Nero Holdings Limited - stay of execution

[DG]

It's quite sad that a lot of the people who originally to the corporate invasion now turn out to drink in there! No wonder it's so easy for these big companies to weedle their way in.

[Keef]

This whole local company V big chain thing really gets on my tits... The fact is, there are a load of empty shops on LL that no local person has bothered to take on and open anything good in. So, if a big chain wants to take it, and people like to go to it, why does it bother people so much?!?!?

If a Weatherspoons opened on "The Lane" (see other thread), it would get custom because it does cheap, simple food, and it's a good place for a couple of cheap drinks to get you started. No one would stay there all night though, because once they'd had what they went there for, they'd go to the Black Cherry, or The Bishop because it's totally different. There is room for both!!!!!

If a Primark and a Top Shop both opened on LL, I bet the little clothes shops would still make a load of money, because they offer something different (expensive tat ;-) sorry, couldn't resist). Those people that shop in the little local shops now do so because they want to. If they wanted clothes from chain stores, they could easily go and get them.

I for one like the idea of having some big chain names close to home... Obviously want to keep the little guys too, but I think they can coexist...

Having said all that, I still think Nero were a bit out of order, but who really cares?

[Nero]

I care. I think it should stay and be made to pay a big fine. I think that the council should understand from the likes of us that granting such licences has lots of implications, good and bad, for the rest of the locale. Nero

[SeanMacGabhann]

Keef - re: your comment

"the fact is, there are a load of empty shops on LL that no local person has bothered to take on and open anything good in. So, if a big chain wants to take it, and people like to go to it, why does it bother people so much?!?!?"

makes no mention of the fact that the empty shops are empty not because local people don't want to take them on but the landlords involved are deliberately refusing them to any indie business in the hope of getting a big chain in. Hardly seems fair. One recently expanded drinking establishment had to crawls across nails to get the empty shop next door because the landlord wanted FarawaysunDollars Coffee Inc instead. Now had that happened we would probably have lost the local (and very popular) drinking establishment and gained a Coffee Chain. That is why it bothers me so much anyway...

[Keef]

Yes, and it's sad. But, it's life, the landlords own the property, and want as much money as they can possiby get for it, and if a chain has the money to pay them, it doesn't take much to work out who the landlords will go with. So, it follows that it's not the chain, but the landlords who are the big evil here... At the end of the day, it's all business.

I don't want to see any local business closing, I was just saying there's room for both.

Besides, said drinking establishment is about to open another shop/bar in Clapham are they not.... Can't be doing too badly ;-)

EDITED: Because I got a bit arsey.... Long day :-$

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sorry if I stated the obvious then Keef - just checking (tu)

It was the only point I wanted to make really - I certainly didn't want to reopen the Pandora's box that is the chain v indie thing all over again. Although that's the thing with those boxes - you only realise what you've done AFTER the event

[Keef]

Soz Sean, didn't mean to sound agressive. And you're right, I just wanted to make a quick point earlier, and ended up writing an essay.

You are completely right about the landlord situation. I was just saying that I don't understand people being against chains simply because they are chains. Rent aside, I think there's room for both, and a nice balance.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sweet.

(But then I went off and wrote 2 MORE bleedin' paragraphs about the subject. Which I have just deleted. Because I'm not actually making any new points. Could this be progress for me???? )

[Administrator]

We have been told that this thread has been submitted to the planning appeal office as a point of interest and a means of gauging local point of view on the issue. Please keep it on topic.

[Jeremy]

I like the idea of imposing a huge fine on them. There are pros and cons of Nero being on LL - and although they have smartened up the street somewhat, I don't like to think that they're setting a precedent for other big businesses to force their way in.

[Keef]

Agree with Jeremy. Punish them, and make it a worthwhile punishment, and then let everyone get on with their lives.

[nutty]

Agree that they should have a meaningful punishment. Should really be approx the amount of extra money they've made by breaching the rules - I'm sure some clever bloke in the council can work out what that might be....

Perfectly happy to have them stay if the planners are happy to grant permission for liegitimate reasons, but they shouldn't do so because they have been "bullied" into it.

[iamyamyam]

I don't understand where this belief that "..they (Nero) have tidied up the street.." comes from. Since Nero opened the only new business on the same block has been the green cookware shop which I'm unsure is related to the presence of a cafe. Further down the street Green and blue have expanded their bar resturant/wine shop which must be at least in partial competition with Nero.

