants the shop. Cllr Ben Khosa - will the council take into account that the shop has been kept empty as part of a plan?

mary at 20 June 2007 10:39 PM

“nobody wants the shop”? What nonsense I’m certain that is. It’s a terrific site. I’d have thought there’s be a queue of would-be retailers.

What’s going on here? It just gets shadier…

Rog at 21 June 2007 12:19 AM

If it is the case that an argument is put forward to the planning Dept.(and it is not clear if this is so in this case) that change of use be granted due to lack of demand for the existing use then officers will normally need to see evidence of the property having been marketed before making any recommendations.

Whilst I am not a member of the planning committee any attempt (and I am not suggesting there may be in this case) to pull the wool over the eyes of any committee will be in my opinion perceived as such and be counter productive.

My view is this application is divergent to UDP policy and in the absence at this stage of any sound planning arguments in its favour it will be an uphill struggle for the applicants.

Cllr Ben Khosa

Ben Khosa at 21 June 2007 4:12 PM

So what is happening to the old butchers ?

Ian Clavis at 22 June 2007 5:50 PM

Ian, the butcher will re-open soon, it has been taken over by Armstrongs of Richmond.
Also, a specialist cheese shop is due to open at number 6 Crown Road (former Yummy Tots/Near&Far shop).
There are other food retailers looking for premises in the area too.

simon chapman at 22 June 2007 10:36 PM

I would not like to see another estate agents in st margarets. the area is already losing its village feel thanks to chain stores such as tesco and superdrug. I feel that the estate agents already existing in the area are quite enough.

paul crew at 24 June 2007 10:10 AM

If it wasn’t bad enough that St Margarets Road has been turned into one big advertising billboard for the estate agents, ANOTHER turning up can only be bad for the area. More estate agents and their boards can only erode further the charm of the village.

Fiona

Fiona at 24 June 2007 5:11 PM

Is it also worth pointing out that most of Chase Buchanan’s signs are actually illegal? Section 3 (A)(3) of the The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 states that any estate agent’s sign “shall be removed within 14 days after the sale is completed or a tenancy is granted”

Chase Buchanan are constantly, and, I suspect, deliberately, in breach of the law in this respect. There are countless signs of theirs in the St Margarets area that have been up long beyond the stipulated 14 day period. My guess is that this is a matter of policy for them. In any case, I would like their illegal advertising to be a factor in any application of theirs to open new premises. I would also be interested to know what, if any, penalties there are that can be brought against them.

https://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19920666_en_9.htm

Andrew Ward at 24 June 2007 5:45 PM

We tried very hard to rent 115 St Margarets Road and have documents to prove this. We eventually gave up when we found a vacant retail premises. We have never received a reply to our letter to the Trustees of Mrs Kobler asking them to state the conditions they required to sign the lease. To our amazement the “To Let” sign was replaced by a “For Sale” sign and we were never notified

LYNDA VARTULI at 24 June 2007 10:14 PM

Just to confirm, just because there is a ‘TO LET’ sign outside 6 Crown Road (Near and Far) I am setting up a specialist cheese shop, opening early September after some refurbishment. This will no doubt compliment the existing shops in St Margarets, together with the new butchers, and from what I hear some great new interesting other specialist shops, which could make St Margarets a ‘gourmet’s delight’ area. We could almost be a mini ‘Borough Market’ in the depth of West London!…. in what - at the moment at least - is a great village atmosphere with local independent premises adding some interest to what could just be another boring high street - just look at Twickenham….boring! - Although a good local estate agents is commendable, do Chase Buchanan really need another shop front which is ideal for another specialist shop (there is plenty of office space for people selling houses over the phone!) St Margarets is a great place, but could be thriving even more with all the intersting combination of shops/restauarants/cafes/etc - which can only be good for all (including estate agents!) so leave the shops alone/allow ‘friendly’ parking, and all local residents will be enjoying a great experience. Looking forward to meeting all cheese lovers soon!
David :)

David Harries at 25 June 2007 6:47 PM

I think David has summed it all up very well.
RUT council officialdom please take note.

