cafe nero - petition

[tiddles]

hi, popped in for a coffee and they have a petition on the counter - apparently southwark are refusing them their retrospective planning permission (apologies if that is not completely correct) but the gist is that they are being closed down. I did say I would think about it = basically, if nero had not got in, maybe we wouln't have been lumbered with foxtons. I didn't way it in a nasty way at all - not fair on the staff, however several people in the queue agreed with that principal. Yes, very hypocritical I know since I was buying a coffee!!! but I think that was the basis of the main objections to nero = the march of the chains. I suspect that so many people have complained to southwark about foxtons and they want to show that they can throw their weight around from time to time, Just a shame its poor old nero's

[Ladygooner]

Oh no! Must pop in at the weekend and sign the petition!

[Frisco]

What's the retrospective planning permission for?

[EDOldie]

Strikes me as typical of the arrogance of the multiple chains. I hope S'wark aren't mealy mouthed and cave in to them. No one wants to see another empty shop in LL but perhaps it means S'wark have recognised the unique nature of the shopping area. This could be a great step forward. Chairman Oldie.

[Mark]

Frisco Wrote:

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

> What's the retrospective planning permission for?

they want planning permission to be able to sell food, which, as they never got the correct planning permission for in the first place means they've been trading naughtily since they opened.

[Jah Lush]

F**k 'em. Serves 'em right. They can stick their petition where the sun don't shine. Hopefully Foxtons will be next on Southwark's agenda.

[EDOldie]

Don't think they can do anything about Foxtons as the ground floor was already offices, A2, when they went in there.

[snorky]

Chains build this type of inconvenience into their Schedule, knowing fine well that council rarely get around to sorting things out once the business is up n running - there wa problem with signeage PP with neros IIRC.

close them down.

Nothing personal, but Southwark must be firm to stop people taking the piss.

See how much effort is taken with domestic Loft conversions and suchlike, yet a business has an effective free reign to do whatever and apply for permission afterwards - is accepted nowadays

sign the petition and you cant utter a word when the next heinous development goes ahead without the correct permissions beuing granted - just cos you like the product doesnt change the principle - today a coffee bar, tomorrow a waste depot for an asbestos stipping business....?

All they want is your money - by aligning with them via their precious petition, you are giving a de facto permission for all and sundry to do whatever they want.

Ask yourswelf - Do you care about ED ?

[Muttley]

I've always said that the best outcome would be for Caffe Nero to be turfed out (for riding roughshod over the rules), on the condition that they are replaced by a NON-CHAIN coffee shop. That way the folk of ED get to keep the large, buggy-friendly coffee shop that is clearly a popular local amenity, while the chains are taught an important lesson.

Maybe Southwark can next turn their attention to environmental issues. Any shops that gratuitously use excess electricity (eg lighting) when closed should be shut down immediately. Now let me think, any candidates...?

[jumpinjourno]

as a local journo i have done a little background on this... heres the boring bit...

cafe nero were supposed to have applied to the council for a change of use from the original hardware / glassware shop before it opened as a cafe.

It failed to do so and Southwark Council told them it had to apply. They applied. Southwark refused to grant it on the basis that LL has a 50/50 limitation on the number of retail vs cafe, bars, restaurants etc...

Cafe Nero could face closure as they do not comply with the usage legislation, ... the story continues...

Check your Southwark News for latest developments...

DY

[EDOldie]

Trouble is with that. You can't say to one company you can sell fod in the premises and no to another because they are a chain. The real problem is that the lane is a victim of it's own sucess. The corporates are the only people with the financial clout to pay the large rents and the premiums for the leases. The best thing to do is support the independents as much as possible, and I accept it's not always possible. Southwark taking a stand will send a message but C. Nero can always appeal and will probably win on appeal.

[Muttley]

> It failed to do so and Southwark Council told them

> it had to apply. They applied. Southwark refused

> to grant it on the basis that LL has a 50/50

> limitation on the number of retail vs cafe, bars,

> restaurants etc...

>

Hey, Foxton's operates a cafe too, any chance they could get nailed under this 50/50 legislation? :)

[mockney piers]

"You can't say to one company you can sell fod in the premises and no to another because they are a chain."

I don't think that's the case. 50/50 limit has been hit and no more food places, chain or otherwise, until another food place closes or Southwark Council change their minds.

I can't help feeling there was a hint of the two fingers in that decision for trying to present them with a fait accompli.

The petition is a bit rich too, poor diddums.

[EDOldie]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> "You can't say to one company you can sell fod in

> the premises and no to another because they are a

> chain."

>

> I don't think that's the case. 50/50 limit has

> been hit and no more food places, chain or

> otherwise, until another food place closes or

> Southwark Council change their minds.

Sorry, not what I meant, you couldn't close Nero because they are Nero and another independent open in the same prems.

[Keef]

Excellent, it can make room for a 24 hour needle exchange...

[mockney piers]

Ah I see, fair point. Perhaps another nick-nack/cookwank shop is just what LL needs :-/

[snorky]

cookwank

ha!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"It failed to do so and Southwark Council told them it had to apply. They applied. Southwark refused to grant it on the basis that LL has a 50/50 limitation on the number of retail vs cafe, bars, restaurants etc... "

How the hell did Chandelier get planning permission then?

[djw]

didnt it used to be a tea rooms many years ago so it may have already had existing permission

[Domitianus]

Although I have no axe to grind with Nero in particular, I really hope they do get closed down. It is to do with the arrogance in thinking they were above the law and could simply drive a coach and horses through proper procedures. I know of smaller business locally which have had to bend over backwards and incur considerable expense to adhere to various types of planning, trading legislation etc and they are the ones least able to afford the additional costs - yet they have done so.

For a larger chain that has deep pockets to think they could (as already mentioned) present Southwark with a fait accompli and just bulldoze the local authority makes a mockery of any type of consistency in the application of the law and other traders would be fully entitled (if this was allowed to go ahead) to say "why should we bother complying with regulations when others are being treated favourably on grounds of their scale?"

I suggest a counter-petition is created in support of Southwark's decision to give these corporate bullies a bloody nose!

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Just wait until the new planning quango gets the go ahead, no more pesky councillors or local residents to get in the way of big buisness plans for their big expensive building projects.

[mockney piers]

I seem to recall from previous discussions that it can still serve coffee, but it can't serve food, or at least hot food, or something.

[*Bob*]

They should serve coffee on one side and sell free-range organic baby clothes on the other - they'd make a killing.

[Ultraconsultancy]

pretty sure you're right there MP - the A1/A3 dispute is about the hot panini, IIRC

[alba]

I'll be very sorry to see Caffe Nero go. There is nowhere else in East Dulwich that I have found where it's comfy to sit and serves good coffee. It seems to me you can get good coffee and hard seats, or comfy seats and rotten coffee. It's a chain and the thin end of the wedge and all that. But there hasn't ever been any other outlet that's ever combined quality and comfort. (I'm not 90 by the way, I just like somewhere decent to sit).