Jump to content

cafe nero - petition

tiddles

By tiddles
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring

Zebedee Tring

Posted
Posted

dc Wrote:

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

> What I still do not understand is how the

> recommendation from Southwark's officers namely:

>

> "The use of the premises for combined A1/A3 use

> would result in the partial loss of retail

> floorspace. Although the site is located within a

> protected shopping frontage, the proposal which

> involves a combination of both A1 and A3 uses

> would not undermine the shopping objectives of the

> area as it would not result in a reduction of

> retail uses below 50% of the shopping frontage in

> compliance with Policy 1.10 of the Southwark UDP

> 2007. Furthermore the proposed use compliments the

> retail function of the parade with no adverse

> effects on the vitality or viability of the

> shopping frontage."

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_25666.pdf

> (dated 01/03/07)

>

> Was turned on its head when the decision was

> taken:

> "The proposal has resulted in the loss of a Class

> A1 retail shop within a protected shopping

> frontage, and a reduction of Class A1 retail uses

> below the 50% split between retail and non-retail

> uses, leading to the compromise of the retail

> vitality and viability of the area and

> consequently a loss of amenity to local residents.

> As such, the development is contrary to Policy 1.7

> Development within Town and Local Centres, Policy

> 1.9 Change of Use within Protected Shopping

> Frontages and Policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity of

> the Emerging Southwark Plan (Jan 2007) and Policy

> S.1.2 Secondary Shopping Frontages and Policy

> E.3.1 Protection of Amenity of the Adopted

> Southwark Unitary Development Plan (1995)."


So if the Committee refused permission against officer advice, Caffe Nero are bound to win their appeal and possibly get costs as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snorky

snorky

Posted
Posted

JesusCappuccino Wrote:

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

> Sorry.


I have taken ofence at the name you have taken. Its incites racial hatred and is mocking the one true messiah.and erm...idolatry and stuff


You should be shot. or stabbed. or something - I havent decided yet, but I am sharpening my machete and organising a shouty demonstration outside the EDD and will be bussing in protestors for the event.


(I may have got my topics mixed up here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Quaywe

Quaywe

Posted
Posted

As a lot of you will already know I started the original Say NO to Nero petition as I didn't want to see them setting a precedent for flouting planning laws that other big chains could follow. For that reason I hope Southwark planning does not cave in and shuts them down. Since Nero opened I have spoken with my feet; I have never set a foot in ED Nero and will continue not to.


On the other hand that premises, even with only A1 use permission is a gold mine for another big chain to jump into. The biggest worry for me is that if Nero goes, what will replace it? Of all the chains out there I don't particularly mind Nero. It's certainly better than a Tesco Metro or similar, or even an empty shop. However wanting them stay for that reason is kind of like selling my soul to the devil.


I LOVE the idea (thanks Mark) of Nero copping a big (really has to be HUGE) fine that HQ will really know about, and then that money gets pumped back into ED. The problem is that Southwark planning can only operate within the laws. I don't know if fines are part of the planning process (anyone with better knowledge jump in here!). I believe it's just "granted" or "not granted", simple as that. If Southwark can dish out a fine and let them stay open without serving paninis then that would be the best option for me.


HOWEVER: If Southwark only has the choice of "granted" or "not granted" then it's a question of morals and principals (and this in my book applies whether you like Nero or not):


1) Back the principal; teach the chain stores a lesson that they can't flout planning laws and close them down.

OUTCOME: watch another chain open in it's place that doesn't serve panini's, however sleep well at night knowing that Southwark won't let other chains flout the law in this way again the next time a chain tries the same trick. OR...


2) Throw the principals out the window and back them to stay open with the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" mindset. The ED local decides "I like Nero and don't care about the laws" OR "I'd rather Nero than another chain another useless trinkets shop, even if I don't agree with the way they went about opening their doors".

OUTCOME: The chain store wins and the door is opened for other chains to keep doing the same in ED and everywhere.


