public Hearing - Cafe Nero

[SeanMacGabhann]

:-$

doh

[SimonM]

I see there are two issues to be heard at the Appeal:-

(1) the unauthorised change of use from A1 to A1/A3

(2) the installation of the two air conditioning dooformajigs on the outside rear wall.

I am now wondering what happens if Caffe Nero wins (1) but not (2) (or vice versa)

[Michael Palaeologus]

I used to work in Avonmouth House.

Calm down.

[macroban]

> (2) the installation of the two air conditioning dooformajigs on the outside rear wall.

It might get hot inside, and that's not cool.

(1) the unauthorised change of use from A1 to A1/A3

This is wrong. It's a change from A1 to A3 with a very small A1 component.

[SimonM]

>> (2) the installation of the two air conditioning dooformajigs on the outside rear wall.

>It might get hot inside, and that's not cool.

Quite so. But the Council's view appears to be that you still do need planning permission to have them installed and Caffe Nero apparently neglected to obtain it

>>(1) the unauthorised change of use from A1 to A1/A3

>This is wrong. It's a change from A1 to A3 with a very small A1 component.

......which is exactly what I stated in (1) anyway.

[macroban]

> which is exactly what I stated in (1) anyway.

Don't think so. The difference is significant and the appeal hinges on the difference.

[jonhere]

Leaving the ethical semantics to one side for a moment, I hope Neros lose and have to move on. One of the best things about this area is the amount of independent shops and cafes/restaurants. More chains = less East Dulwich charm, and that I do not like.

[SimonM]

Did anyone go? Does anyone know the outcome??

[Administrator]

As the hearing was today, Tuesday 29th January and this is now an East Dulwich issue again I have De-Lounged this discussion

[Mark]

I just called the Lordship Lane branch and the manager wasn't there and the guy I spoke to didn't know the outcome (but they will be open tomorrow)

[eddie]

The decision on the hearing will not be known until the middle to end of February. There were two appeals in place today:

1. The appeal regarding the mixed use A1/A3. The officer that presided over the hearing will make a decision based on evidence supplied by both Caffe Nero and the Council. The officer will also make site visits to see the premises and what impact it has on the local area.

Caf? Nero stated at the hearing that even if they lose the right to have mixed use, i.e. seating, they will continue to operate under their A1 licence and operate as a take away.

2. The second appeal was in relation to the air conditioning extractors. Most of the hearing was in relation to the second issue, with a lot of focus on technical data.

I have requested a copy of the decision and will let the forum know when it is issued.

Eddie

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

James Barber and I both attended the hearing and gave evidence. I've put a post about the hearing on my blog.

http://cllrrthomas.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/caffe-nero-planning-appeal-update/

richard

[macroban]

> this means that there is a healthier balance of shops (54%) to cafes then previously

How is this percentage calculated?

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

they count the shop units and record the use of each one. At the hearing Caffe Nero said it was 56% A1 (retail), Southwark said it was 54%. Either way its above 50%.

[macroban]

Thank you, I think I understand.

Voids are nulls, therefore the arrival of Sugar, JoJoMamamBebe, and White Stuff have tripped the balance in favour of Caffe Nero.

[James Barber]

As one of the three Liberal Democray councillor for East Dulwich I spent today at the Cafe Nero appeal. The day was especially long listening to all the legalise.

As one of the councillors who took the original decision to refuse planning permission I was keen to follow it through to thep lannig inspectors decision. Originally I had expected to grant planning permission way back then in early 2007. But on the night neither the applicant nor agents bothered to attend. We heard clear evidence that Cafe Nero as a cafe would reduce the number of shops on Lordship Lane to below 50%. We also heard how Cafe Nero had installed loud anti social airconditioning condenser units 1 metre from neighbouring residents bedroom windows that come on repeatedly 24/7.

So during the last two years what have Cafe Nero done to solve neighoburing residents noise nightmares. Have they knocked on a residents door to talk through their problems - no, not once. Have they phoned a resident - no, not once. Have they responded to residents emails arranging to visit - no, you've guessed it not once. Nope, today they spent today suggesting residents imagine being woken up repeatedly at night time!

As a person who believes in fair trade and ethical purchasing I wont be a customer of Cafe Nero.

Are you?

[Mark]

So what are the options available to the inspector?

Close it down, keep it open or keep it open with conditions? What conditions could be applied in this case?

And thank you both for coming on here and telling us.

[SimonM]

>>As a person who believes in fair trade and ethical purchasing I wont be a customer of Cafe Nero.

