Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We used to think it was great and went there loads - loved the food and most of all the great service from the 2 men that ran it. However I agree with ElPresidente above re the change in management - there was a marked change in service and food. The staff changed from being really helpful to disinterested and although we persevered in the hope things would pick up again, we stopped going.


On a positive note Terroirs is great (the old managers had a link to Terroirs - not sure about the recent management) and the old manager is now running a new restaurant in Sydenham - one on the list to check out!


Fingers crossed it returns in some shape or form but with better service.

DK_87 Wrote:

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

> Have Terroirs always owned it or did it used to be

> independent?


It used to be a nice indie wine bar/wine shop called Green and Blue. Before that it was a terrible restaurant called... was it Reynolds or something?


But AFAIK they have all rented the premises.

It has been part of the Terroirs group since it stopped being Green and Blue. Whatever happens is a win-win for me since I love ToastED as it is (they get their croissants from Little Bread Pedlar which makes it the best in Lordship Lane for breakfast, in my view). And Terroirs is one of my favourite restaurants in town especially for pre theatre.
Agreed, ToastED has been my favourite place in ED, possibly Londonwide too, since I moved here 3 years ago. Terroirs by Charing X is very good but not as good. And the new place will not be serving brunch. Their mushrooms on toast, and more recently the black pudding, was incredible. The staff were always lovely. It will be sorely missed.

It turns out that the premises (both sides) has mixed A1/A4 permissions.


An A4 wine bar can legitimately serve side dishes such a peanuts or crisps with the alcohol.


The new occupiers are unlikely to use the premises as an A3 restaurant without permission.


Mr Barber can seek enforcement action if they do.



James Barber Wrote:

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

> The current premises status I believe is as an A1

> shop. They were a wine shop come delicatessen that

> also served food.

> A change of use without the correct planning

> permission would be illegal.

Its owned by the same French Wine company. Terriors look and ethos is probably more honest of where they've been heading, so to fully become that makes sense.


They initially had an innovative Australian chef Mike hazel, he fought to keep doing the food he wanted and people loved. He's back in Australia now.


The big wine boss loves French bistro stlye dishes, so that's pretty much what you'll get.


It'll be nice enough, though I hope they loose that dark decor area.

Seabag Wrote:

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

>

> They initially had an innovative Australian chef

> Mike hazel, he fought to keep doing the food he

> wanted and people loved. He's back in Australia

> now.

>



Lucky Australia.


The first time I ate there I wanted to lick the plate, really delicious food.

Seabag Wrote:

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

> They initially had an innovative Australian chef

> Mike hazel, he fought to keep doing the food he

> wanted and people loved. He's back in Australia

> now.


Mike Hazelwood (known as ?Hazel?) was a Kiwi and he?s back in New Zealand now.


But yes, lucky New Zealand. He was great.

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

    • Unfortunately there are two ways of examining this, if we even had the figures. The first is simply to look at the revenues paid to the Council and see if the costs (in terms of setting it up and recovery from it, including administrative cost) are less than the revenues. This would be quite simple to do assuming we could agree the proper allocation of those costs. But additionally we have the amenity cost to those Southwark residents either (a) losing amenity value through e.g. disruption, and secondly losing amenity value by being excluded from parts of a public park for an extended period in summer. That is not a fiscal cost to the council and clearly they don't give a damn, but that would be the only way of judging whether this event was of overall net benefit to Southwark residents, the only people who the council should be 'working' for. Don't hold your breaths. 
    • Think it might have been this: https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/05/mystery-bangs-traumatised-londoners-last-night-25170083/
    • I need a trundle bed! 2 single beds that convert into one double bed. Preferably wooden. If you have one that you no longer use/would like to sell, please get in touch via PM.  Thank you 
    • Dulwich College had the "luck" of those allegations landing right in the middle of COVID when the media and everyone else was a bit distracted. And then to make double sure the discontent was suppressed, it threatened kids who wanted to demonstrate with police action. The kids at the time said: "Dulwich College has for years totally ignored, dismissed and condoned by turning a blind eye, this predatory behaviour by students... A protest was students’ only way to pressure the headmaster to actually tackle the sexual violence at his school.” The march by pupils of several schools was advertised on social media as “a demonstration against the predatory culture of Dulwich College and the school management [which] condones it". https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/26/dulwich-college-head-warns-pupils-over-culture-protest
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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