Jump to content

Caffe Nero - The decision is in!

The Australian
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Australian

The Australian

Posted
Posted

Good evening all,


You will be pleased to know that the Caffe Nero decision is in. I have attached the Appeal Decision Notice from the Planning Inspectorate for your perusal in PDF format.


In summary, the Appeal 'A' by Caffe Nero in respect of the air-conditioning units was dismissed and Council's Enforcement Notice upheld. Appeal B against the refusal of Planning Permission for the cafe was upheld and the Enforcement Notice quashed. What that means is that the cafe is staying put but the air-conditioning units to the rear of the building must be removed or suitably attenuated.


I feel that this is a fair result given that there is no reason, in planning terms, why the cafe should not be given Planning Permission. The application made to Council for retrospective permission was in fact recommended for approval by the Town Planner but it was later refused at Community Council based on information before the Councillors at the time. I agree that Caffe Nero acted irresponsibly by commencing the use without first applying for Planning Permission but to not do so is not actually an offence under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.


Caffe Nero have set up hundreds of cafes across the country and I am disappointed that they did not apply for Planning Permission before commencing their business in East Dulwich. Corporately, this is irresponsible and is not a good way, I feel, to introduce ones business in a new area.


Caffe Nero also applied for costs to be awarded on both Appeals A and B during the Public Inquiry but the Inspector refused both applications.


Overall this is the result I was predicting and I think it is a fair result.


Regards,


Glen Camenzuli

Team Leader Planning Enforcement


The London Borough of Southwark

Chiltern House

Portland Street

Walworth

London SE17 2ES


[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snorky

snorky

Posted
Posted

Money talks it would seem.


Nice to note that the much loved neros also applied for its costs to be covered - i.e covered by US the Council tax paying residents for THEIR expenses incurred through their reckless greed


Nice people.And a fantastic cup of java apparently.


Its a shame it isnt possible to reduce my spending at neros to less than I do at the minuite - i.e. to less than Zero.


All they want is your money. they would sell orphans to pie factories if it were legal and lucrative


Nero filth

Link to comment
Share on other sites
*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

Rowanofski Wrote:

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

> What ever happened to all the furore about people

> boycotting the chaintastic evil Nero?!


There were only about twelve of them. So their boycott went largely unnoticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quaywe

Quaywe

Posted
Posted

bon3yard Wrote:

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

> Praise the Lord, the thought of all those poor

> dispossessed Yummy Mummies roaming the streets

> making a nuisance of themselves was simply to much

> to countenance.


I was about to post some message about how this was a win for Nero because, from this decision (not to close them down), their policy of abusing planning laws has effectively been endorsed by Southwark Planning who were too weak to teach them the lesson they should have been taught. They will just carry on doing what they do, screwing the public, and Southwark his missed their opportunity to show the chain stores that this is wrong.


But I won't ;-), because bon3yard your message just made me LMFHO! I couldn't stand the thought of Blue Mountain being taken over by even more ED Mummies, as I would really struggle if I had less access to the best coffee in South London. Less the mummies stay at Nero and drink that plastic coffee. All hail to Nero, and Southwark Planning! :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snorky

snorky

Posted
Posted

The next time anyone wants to make a point that both


a) Endorses and supports poor little Neros struggle for justice


b) Bleats about supporting unique local business and keep the chains out




then I suggest you clickHerefirst




( Warning: May contain images and /or language of an adult nature. terms and conditions apply. GCH not tested. ROI excluded.Speak to the Phone bill payer first.. etc etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Australian

The Australian

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My take on it is this...


If the good people of East Dulwich (of which I am one) truly do not want a Caffe Nero store in their area, then they will not use it. If they don't use it, it will go away. There are plenty of other alternatives for coffee in East Dulwich, it's not like Nero have the monopoly on caffeine on the high street.


This reminds me of the suburb of Newtown in Sydney, Australia. For years there was a McDonalds on the high street... but as the area changed and taste buds sought more exotic foods, McDonalds lost a lot of business. The locals didn't want it there anymore and consequently, it closed down. The same will be true of any business if it doesn't do enough trade to stay afloat. The success of any business largely depends on the demand for it and the needs of the community it serves.


EDKiwi... you are right in saying that Caffe Nero did abuse Planning Law. They should have applied for Planning Permission before they opened. However, and this is where the real fault in the Planning system lies, operating a business without Planning Permission where Planning Permission is required is not actually an offence under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. It is a matter of non-compliance with the Act but it is not a criminal offence. This is not a Southwark Policy, the Act applies to the whole of England.


It only becomes a criminal offence when an Enforcement Notice is served in respect of the unauthorised use and it is not complied with by the date required within the Notice. As Caffe Nero lodged an Appeal against the Notice served by Southwark before it became effective, this holds the Notice in abeyance until a decision is made by the Planning Inspectorate. In this case, the Planning Inspectorate upheld the Appeal in respect of the cafe use so therefore, at no time were Caffe Nero committing a criminal offence. If the Inspectorate had not found in their favour, Southwark would have most certainly prosecuted Caffe Nero had they continued trading under those circumstances.


Again, the Act requires that Planning Permission is needed for this type of change of use and Caffe Nero did not apply for such permission. While no offence was actually committed, the Planning process was abused. Unfortunately, this leniency in the Act is often abused and it is my opinion that it should be changed. Council should be able to issue instant penalties where clear breaches of the Act are identified. It would act as a deterrent from abusing the process if daily fines could be issued. This system is in place in my home state of New South Wales, Australia.


Southwark Council rightly served an Enforcement Notice directing the cessation of the use so I must disagree with your statement that Southwark Planning 'missed their opportunity' to show Caffe Nero that this was wrong. The appeal was upheld because the use meets the requirements of the Southwark Plan 2007. That is, there is no reason in Planning Policy terms why ANY individual or business, be it Caffe Nero, Starbucks or an Independant like the Black Cherry, could not have opened a cafe in that location had an application been made. The Inspectorate's decision gives them deemed consent for the use.


Regards,


Glen Camenzuli

Team Leader Planning Enforcement


The London Borough of Southwark

Chiltern House

Portland Street

Walworth

London SE17 2ES


[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pk

pk

Posted
Posted

it's hard to fault the australian's reasonable take on this in my eyes


similarly - if people don't want bookies and amusement arcades they will close


and if people do like e.g. black cherry enough they will support it by spending money and it will survive

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lynxse

lynxse

Posted
Posted

Glen,


I can only assume you get paid by Southwark but don't actually work for the London Borough of Southwark? How on earth can you predict a result that goes against the decision taken by an impartial "quasi-judical" process?


I am sure if you were paid by Westmister they would make sure you didn't have to put in a single hout in the name of supposed work!


Athough, I could equally suggest you are just doing your job and the problem is political.


What a mess. Can we ever hope Southwark will enfoce when it needs to enforce and lets logic prvail when "predictions" are clear?


Thanks for the unoffical update?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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...