Can anyone give me an example of a business that has moved into east dulwich because of Nero or another example of how their, seemingly unauthorised, presence, has a social/economic/rejuvenating benefit to lordship lane? Does this exceptional effect of their shop on the local area excuse them from the rule of law? I dont think it stands up. I have no problem with cafe nero, wetherspoons or anyone opening up anywhere as long as they respect the proper planning process which protects us all.

[SimonM]

Aren't we getting just a little bit carried away hurling brickbats at Caffe Nero here? They are not unauthorised to be where they are, or to sell coffee etc. All they did was jump the gun on a change of use application - a chnage of use, as I recall, which was originally approved at one Council level but later overrusled higher up? And who would actually suffer from any massive fine? The parent organisation, the franchisee (I am assuming - perhaps erroneously - that Caffe Nero run as franchises - in which case it'd just be the local businesss person running it who would suffer) or the customers who would just ahve the fine passed on to them?

Caffe Nero is the most accessible coffee shop in ED (I refuse to include Starbucks in this assessment as no establishment which serves espressos in paper cups is a true coffee shop! :)))

[Keef]

SimonM Wrote:

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

> I am assuming - perhaps erroneously - that Caffe Nero

> run as franchises - in which case it'd just be the

> local businesss person running it who would

> suffer

That's a very very interesting point, which I admit I hadn't even thought of.

[Jeremy]

http://www.caffenero.com/CompanyInfo.asp?Section=International

"All our stores are company owned and we do not currently franchise"

[the-e-dealer]

Not sure if a fine can be applied but I suspect Southwarks costs will be recovered plus ofcourse Nero have spent

a lot on doing the property up.

[DG]

You can make an online response to Nero's planning appeal, here

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/makerep.asp?caseaddress=COO.2036.300.2.7427893&appealtype=COO.2036.300.2.2084

[Goose]

If they were to be closed down, what would people like in its place? A derelict building? Or maybe another estate agent!

Cafe Nero has had a positive effect on East Dulwich. It is always busy and there isn't really a similar alternative. I would however be interested to know if the coffee shop on North Cross Road has suffered since Nero opened?

[Mabel]

I've been following this thread with interest for sometime now. All I can say is the improvements to LL we have all seen in the past 6 yrs or so are great. I'd like to ditto the good points Goose mentioned - if Nero were to be forced 'closed' what would replace it? I'm actually not a coffee shop fan - definately overrated. Leave Nero alone and bring on the big names to LL. I can only image to froth the good people of this forum will get into when the Police station plot goes up for sale next year!

[Mark]

I think the general impression from this thread is to keep them open. Perhaps I should organise a vote on this site (do not vote yet, I'll try and set up a proper poll):

*************

What would you like to happen to Caffe Nero on Lordship Lane? Having established themselves and operated under the incorrect planning application (which is under appeal) what do you think should happen to it?

Close it down (reject the appeal)

Keep it open (accept the appeal)

Keep it open and fine them heavily (accept the appeal with conditions) - money to go into the community if possible

*************

Are these the correct options? Should the wording be amended?

[ratty]

If you keep them open, then you give them carte blanche to flout laws and that is wrong.

Also, this bored is not representative of ED feeling surely, and is only representative of the people that use it.

It's all BS imo. Laws is laws and someone needs an example making of them.

If I flout planning laws in my house would I get let off? Would I fook!

[Peckham native]

Caffe Nero haven't 'got away with it'.

They broke the law by not applying for planning permission. When they were 'found out' they applied for retrospective planning permission which is the normal way these things are sorted out. They were refused retrospective planning permission and are now appealing against this decision. Whether they win or lose this appeal will not depend on the fact that is was a retrospective application but whether the reasons for refusal were sound. I would imagine they have quite a good case as it was refused at planning committee against the advice of the planning officer in charge of the case.

Retrospective planning permission is not at all rare and not confined to big businesses. I noticed a planning notice outside the small cook shop almost opposite caffe Nero applying for, you've guessed it, retrospective planning permission.

[macroban]

> Retrospective planning permission is not at all rare and not confined to big businesses. I noticed a planning notice outside the small cook shop almost opposite caffe Nero applying for, you've guessed it, retrospective planning permission.

Green Cuisine is innocent (of this one).

It appears to be Parkhill Properties and the added top floor.

I don't think Green Cuisine applied for permission for their new shop front though.

[Mark]

As far as I can see they've done wrong but I believe the punishment should benefit the community if possible. Anyone know what the maximum fine imposable is?