Jump to content

public Hearing - Cafe Nero

DiD

By DiD
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

lozzyloz

lozzyloz

Posted
Posted

This was discussed on R4 today.


Cafe Nero are not alone in setting up shop before applying for a change of use from retail. Starbucks and others are equally guilty since the industry seems to have adopted this strategy as standard practice. It would appear that planning committees are powerless to stop the invasion of high street Coffee "Shops" which always win on appeal anyway. Part of the problem is lack of clarity regarding the regs which the government have so far not responded to. Cafe Nero et al see themselves as retail shops not restaurants and therefore feel justified to take over a bookshop and replace it with coffee and muffins. I guess if it's organic and fair trade, then why not!


*edited for spelling*

Goose

Goose

Posted
Posted

I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but be careful what you wish for.


IF they were to close Nero, what would replace it? Might be derelict for a year - Are we better off?


Nero has been popular and would leave a gap in the market for easily available coffee on Lordship Lane (I know there are a few others but...). So within a year or two, another chain like Starbucks muscles its way in. Have we gained? I think not.

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

figgins Wrote:

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

> "The inquiry is at 10am on Tuesday 29 January

> 2008"

> Well, that's convenient. Should ensure that

> ninety per cent of the people who would like to

> go, don't.


Someone has (correctly) come to the conclusion that, irritated as some people may be by Nero, they're probably not irritated enough to sacrifice half a day's holiday to fight the cause.

mockney piers

mockney piers

Posted
Posted

"It obviously can't be all bad otherwise no one would go there..."


This has to be false, else why did so many people keep buying Everything I Do for so long?!


Of course that said I've no particular gripe against Nero. I don't go to it in Dulwich, but I'm partial to their coffee at work.

PeckhamRose

PeckhamRose

Posted
Posted

KalamityKel Wrote:

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

> It obviously can't be all bad otherwise no one

> would go there...


No-one would buy Chat or Heat or the Sun or eat McDonalds or KFC if that were the case.

We get/eat/buy/ what we deserve.


I hate all these chain coffee shops.

Don't all the other independent cafes and bars up Lordship lane do coffee? Exactly, so why do we need those chains?


God I'm feeling bitter. Need a cuppa off my Argos coffee machine. That's ?2.50 to you. And no fancy plastic wrapped biscuit, mind!

Michael Palaeologus

Michael Palaeologus

Posted
Posted

Clearly none of these things is "bad" if they were people would stop buying the coffee, the paper, the burger, the lads-mag, the single in question.


They just dont appeal to you, whoever "you" happens to be.


That doesnt mean that they should be denied existance.


The tendency to condemn the mundane, the mass produced and the common and demand that only the organic, the hand reared, the local, the environmentally benign should be concidered verges on the obsessive and hectoring.


Folks of the lentil-weaving persuasion might wish to allow the rest of us to quietly enjoy our mass produced, internationally branded coffee in peace.

Michael Palaeologus

Michael Palaeologus

Posted
Posted

"Hectoring" as in people who say that because they dont like Nero's coffee - it should be shut and so denied to the rest of us or that Starbucks shouldnt be allowed open because of ... why? Its an global brand - so is Greenpeace, it exploits developing world farmers - they sell Fairtrade coffee, it replaces local independent shops - not if they provide the same level of service, we dont like their coffee - so go to the independents.


Nero's is busy, its family friendly, people like it.


Some of the criticism starts to verge on the "holier than thou" variety - all brands bad, all indies good. it annoys me because these views seldom get challenged and when they are the challengers are condemned as reactionary, anti-envirnmentalists.


I studied the green-house effect and the fundamental threats to the ennvironment 25 years ago - awareness of the issues has been around for that long amongst the academic and professional communities. Over the past 10 years more people have come on board, which is great; but there is a thread of the wider public discussion which becomes hysterical and anti-everything, a view that wont be satisfied until we are all living in mud-huts, never venturing further than village boundaries and eating nothing but pulses and grains.


I for one will put a marker down - i have been an environmentalist for 25 years, I recycle, I limit what driving I do, I do my bit BUT I shop in supermarkets, I drink Starbucks coffee, I support fox hunting. Go ahead and tar and feather me.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By malumbu · Posted

      Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • DulwichParker
      Local plumber and gas engineer - Jafar - Portrait Plumbing

      By DulwichParker · Posted

      Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • Sue Klein
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Sue Klein · Posted

      I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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