Harry Jacobs at 25 June 2007 8:15 PM

My mother has been over from Dublin for a few days: we were just commenting last night how the old bakery was the heart of the community, the village pump - or I suppose water cooler now - where builder and property baron, yummy mummy and au-pair, pensioner and stroppy teenager, met and exchanged news and moans about the weather. Certainly when she visited then, I never sent her out for a small brown organic and a poppyseed twist without her coming back with a three volume novel’s worth of stories about our area. That’s what we need, not another streetscape killing estate agents. Permitting a change of use would be a calamitous precedent, which could eventually kill all our remaining independent traders as their leases come up for renewal.

Maev Kennedy at 26 June 2007 3:58 PM

I cannot believe Chase will have two shops so close together. I am sorry If I have missed it, but what are they doing with their current place? Maybe we can take the place they have, which is a better size, and discuss possibilities for a late opening delicatessen?

clayton at 26 June 2007 9:29 PM

Re. Churchill’s - I loathe graffiti and all its perpetrators, but by golly I was sorely tempted to get my felt tip out whilst standing on St. M’s station this morning.

Barnes advertises The Wetland Centre and Vauxhall plugs The Home Of Surrey Cricket (both acceptable, imo) - but an ESTATE AGENT? Good grief! Who allowed this nonsense?

Rog at 27 June 2007 12:21 AM

Clayton - Chase Buchanan are planning to open two branches next door to each other. They are not looking to let/sell their present branch.

simon chapman at 27 June 2007 12:39 AM

It was said somewhere that one branch would be for selling and one for letting.

Chris Squire at 27 June 2007 6:48 PM

Hi Simon,
\sorry but could you give me a direct link to the council so I can say something? They did sell my house but have no real need of them , hopefully for a long time. Is there an active wealthy syndicate around with any ideas?

clayton at 27 June 2007 8:33 PM

sorry just found it-try a little change in colour

clayton at 27 June 2007 8:35 PM

hope this helps-sent to the council

I am objecting to the possibility of Chase Buchanan increasing their cover of st.margarets by taking the old Bakery on crown road. I have now been living in this area, and have borne three children in this area, because it is absolutely unique within London in that it has a community feel that is not felt anywhere else.It was a major loss when the butcher and the bakery shut down recently. We all hoped, and sometimes thought about doing something ourselves but are probably too busy working to pay the increased mortgages we now have due to marketing. I believe there are a number of interested parties for the bakery site, and would feel terrible If these people, who could add so much to the community, did not get a chance, due to some guy who needs to stretch his legs. I would appreciate your comments as to how a larger Chase Buchanan will benefit ther area

Regards Clayton Borek

clayton at 27 June 2007 8:48 PM

The current ratio of objections to support comments is about 46:1 on the Richmond Planning site. 2 out of the 3 “support” proposals are actually objections that have been misposted.

Nigel Cannings at 28 June 2007 1:07 PM

Rog,
You’ve not been through Putney station lately?
“Home of Douglas & Gordon - London’s most innovative Estate Agents” !!!
Ed

Ed at 29 June 2007 11:38 PM

Also I know that

• Gunnersbury Station is sponsored by BSI
• Vauxhaul Station is ‘home of the Brit Oval’
• Twickenham Station has RFU banners

However, the are all more subtle and their sponsorship resulted in flowers for the station.

Peter at 30 June 2007 8:31 AM

It seems the petition attracted over 1300 signatures. You have to wonder if Chase Buchanan will ever sell another house in this town again?

I suspect that their lease is subject to planning permission being granted, and that legally they cannot withdraw from the process now without the consent of the landlord. It would be nice to have a public statement from CB on the matter.

It’s a shame, in a way, as I sold and bought my last house through them, and got great service, and they were very nice people.