>>Are you?

I am surprised you did not recuse yourself from the original planning permission refusal decision if you were so clearly prejudiced against Caffe Nero from the start.

[nutty]

Whilst it sounds like Caffe Nero have clearly been in the wrong regards how they have opened and their treatment of their neighbours I think closing them down would only be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It clearly provides a useful service to the area (especially as one of the few cafes that mums with babies are welcomed and have space to relax).

Maybe Caffe Nero could be fined for their behaviour/actions so far but allowed to keep trading? Is this in any way feasible?

[James Barber]

But for two years they've known they have been destroying neighbouring residents lives - how many people shouldn't get any sleep before before a coffee shop anti social behavoiour is stopped - 1, 10, 100?

The council has no mechanism that I'm aware of for issuing a fine.

The council issued an enforcement notice. Caffe Nero could have talked to neighbours, sorted the problem out and pulled the rug from under the council officers legs. Instead it appears to want to make an example of Southwark to frighten other councils into not ensuring residents rights to family life and peace and quite are upheld.

Cafe Nero gave evidence that it would cost them ?5,000 to solve the noise problem. They sepnt considerably more than that delaying the problem. Their actions would be considered at the very least by most as being wholely unreasonable.

All three East Dulwich Liberal Democrat councillors - cllr Richard Thomas, cllr Jonathan Mitchell and I will defend residents rights to our utmost. I hope 'nutty' that you never have a noise situation such as that caused by Cafe Nero.

[James Barber]

I'm sorry think me prejudiced. I've formed this view after hearing a day of evidence yesterday.

A year ago when I sat on the planning committee I was expecting to approve the planning application. The failure for the applicant to attend and answer questions, the oral evidence of officers and the obvious suffering of residents swayed the committee to unamously to vote for refusal.

I've never need to a planning committee where the applicant or applicants agent failed to show. Weird behaviour.

[lpool]

Of course there is the separate issue of whether constituents want Cafe Nero or not - judging by its popularity I would suggest a fair number do (and yes there are also some who clearly do not). I think it is right to be support any action that will ensure the noise problem is resolved, but I think SimonM is correct in his comments about the risk of prejudice from the outset. It is important that elected councillors try to remain impartial and look to reflect the views of their constituents. Sometimes personal views can cloud judgements and result in a failure to get appropriate changes agreed. For me the focus at this stage should be on resolving the air conditioning noise - especially if having an A3 licence is easier to justify now that there are additional retail shops on the block.

[James Barber]

The planning inspector could allow Cafe Nero to trade with no conditions, set conditions about sound proofing the aircon condensing units, condition removal or relocating the aircon units, close Cafe Nero with a timescale for closure. Cafe Nero gave contradictoroy evidence that its aircon was essential for the sites use as a cafe with seating. They also said they didn't need the aircon. You can imagine how hard it has been for council officers to deal with such shifting sands.

Hope that helps.

NB. My wife and children love going to Cafe Nero.

[lpool]

I guess much depends on the ability of the planning inspector to set terms and conditions. The requirement to either sound proof or relocate the aircon units within a specified timescale would probably be the ideal position, and should Cafe Nero fail to complete then they would be required to cease trading until such time the work was completed. This ignores the option of them simply switching them off though. I suspect they are correct in saying they don't need them - they don't have a working kitchen so I expect it is not a building regulation requirement. Ultimately though they probably risk losing trade if they try to operate with no form of air conditioning as it's the kind of shop that could get very hot when jammed full with the buggy brigade - although they could always try using internal ceiling fans. But at least the neighbour noise would be abated if the aircons were permanently switched off.

Personally I prefer going to Le Petit Chou but my wife prefers the seats at Cafe Nero, and it is one of the few places in the area that does a gluten free cake.

[huncamunca]

of course, we all know that CN will appeal and ensure the case drags on for an eternity knowing that the hapless local council will eventually lose interest. This is hardly unusual behavior.

Still what does it matter if a corporation can do this as losing as their prodict is considered nice and an asset to the area.Im not going to make any crass comparisons, as im sure you are intelligent enough to see both sides of the argument.

A fantastic precedent to set ED-ites.Well done. Rules are there to be broken Obviously, as long as its in your own interests

lets hope any further corporations who choose to do this are also selling favourable products, otherwise this standing ovation you have given for big companies to do what they like, may just come and bite you on your sorry hypocritical spotty arses.

The guilty here are not Neros.