Jump to content

High Chairs in local restaurants, cafes and bars (legal requirement) (Louged)


Recommended Posts

I think it should be a legal requirement for places that serve food to provide child seats and changing facilities.


Buddha Jazz doesn't have high chairs.

Seymour Bros Cafe ( and Thai restaurant in the evening) doesn't have any -unbelieveable I know.

Caravaggio doesn't have any. (marvelous restaurant nevertheless)


Anyone else disappointed by the lack of high chairs in any of their preferred local eateries?


Why not list offenders here in the hope that they will correct this oversight and let us know?


The Bear does have high chairs by the way. It also serves easily the best pub food for miles around.

The Plough has high chairs, and the most baby friendly landlord I have ever met. We were in there yesterday with our 13 month old and they were super helpful and friendly.


The Herne also do as I recall (and a changing table in the gents loos - hurray!).

Just over 20 years ago when our children were small (and no restaurants had high chairs etc, even Mothercare had no changing mats) you could buy a fabric thing, shaped a bit like an apron, into which you could put a baby or toddler and then tie the thing firmly onto the back of a restaurant chair. (It folded small so you could put it in a handbag or large pocket and have it available when needed.) Maybe they still make these, or you could make your own, which would mean you could eat at any restaurant you like.

We have a portable high chair that can be screwed onto most tables - but not all. It doesn't fit the ones at Buddha Jazz...


Will try the Plough. Generally though I find child friendly places close to East Dulwich are really oversubscribed. We have tried and failed to get a table at The Crown and Greyhound twice and have now given up with it. They should put up their prices.


Had a similar problem at the Rye Hotel but intend to try again.


We always fall back on the Grove on Camberwell Grove. Only ever half full but the food is nice and they have Buckaroo and Guess Who for the kids as well as numerous high chairs.


Ultimately though I think it should be a legal requirement for places that serve food to provide child seats and changing facilities.


@Mellors- Changing facilities in the gents is the hallmark of high quality child friendly establishment.

Jennys Wrote:

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

> Just over 20 years ago when our children were

> small (and no restaurants had high chairs etc,

> even Mothercare had no changing mats) you could

> buy a fabric thing, shaped a bit like an apron,

> into which you could put a baby or toddler and

> then tie the thing firmly onto the back of a

> restaurant chair. (It folded small so you could

> put it in a handbag or large pocket and have it

> available when needed.) Maybe they still make

> these, or you could make your own, which would

> mean you could eat at any restaurant you like.


Except for the ones that do not admit infants - a policy which (thank God) is still the management's right.

Its a bit further to get to, but I also really recommend The Narrow - the Gordon Ramsey pub near Canary Wharf. The food was superb, gret view down the river, it wasnt particularly pricey, and they were very baby friendly (although no kids in the bar area). You need to book though.

I agree DM. Fear not though, those expressing anti-child snetiment will either grow out of it or live to regret it or at least doubt it.


There's nothing sadder than a childless older couple who still feel they have to justify their decision. I get it all the time off a certain individual - 'you look tired - kids keeping you up I suppose', 'I don't know how you can do it - I couldn't live without my long haul holidays' etc etc. I always just tell her she's right and it's the worst thing I ever did. It seems to help but I think she can tell I'm lying.


The Canning has got a high chair and the Sun and Doves has a couple.

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> those expressing

> anti-child snetiment will either grow out of it or

> live to regret it or at least doubt it.

>

> There's nothing sadder than a childless older

> couple who still feel they have to justify their

> decision.


Many of us who are childFREE not childLESS have made a decision that suits us. I don't care whether or not people have one, two or ten children. I chose a different lifestyle, not a wrong lifestyle! and I am very happy with it. If you are very happy with your choices then good for you. Don't tar us all with the same brush. Just as there are good parents and bad parents out there, there are those who may regret their decision and those who most certainly don't! You sound very patronising, why don't you embrace the fact that there are different courses for different horses!

Ooh and Butlers Wharf Chop House on the river was super too last week and had high chairs.


Sun and Doves is v good during the week, not been at weekend. And whats the other one on Camberwell Grove - the Dark Horse?


What about The Gowlett - can't remember if they have chairs (I think they do) but they are friendly and do nice pizzas.


Can you tell that having a sprog hasn't got in the way of my need for a decent lunch?! (or a good nights sleep or a decent holiday).

Having kids or not having kids *yawn* - this eternal argument is pointless as its entirely subjective. Its also been done to death on this forum.


I suggest those without kids just don't bother looking at or posting on a (very helpful) thread about which eating establishments have high chairs (other than to see places to avoid of course).