Nigel Cannings at 5 July 2007 12:59 PM

I am shocked at most of your ill informed comments and suggest that rather than dealing in tattle tales you go in and speak to Chase Buchanan, who i found to be lovely and helpful professionals when i questioned them about this, quite unlike some of the businesses locally and completely different from the hideous service i recieved through Churchills. The shop next door was offered to them for expansion as it was too expensive for any local businesses, other alternatives were an Oliver Bonus type chain boutique (which would surely put the local Gift shop out of business) and Starbucks (again the lovely Zorans and Sunshine would be packing their bags before long) no other bakers or small retail outlets could afford the price, although a few made offers and lots were interested during the years it was empty. I remember asking the builders who were working there what was happening to be told that Starbucks were a contendor so i breathed a sign of relief when i heard Chase Buchanan were taking it over and sparing us from more local chains like Superdrug! I have lived in the area for years and am surprised at all of you who have gladly used Chase Buchanan to buy or sell, had nothing but nice words to say about them, but who swiftly jump on the band wagon and are the first to stab them in the back. My experience is that they sponsor every school fete and disco going, as well as contribute hugely to the Christmas fair, i have got recommendations for plumbers and electricians from them when not even moving and have popped in to chat to them about the local market from time to time, they even have a collection in the branch for Help the Aged!! They are lovely professional people in a small company and real part of the comunity and although i am not a general fan of estate agents (just take the motley crew from that awful Churchills - who by the way also have two shop fronts and who provide what only can be described as a terrible service), i feel i have to make a stand for these people who, put it into playground terms, seem to be being bullied by all and sundry!! Now i love living in St Margarets and would never normally get involved in a silly uproar like this, but i really felt compelled to say to the likes of Mr Canning lets pray that indeed Chase Buchanan do sell even more houses in our town rather than the crooks at Foxtons and Churchills which would be a very sad day indeed!!! Bear in mind who starting this petition, which i for one have refused to sign, i think you will find it is local greedy shop owners, not us residents who have have been pleased to use Chase Buchanans services over the years. What a naive view point if you think that no more agents will open here, at least we know and trust the ones that are making an attempt to expand and i commend them for trying to ensure they are stopping Starbucks and trying to provide an even better service than before!!!

Sarah G at 11 July 2007 3:08 PM

I’ve been using Churchills as letting agents for the past 6 years on some flats I own in SMR. I’ve always found them totally courteous and helpful and frankly am amazed at Sarah G’s nasty and malicious comments. To describe Churchills (and Foxtons) as “crooks” is libellous and I suggest Sarah promptly withdraw her remarks unless she has firm evidence to support them.

As to Churchills’ station sign, they’re quite entitled to use any reasonable adverting slogan they require. Why get het up about something so mundane? Presumaby the poster site is rented from Network Rail who would require it to be changed if deemed unreasonable or offensive.

I keep a close eye on property matters in St Margaret’s and have absolutely no doubt that the owners could readily achieve their original asking rent (£25K p.a.) on the old bakers’ shop - in fact I believe it was under offer at this figure for months before the owners decided to sell the freehold. It may be that the terms have now changed and Chase B are offering the highest rent (or for all I know may be associated with the owners) , but to suggest that the rent required is likely to be too high for a retailer is quite wrong.

The old bakers’ shop has a very large basement with rear access and if Chase do acquire the property, I consider that the use of their current unit should revert to A1 retail - there may be difficulties here if Chase are simply the tenants and not the owners.

Neither do I consider that Zorans or Sunshine or the gift shop have anything to fear from multiple traders - they all offer a first rate service and I’d guess that Starbucks have reached the conclusion that they wouldn’t make enough money in the area - otherwise they’d surely have opened a branch sometime in the past 10 years!

mike isaacs at 11 July 2007 5:13 PM

Humm… Sarah G and Mike Isaacs (and others!) I think this issue is, and should be, more about the loss of an retail shop front for an office space… not really about estate agents in general, or specifically.

I am led to believe that the owner who sold it to Chase had many good offers to rent and purchase the place — perhaps Chase just offered more. Also, I think its there is no evidence that Chase will convert their existing space into an A1 retail space.

So the issue really is about losing the retail space that helps define a community or creating an office space that offers nothing nearly so precious.

Peter at 11 July 2007 9:03 PM

Sarah G - This issue is not about Chase Buchanan in particular it is about losing a protected retail unit to office space. The council has guidelines and polices to protect local communities like St. Margarets. If the council were to grant change of use for this key frontage then this would open up the entire area to just about all the estate agents in the borough if not further. How would you feel Sarah if a branch of Dexters were to open in St. Margarets? followed by Townsends, Jardine, Snellers, Foxtons, need I go on, because once the council has granted change of use for a key retail unit it would become very difficult to prevent a barrage of similar applications. We all know how buoyant the housing market is in St Margarets and every estate agent in the area would love a slice of the action, in fact another estate did have the opportunity to purchase the old bakers site, but decided that by applying for change of use for such a key site the application would probably result in refusal and would be detrimental to their good name.
Sarah please don’t lose sight of the fact that there has never been a shortage of retailers looking to open a retail shop on the site and at a premium market rate. There still are retailers that would take the site if it were available. One of the most recent companies interested in taking the site is an independent food company who specialise in prepared foods made to additive free recipes, who also specialise in organic childrens meals and organic baby food. Maybe you should be asking why the buildings owners have kept the site empty?
Within your comments Sarah you mention your discussions with the builders about Starbucks - remember these builders also put up the ‘Ann Summers opening here’ sign so I would stick to facts not assumptions or heresay.

