Jump to content

Recommended Posts

They are French. They have a few in central London. In Paris you find them at the train station but here they try to position themselves as a bit more upmarket. Think nice baguettes, soups, salads, French pastries and macaroons etc.


Do they have a location in mind or are they still looking?

Well a few people have mentioned to me the 'Soup Dragon' premises, and on the southwark planning application site it does mention change of use from A1 to A3, so that's the only likely place I can think of currently. But thats been spoken about in length on another thread in the business section, so who knows. Unless someone else knows differently?


Louisa.

Applespider Wrote:

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

> More upmarket than Greggs/Upper Crust and less

> upmarket than Gails/Le Pain Quotidien



Fits perfectly into the demographic then, because Dulwich Village already has a Gail's.


http://www.gailsbread.co.uk/?CategoryID=301#dulwich


Louisa.

France, Spain, Holland, Japan, UK, Marocco, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman - Bluewater, Canary Wharf and Waterloo. Not multi national - just inter-continental! And yes a limited number outlets, if you number outlets in the 100s as any kind of limit.


Good produce, great marketing all done to a proven and winning formula - let's not pretend it's a chi chi little French patisserie though! It's Starbucks by another name.

Louisa Wrote:

> Fits perfectly into the demographic then, because

> Dulwich Village already has a Gail's.


I know... I cycle past on my to work and have been known to stop for a lovely warm treat (cinnamon bun or a muffin) on the way. It does make me chuckle when I'm standing there in bike helmet etc ordering a takeaway muffing and they offer me a coffee. Um... not entirely convinced how safe it would be cycling down the road drinking a latte!

John exactly I can think of far worse examples of chain shops, and judging by their website they are not at all widespread across London or the rest of the country.


Jeremy it's not a wind up at all, just a rumour I had heard from a few friends one of whom had spoken with a person employed at one of the branches. It may well not come to anything, lets face it, as pointed out already, this area is hardly a coffee/bakery desert. As for the location I just guessed the former 'soup dragon' premises purely because of the change of use for the shop on the southwark planning application.


Louisa.

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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