The subversion of this thread was started by people spitefully deploring the presence of kids in public places.


There is nothing wrong with chosing not to have children - it's those who seek constant vindciation of their choice that I feel sad for. Those who pester me to hear the down sides or post on the internet demanding that I accept horses for courses.


I even think it's possible to have kids and regret it. It is not possible however to know with any certainty that never having kids is right. For me the birth of my first child was a real epiphany after which the concerns of quiet restaurants and long haul holidays or any other form of derived satisfaction or enjoyment are completely immaterial.


The Dark Horse is on Grove Lane. They do have high chairs and are really friendly.


PS Cassius- If I sound patronising then you're reading it wrong. Read it again but imagine it's Forest Gump speaking..

Nice idea Brendan but I think the emphasis should be the other way round.


Businesses should have to provide high chairs and change facilities unless they apply for an exemption.


The application process should involve a form and a nominal fee. Upon approval they get a small sticker of the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang which they have to display in their window in order to absolve themself of responisbilities to accommodate children. Those without stickers and without facilities should be fined with the proceeds going to Barnardos or something.


A lot can be achieved if you harness the power of inertia. I'm sure mst right minded businesses would shy away from the application process and associated negative PR and so our children would be afforded the liberties that we enjoy so freely..

Whilst there are undoubtedly people who take a more extreme approach at either end of the childed/childfree spectrum, I suspect a lot more people (like me) fall into the middle camp - very happy to share our public spaces with children providing that our own enjoyment of that same space isn't compromised to an unacceptable standard. I should make clear that no-one (at least not me) expects children to behave like adults, and occasional tears, tantrums and raised voices are par for the course, so some compromise is to be expected.


However, I've had some terrible experiences since moving to this part of the world a number of months ago, which have actively made me seek out places that are less child friendly. Children running freely round pubs at 9pm without being controlled in any way. A child at the next table trying to help itself to my food not once, but several times. A child having a terrible twos tantrum being allowed to continue screaming at ear splitting pitch and roll around on the floor for about 10 minutes, without being taken outside by a parent away from everyone else who was trying to enjoy their own lunch. Finally, and most upsettingly for me, a child walking past and striking a much smaller baby who because she was sitting on the floor next to our table and was (and I'm quoting here) "in [his] way". When the baby's parents went over to speak to his parents, who looked like normal, nice people, I was amazed to hear them be told that "kids will be kids and it's better not to make a fuss about it".


Until we as a community get some kind of handle on a generally acceptable level of behaviour for children in public spaces, this issue is going to come up again and again. Perhaps adopting Alan's suggestion would help, by encouraging people who impose reasonable standards of behaviour on their children to get out more often. Perhaps it would make things worse, I just don't know. I also don't want to tar all children and parents with the same brush - I'm sure there are loads of us out there who really do try and make it work - but I am just astounded at the number of people who couldn't seem to care less if their child ruins the eating out experience for someone else.


What I can say is that I have gone in a short space of months from someone who would very happily argue for the rights of parents to take their children out into any public space they choose, to someone who actively seeks out less child friendly venues. It also seems to be a particular issue in this part of the world (although maybe I've just been unlucky?) or at least very different from what I have experienced living in Blackheath and then Borough over the last few years.

I agree Siduhe. I can't bear other peoples badly behaved children, and whilst my own may not be perfect, I certainly don't let him behave like that. If he did have a tantrum he would promptly get taken outside and get a good talking to, or get taken home. And stealing food/hitting other kids/being in the pub at 9pm is never acceptable.


I think its a shame that some parents spoil it for the rest of us. Our kids need to be taken to such places fom an early age so they can learn how to behave appropriately in grown up venues, but not at the expense of everyone elses experience.


Maybe there should be a licensing scheme for parents? You only get to go out in public if you can demonstrate an understanding of acceptable public behaviour for you and your offspring.

Nods too.


Fancy starting a business these days?

Let's see.

You learn how to do your job/run your business then you're told how you should be doing it by the government then you have to make sure you are not being exclusive in any way whatsoever and then people say you MUST have high chairs but you don't want to put people off who want a quiet "experience" so then you're told you have to pay people who are NOT working for you for ages when they take maternity/paternity/other leave then you are told who you can and can't have working for you and then you find yourself paying people who take the equivalent of 2 or more hours a week off when they have smoke breaks and the non smokers get upset, and on and on it goes. Who'd want to start a business which employs people these days?


I'm off to all those places that do not have high chairs and thanks for the recommendations!

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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