I have used Chase Buchanans services and I agree with your comments about the staff but this does not give them the right to change a retail site into an office, this would also apply to any other estate agent who wanted the site. The petition (started by myself) was signed by over 1300 residents and a further 50 residents also took the trouble to write to the council separately to object to the proposal.

simon chapman at 12 July 2007 1:02 AM

Thank you for your comments Simon, i am in a calmer mood today and would agree with your comments about the builders, as they also told my neighbours that a McDonalds was opening there which clearly was not an option! However do you not feel this has all got a little out of control, i don’t want my two children to think that it is right to hound down and petition against a local company for wanting to expand. By all means make your thoughts known to the council by writing independant letters, i know i would rather a small retailer take it over than another estate agent, but do you not feel that your petition perhaps was a little over the top and actually this matter may have been dealt with in the wrong way? In light of the options that i am to believe were contenders for that premises, Chase Buchanan were certainly the best!! I love the idea of an Organic food store and would gladly use it if it were in place, for both my children and myself, but i just felt sorry for a local business, wanting to expand due to their local sucess, who legally offered on an empty property and have been ‘hunted down’ and targeted by all the residents it works for, regardless of them being Estate Agents, they are first and formost nice and professional people in my experience. To Mr Issacs, I am not saying regarding Churchills and Foxtons that some people may not have had good experiences, mine hasn’t been a good one of either company and they have, in my case behaved like crooks towards me, so no - i will not be bullied into removing my comments, although i am pleased that you are there to defend them by using your good experiences, i wish i could say the same! This is not meant to be a personal attack towards any person or retailer - i use all the shops and coffee shops along the high street, including Gift, Cutters, Sunshine and Zorans, but i am mearly a stand against what i feel is bullying. I agree Simon that this shouldn’t be personal it should be about our local businesses and the current shop use but if they weren’t going to go for it perhaps Foxtons would have and that really would have been a disaster. I didn’t even mention to those at Chase B that i was going to post a message, in fact i wouldn’t say i was overly friendly towards them, but i like them and i feel i should buck against the band wagon that i feel is running out of control. In an area i love, the people that made the community are seeming to be veering on the nasty side and i want to make a stand against it. I will be writing to the council privately regarding my thoughts, but i will certainly not stop using Chase Buchanan for any future moves or advice and i would really hope no other residents would either.

Sarah G at 12 July 2007 10:34 AM

I have been observing over the last few weeks some of the comments made regarding our application (and other matters) and felt inclined to respond following the last half a dozen entries - the senior partners of Chase Buchanan (Colin & Bradley) will be making a formal response at an appropriate time. We have always had an excellent relationship with the local traders in Crown Road and respect their opinions and comments as well as those of the the local residents and have no real issues with the manner adopted in order to encourage our application being rejected. I feel we are a successful company who purely want to expand our existing office space and in context, should the likes of Sunshine & Ravioli have wanted to expand into a vacant shop next door to them, I wouldn’t have had any objections. Whilst we have received many positive reactions, I take on board all responses and indeed went to see Simon, Zoran and Mike (S & R) to chat directly and I appeciate Simon’s reasoning for driving the petition, even though it seems many people were bullied into signing it. Whilst I don’t actually reside in St Margarets, I do feel like a local resident, having worked here for so many years and am proud of the reputation we have (especially as estate agents) and the strong relationship we have built up with so many local residents and traders. I hope that may continue to grow once this is all behind us. As I say, Colin and Bradley will respond in due course. Meanwhile, I will be at The St Margarets Fair on Saturday and would like to think I’m approachable if anyone would like to have a chat and express their opinions. Whilst most of the comments made above are not derogatory about us, I do not condone any bad-mouthing of any local agency or business. I look forward to seeing many of you on Saturday at which point you are welcome to burst our balloons if you like!

Michael Peacock, Partner, Chase Buchanan, St Margarets at 12 July 2007 1:22 PM

I wonder what makes you say that people were bullied into signing?

