public Hearing - Cafe Nero

[lozzyloz]

As I said in my post above, neither Cafe Nero or East Dulwich are unique to this situation and people and councils seem divided in their opinions.

There's plenty of examples out there:-

Retrospective change of use - Hexham

Were the Reigate counsellors bribed with free coffee?

Work started before planning approval in East Hampshire

Chiswick councillors have balls?

Great News! Cafe Nero can continue trading in Sidcup

[snorky]

#

[panda boy]

AllforNun, so cynical...!

[Emily]

I wonder how much Southwark Council are paying lawyers to try and close down a business that is self-evidently hugely popular with local people, especially families? Enough to save the Livesey museum? Frankly, it wouldn't suprise me. What a appalling bunch our local councillors are.

[snorky]

Emily Wrote:

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

> I wonder how much Southwark Council are paying

> lawyers to try and close down a business that is

> self-evidently hugely popular with local people,

> especially families? Enough to save the Livesey

> museum? Frankly, it wouldn't suprise me. What a

> appalling bunch our local councillors are.

Why blame the councillors in this instance ?

Its Neros that went ahead without fuill permission, Its neros that are not taking the consulation / review priocess seriously - its Neros that is ensuring that its financial muscle is being used to slow down and hopefully exhaust the local authority process

Shut them down - this isnt a hypothetical discussion , ist about a PROFIT making venture deciding not the abide by the rules regaridng their fetid premises - they are not doing it for any altruistic reason - they are taking the piss becasue of money making potential

if you lose sight of the priciple here becasue you like their product , you will come to regret the results of the precedent set.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Emily - you may have a point re: Nero's popularity but a bit out of order to call the local councillours an appalling bunch - they are acting, not just to uphold teh law but also at the behest of many many people who vote them in. It's the democratic process and is inevitably weakened when those who put themselves forward are called "apalling" for doing their jobs

The pros and cons of Nero have long been discussed on here and I doubt we need to go into them again - but no need for personal abuse

[SeanMacGabhann]

ooh -- cross-posting with snorky !

[Mark]

That crack dealer on my street corner is really popular, especially with young people, I think it's unfair for the police and authorities to waste our taxpayers money hassling her as she's providing a service to lots of people.

Yeah, I know but I'm just making a point.

Fine Caffe Nero ?233,000 and put the money back into the community. Or ask them for a voluntary contribution of that amount to show they care about the the community.

[nutty]

Did Nero break the law or did they just utilise a loophole?

[Mark]

not sure, they didn't follow planning regulations, which one is that?

[Michael Palaeologus]

I agree with .. somebody.

Let them stay open, but make them tone down their gawdy signage and pay a big chunk of money to the Livesey.

I have only got one dot to go on my card and then I can a free Latte - so excited!

[Emily]

I think they are appalling people. They waste MY money (how much? will any of them admit to how much - given that Southwark's legal fees were well over ?7million last year - on persecuting a highly popular local cafe, which offers disabled access, for a start, which none of the other local cafes do, then whine they have no money and shut down a totally unique museum for children, just so they can sell off a valuable building - one that was a gift to the PEOPLE for our benefit, not to Southwark Council to sell to the highest bidder. If they can't take criticism, then they shouldn't be touting for votes, for heavens sake.. Do they think I and many others would have voted for them if they'd suggested for one minute they'd start closing down museums that benefit poor children and flogging off buildings donated to the people to property developers? As for the lie that they can't afford ?140,000 a year, when we all know it's about snatching the building...

As for comparing a coffee shop to a crack dealer, well, frankly the comparison is so idiotic it doesn't really deserve a reply, does it?

[SeanMacGabhann]

19 posts and most of them about Nero Emily?

And comparing the illegaly opened coffee house with an illegaly operating drug dealer was already acknowledged as stretching a point - but you know, a business's popularity isn't the sole criteria for it's existence (hence the drug dealer anaology I assume)

[Emily]

Goodness me, you do need to get a hobby apart from post counting. Or are you the post police? I think if a business is harmless, useful, provides a popular local service to the local people - and a unique one, in terms of disabled access and space for parents to bring children - then I think it is an obscene waste of money for the local council, which is supposed to represent the people, to spend God knows how many thousands on lawyers trying to close it down. I think they forget they were voted in to represent the local population, which is clearly voting for Neros with their feet and their money.

[SeanMacGabhann]

So... Nero's aside, planning regulations should be scrapped or at least reduced? Should companies pay any attention to laws? Can anyone just forge ahead and say "we're harmless and popular!"

That Dulwich Park is ripe for development - maybe a mall with a shopping park. Sure some people would object but I don't have to worry about them any more because precedent has been set and planning laws are for namby-pamby PC liberals

[Mark]

The comparison to a crack dealer was just to show that your argument that "a business that is self-evidently hugely popular with local people" and should therefore be above the law seemed a bit silly. Rather like a comparison to a crack dealer.

And I think that Nero should stay, it sells things that people want and I agree it is popular but I would like them punished for breaking the rules, they can afford it and that money should be put back in to East Dulwich.

[macroban]

> I think they forget they were voted in to represent the local population, which is clearly voting for Neros with their feet and their money.

I think the above might be a fallacious argument.

All I see is Caffe Nero customers voting with their feet and their money.

[BARA]

I gather from friends who live in the borough of Croydon, that Nero's opened in the borough ( I think it was at Crystal Palace)some time ago without seeking planning permission or change of use. I have been told this is a standard Nero trick - they build up custom, flout local planning laws, local council takes them to task, and Nero defies all legal challenges/ ignores closure notices as they know it takes local council time and money to prosecute, in mean while Nero nets in tidy sums of money. Money no doubt to move into another area and start the whole process again.

[pearcesa]

I hope Cafe Nero stays, personally I prefer it to Starbucks or any of the other chains for that matter, at least you get a loyalty card and the quality of the coffee is good. The staff are friendly in there and as previous posts say, do we really want a derelict shop that at some point becomes another estate agent or poncey shop that sells baby clothes or nick-nacks. Okay, so they've not followed the rules, but I'm sure they aren't the first and probably won't be the last. I say fine them and let them get on with doing what they are good at ... serving coffee!

[Emily]

Oh come on, it's not remotely like a park being turned into shopping mall! It was already a retail premises, and still is. It's not like, ooh, let's think, a popular local free museum being closed down so the council can sell of the building to property developers (to pay the millions in legal costs incurred by pointless actions like this?), is it? Dulwich Park is hugely popular, and all the more so for having a nice cafe slap bang in the middle of it, actually. As for not popular with local people only 'customers', well who do you think is those customers are? Aliens from outer space? People specially flown in from the Outer Hebrides? Of course it is popular with people who live in East Dulwich, you know, the very people that the councillors are supposed to represent, not fight, especially not fight using untold thousands of pounds of our money. If the planning rules prevent a popular, useful, wheelchair and child accessible business from opening up where people clearly want it, then the planning laws are the problem, not the business. I have no problems with a successful business paying higher rates, but really, all this outrage is very silly. Agree the staff are lovely, if rather slow, and it appeals to the local community. It's a real meeting place. The people on this site with a visceral, irrational hatred of children and businesses, would hate it regardless of planning laws.

[????]

I'm astounded.....but I find myself agreeing with Sean

[SeanMacGabhann]

No you don't

[????]

I'm sorry but I do...."is this the room for an argument?"

[SeanMacGabhann]

nope - I'm not having it! ;-)

[Administrator]

Please stay on topic