Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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*

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

"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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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