Jane at 12 July 2007 3:13 PM

Bullied ?

my opinion of Chase Buchanan has changed a great deal?

I will no longer support mssrs Chase and Buchanan

mary at 12 July 2007 5:45 PM

Apologies Jane, I’m sure most people certainly weren’t bullied and that wasn’t the message I was trying to convey - i was just aware that some had been heavily pressured to sign. The point of my earlier response was to express that we care greatly the opinions of those that would be affected and have taken their thoughts into consideration. I’m sure in due course people will appreciate that. Come and see me at the Fair for a free glass of Pimms!

Michael at 12 July 2007 6:55 PM

Perhaps this doesn’t quite fit under the topic, but given the nature of the recent postings - a more positive thought. What a delight to see that Armstrongs are taking so much trouble with the re-fit to Mr Frisby’s shop. Perhaps the icing on the cake is the refurbishment of the booth (complete with clock) that housed the cash till. If their products are up to their ‘set’ design they’re on to a winner.

Harry Jacobs at 13 July 2007 7:15 AM

I am so surprised at Chase Buchanans most recent comments. I have always thougth they had the edge on many of the other estate agents in the area, may be not any more?
Chase Buchanan say that people have been bullied, I find this most stange. I have on several occasions I have been sitting in one of the coffee shops and seen people come in just to sign the petition, nobody has been forced to sign, it is the right of the individual to choose. Are Chase Buchanan saying that the people of St. Margarets do not know their own minds or is it more that Chase Buchanan are embarrassed by the number of people who do not want another estate agent office in the area.

R. Winstanley at 13 July 2007 11:15 AM

Although i was determined not to get sucked back into making anymore comments, I do have to say that i went into a certain local premises and was asked to sign the petition, when i declined i was given a huge pitch which amounted to ‘you would if you cared about this area’ the pitch was full of inncorrect and quite spiteful comments, i even had a member of staff shaking their head at me when again i refused. If this agressive sales pitch and obvious disproval does not amount to some form of bullying then i don’t know what does? Surely i have a right to sign or not to sign without being judged? I told Mr Peacock of Chase Buchanan about this experience as did a few local friends and this is maybe where he got this information for his posting? What a shame you all jumped on that instead of all the more positive things he had to say?! I’m very surprised at the reaction of my neighbours and community residents to this whole situation - it all seems so dreadfully negative. This has even been discussed in my daughters playground which is both shocking and i think quite sad, are global warming, the interest rates or the current terror alerts not far more pressing issues, and far more important topics of conversation whilst standing in our childrens playgrounds, than a mere planned local business expansion?! Sadly, it seems not!

Sarah G at 13 July 2007 12:06 PM

Sarah G - why did you wait until 2 weeks after the petition ended to start this nonsense?

Mary at 13 July 2007 2:39 PM

I would just like to add to the various comments on this topic and particularly alleged bullying to sign the petition. I was personally met with a very curt and dismissive attitude by a lady serving me in Cutters recently who, when I suggested I would not sign her petition, stated that I obviously hadn’t lived in the area long(only 6 years!) and did not understand the local area/issues.

On that basis there is certainly some validity to the bullying claim. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however no one opinion is more valid than another and I do not appreciate the unecessary manner in which I was spoken to because I was not in agreement with the lady in question. I can see how other more reluctant members of the community could feel intimidated by this unneccssary approach.

For the record I own a local retail business and am a St Margarets resident. My business has suffered from long term derelict retail premises in close proximity to me, however the potential of another national chain is very real (Starbucks, Greggs etc etc) and this would destroy the village of St Margarets as many have already highlighted.

Chase Buchanan are a model local business with offices in Twix, St Margarets, Hampton. They are very supportive of the local community and local businesses.

The reality of the commercial world we all live in(like it or not!) is that market forces will prevail. If a local food business, cake shop or whatever wanted the Kobblers site then they obviously didn’t do a very good or persistent job of negotiating with the building owners and that is where the fault lies, rather than directing anger towards a legitimate local business which is trying to expand. While I agree we should all try and protect the village nature of where we live, conspiracy theories and mud slinging do us all a dis-service.

Mark at 13 July 2007 2:58 PM

Nonsense, is standing up against bullying and bucking against the norm nonsense?! Personally i think i am speaking the least nonsense of everyone on this forum! I voiced my opinion privately to friends and family until i felt it had got out of control and then decided to put my view accross on here, not that its any of your business when i decide to voice my opinion! I think you will also find that i am not starting anything but am instead trying to put a stop to the silly runaway dramatics that have gripped us all!!

