swiders

correct to a point on the local "traders" there Huguenot. If my memory serves me correctly, it was one local "trader" (who pulled a whopping 2.38% in the 2000 mayoral elections) who lead what at times was a spiteful and can be argued political campaign against a small zone proposed around ED Station (to try and offset problems such as the one noted by Bony Fido). Despite the Borough working up a solution which in most parts would not have impacted on trade along the lane, it was never progressed. c'est la vie.

hey, thats a great idea you've got there - rename something so as to attach a greater value to it on the basis that the neighbouring property or area is far more salubrious/wealthy/has greater economic value. i hereby rename your country of birth "East Australia" and you shall from this point forth be called "EDEastAussie". Sounds like a fair application of your theory to me? Seriously.

keef - still to this day, no matter how many gigs i've been to, the pumpkins melon collie tour was the best concert I have ever seen. to start the whole gig with the steve mcqueen car chase on a massive screen was $%?&! dynamite. support act was Def FX - part Goth/Punk outfit. ahhh......psychoactive summer like no other....

mightyroar - agreed, best gig i have ever seen at brixton. period. apparently there is a dvd available of it. have you heard he has put together a new outfit - http://www.myspace.com/grinderman

any band that is playing/should be playing at Rock Werchter in Belgium this year. great line-up, especially now that Interpol have been added to the bill. been flogging Turn on the Bright Lights mercilessly. things that i'm playing on the decks or listening to on the trip in to out of work new young pony club bloc party the rapture yeah yeah yeahs hot chip lee daggers latest miami calling CD (he of bimbo jones fame or the guy who did the leo sayer remix last year) mason vs exceeder the klaxons cut copy smashing pumpkins (nostalgia since Billy party reformed the band) the view young knives i vote for snow patrol extermination as well. and keane for that matter!

clare, you can't be real? every time i see ricky wilson and the gang staring seriously at me at the Elephant and Castle junction it just cracks me up. having said that, i've probably seen the chiefs at more festivals than most bands. they were just everywhere in 2005 and 2006 so it was unavoidable really. good fun but def not "serious".

i used to live in kentish town on leighton road - just around the corner from the forum. also a good live venue although now its the home of "the church" and "school disco" so less appeal. looking forward to seeing those random canadians. have you read the post about the indie band at the herne on the 24th - its in the whats on section. they sound alright, will def get along and have a look. yes...still off post.

clare - is that arcade fire? if you are upstairs (circle tickets), then yes they do have seats. if you have standing stalls downstairs then nope, you lucked oot eh. i'm sure they'll let you upstairs if you smile sweetly - there are always more seats vacant because people head downstairs. as for chips? huh? is that code for some other Brixton substance? and yes, off post i know.....

well, one of a number of things may have happened here. sure, the 50% rule may exist as policy but the officers didn't see fit to accept that as a reason for outright refusal of the application in the first place did they - or did i miss something? why is that the case? were the officers of the same opinion as Tom? so, if the 50% rule was applied as a reason for refusal by councillors, a statement of fact by Cllr Thomas on this forum, was there a precedent for other applications or are councillors well versed in minutae of local planning policies and their legal implications that they were always going to refuse the application? or is it a case of local barracking from (and i can only draw from other postings from numerous people here who aren't offended that CN trades) a vocal minority? i thoroughly agree with mockney - if the borough hangs on to the 50% policy as a means of defence and they lose an appeal, what % of cafe/restaraunt is considered a good balance and would this ruling open up the way for other food/cafe outlets to open on LL? how much is too much?

it wouldn't be the first time an officer has to effectively defend a position at Inquiry that they initially argued against. unless southwark log working hours (or a consultant does the work for them) you will probably never know. the overall bill will end up in the thousands for sure. my pounds would be on a successful appeal if they do appeal. and a side bet on sheeepish southwark representations to the Inspector having to defend what is, at best, not a position of any strength.

Subject to them wanting to appeal, I would suggest that it would be the smart money on there still being a Cafe Nero in situ for many years to come. So, your lattes from non-locally based profit-mongers, as some would possibly call them, are probably safe (cue: sigh of relief from my girlfriend). In a situation such as this where the grounds of refusal are questionable and the initial applications have been supported by the local planning authority in question, an appeal under hearing from an Inspector will most likely find in favour of Nero. As stated in the Officers report - "The applicants in support of their application submitted two appeal decisions (ref: APP/l1765/C/04/1147130 - 107 High Street, Winchester and P/PPA/230/659 & P/ENA/230/118 - 177 Morningside Road, Edinburgh), for similar A1/A3 uses where planning permission was granted and an enforcement notice quashed. The Inspectors in both appeals concluded that the use of the appeal premises had no adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the shopping frontage, the fact that pedestrian flows are maintained and it is a use which needs to be maintained on the ground floor of a primary shopping frontage. The Inspectors also concluded that the use complements the retail function of the primary shopping frontage and draws people to it thereby increasing its attractiveness." Inspectors are very straight forward animals in that they don't take emotion into account. PeckhamNative - costs are not always sought after by defendants in cases where they are in effect in accordance with the Borough itself. Its a case by case basis - sometimes they may feel there is no point in sticking the boot in where they have to work with the Borough elsewhere (for e.g. Nero may have other outlets on the table they want to have dealt with). Others simply may want to draw a line. Precedent + Lack of Reasonable Grounds (pardon the coffee pun...couldn't help myself) = Nero to stay

http://greenwichwatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/exclusive-greenwich-congestion-charge.html

just had a call from the gym cancelling yet another class tonight - the gym is apparently re-opening on March 5th and the pool "about" 2 weeks later. Or it could be the other way around. or not. or maybe no-one knows down there? Anyway, apparently a sign will be placed out the front when it looks like they have settled on a date and the fees will only be taken out pro-rata. apparently.

i can't wait for the hysterical hyperdrive reaction that will follow once the issue starts to be looked at. classic phrases such as "stealth tax" and "anti-motorist" etc will be wheeled out. certainly if the last CPZ consultation is anything to go by that will be the case. lest the facts get in the way. I guess people just have to face facts, when there are too many cars around the lack of control may just create more problems than solve and thus a form of road space charge can be an effective solution. Its true that people have to change some of their travel habits (we don't use our car for local trips except for the odd big shop to sainsburys) but hand in hand with this, people have to accept with greater affluence comes greater pressures on road space and ultimately parking. Its really a matter now of examining, as factually as possibly without people getting juvenile and maniacal, the problems (if indeed there are any and what is the most likely cause) and if a CPZ is a logical and acceptable form of response.

apparently our monthly swim fees are not being taken out so at least they are reacting slightly proactively. a call or letter expaining the situation or even a post on this site would be helpful tho.