Sarah G at 13 July 2007 2:59 PM

While my personal experience of Chase Buchanan is that they are lazy, duplicitous and incompetent, the point is that the area’s needs are best served by buildings zoned as shops remaining as shops and not by landlords who refuse retailers’ reasonable offers in order to keep shops empty and thus contrive a change of use to gain a higher rent from an estate agent whose need for offices could easily be met elsewhere.

p.s. Punctuation and spellchecks are a great thing, don’t you think?

David at 13 July 2007 3:37 PM

To return to the point Simon makes above, the issue is whether or not that shop ought to be changed from retail use to office use, and whether that sets a dangerous precendent.

I’m sure that if the application had been for a change of use, with the existing CB shop reverting to retail use, no-one would have a problem (I believe I am right in thinking that the current CB premises was retail use, and got retrospective planning permission after it had been used as a letting agency for a number of years)

It probably doesn’t matter who applied for a change of use. The response would have been the same. Chase Buchanan did so, so they are on the receiving end of the campaign. I’m sure if someone came up with reliable contact details for the owner, they would be as much on the receiving end as CB. It’s just that CB is a visible presence.

While I was not involved in preparing or pushing the petition, I am sorry that anyone should feel pressured, and that is not right. Feelings do run high about these things, but this is a friendly communuity, and there are enough of us who do get active in local campaigns that we don’t need to force people to sign petitions.

That doesn’t invalidate the petition or the argument, though. No-one can suggest that the large number of people who wrote to the Council (far more than on almost any other recent planning issue, including the Wine Bar, I think) were bullied or pressured into doing so.

There is a great deal of resentment at the perceived rapaciousness of the previous landlords who (we are told) raised the rent on a valuable local business to an unsustainable point, only to see the property languish for a number of years.

Mark says “If a local food business, cake shop or whatever wanted the Kobblers site then they obviously didn’t do a very good or persistent job of negotiating with the building owners and that is where the fault lies” - I’m not sure that’s the case.

I am sure that anyone who has had tried to run a retail or food establishment will tell you just how hard it is to keep it going (I know, I’ve done it). Any landlord is going to know that a food shop that goes in there today runs at rleast a 50% chance of closing in the next 12 months.

An estate agency? Notwithstanding new assaults coming from on-line (there is a certain irony that Tesco, who already control much of the trade in St Margarets has just launched an on-line estate agency with fees around the £200 mark), they are a much better long-term bet from a solvency perspective, even if they offered the same rent as a baker.

But the fact remains that it is zoned as a retail shop, and when the new owner acquired it, that retail use would have been factored into the price. I can understand why the owner would want to maximise the value of the investment, but by the same token, we are totally within our rights to try to maintain the shop as a retail premises.

Who knows, maybe we will be successful, and only allow Costa Coffee to waltz in and snap the site up, and all the detractors from the campaign will be able to say that we allowed in a large chain over a small local store. Perhaps so. But at least we will have resisted the precedent to convert valuable retail space into offices.

St Margarets has an unusually diverse range of independent retail shops. Change enough of them into offices (estate agents, solicitors, who cares?), and you will reach a tipping point where there won’t be enough shops to encourage people to shop further than Tesco.

Nigel Cannings at 13 July 2007 3:52 PM

PLEASE KEEP THE TONE OF THESE COMMENTS FRIENDLY AND REASONABLE OR I WILL TURN THEM OFF

Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk at 13 July 2007 7:13 PM

I love living in St Margarets…because, of its village atmosphere, and I would hate for this to disappear, as I feel it undoubtedly will with the appearance of more estate agents and shops like Tesco and Superdrug…I for one would rather have the dear old Koblers’ Bakery, which I miss greatly…left derelict,until we have another bakery or a more Suitable shop, than see another estate agents in its place. After all, it’s not that far to Richmond or Twickenham, if you need an estate agent’s is it?

On a more positive note, Hooooorah for the new cheese shop, apothecary, Gift and Cutters, all our other great little shops, may they stay in St Margaret’s and prosper, and encourage the community/council to support small and unique, above run of the mill chain stores and estate agents.

Michele at 21 September 2007 1:34 PM