Regardless of your allegiance to Nero or chain stores or indie stores it's important to back the principal here and take a holistic view: If Nero is allowed to stay then Southwark sets a bad example and we all lose. If you back Nero just because like their coffee then you are just ignorant, and ultimately you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If Nero is forced to close, then yes we will in all likelihood get another chain store and it may not be one we like (though we know it won't be A3), however it will set a precedent that will ultimately serve ED and the rest of Southwark better in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AllforNun

AllforNun

Posted
Posted
It is all madness, ED is really going to become one big horrible joke!. Linking Nero's with the ridiculously spun notice on the fences around goose green about the dismantling of the hugely expensive and disastrous eye sore that is dog bin alley why don't they fine Nero's and then use the ?220000 to develop Goose green and give the friends of the green what they want, hows that for a masterstroke. The residents get behind the petition and Nero's stays and the kids get a great new set of facilities. The law is applied and everyone is relatively happy. Now thats negotiated politics !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
snorky

snorky

Posted
Posted

The beauty of this thread is seeing how people are able to adopt / drop laws, covenants and conventions as / when they feel like it or its suits them.


what a good idea. Using that principle:


Im going to the pub now and will emerge utterly ripped at 11PM and go for a fast drive around the streets of ED - I hope this doesnt cause any problems for anyone, but I have decided to disregard the rules on drink driving 'cos it suits me at this moment in time.



on this facetious note , I see you all later. at midnight at Kings A&E dept, trauma dept. Ill be the one with the 2 coppers at my bedside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

snorky - I'm with you on most of the points on this thread but your last point suggests that you don't break ANY laws yourself - which might be true, but let's call that what it really is - an obvious, made-up fantasy ;-)


On another point


James said:




I think this more than anything shows the gap between perception and reality. A lot of he independents are struggling. And if they are one of the few who aren't struggling at the moment (William Rose? Deli? they probably will be come lease-renewal time. Landlord will deliberately ask for unaffordable rents knowing that only a large group ( a BRAND!)can afford them. Indie closes down, new chain moves in and another brick in the wall. Actually, you know what - I don't care that much about indie v multi-chains in theory. It's the uniformity of the brands I can't stand - and it's brands that chains live by


Everyone who thinks you can have a good mix of indies and chains ignores the fact that that can only be true for a short window of time. The momentum is against the indies - end of.. People want them. I don't know why. Is Waterstones a better bookshop than Cheners? on the immediate surface level, yes it is. But there is a bigger picture - one which, no matter how carefully explained/argued people don't give a shite about


I don't lament the era of closed down shops, endless chicken outlets and pound stores in ANY neigbourhood - but in this neigbourhood the regeneration was started not by the existing chains but by several indies who thought they could make a go of something and did. Because they could afford to. But if they are all to be replaced (and for what? bad service? people on here have complained about Q'ing outside William Rose for cryin out loud - have we become SO pampered we can't do anything??) what is the point of anyone having a go at anything?


Let's all have a re-union in 10 years time, look around at Upper Street part IX and lament the passing of the "good old days" - even though we are responsible for their passing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zebedee Tring

Zebedee Tring

Posted
Posted
I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the real world, as opposed to some idealised dream world. As I said earlier in this thread, the Southwark planning officers recommended that Caffe Nero should be granted permission but the Committee went against the officer recommendation. It's therefore going to be bloody difficult for Southwark now to resist an appeal, since Caffe Nero are going to use in their favour the arguments that the officers put forward for recommending the grant of permission. And possibly get their costs as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zebedee Tring

Zebedee Tring

Posted
Posted

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

'I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the real world, as opposed to some idealised dream world'


'Martin Luther King's last words I believe'


Yes, but whether King would have supported Caffe Nero's application for planning permission is unfortunately something that we will never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Emily

Emily

Posted
Posted

If Nero didn't offer something that no other local cafe could match - ie comfy seats, papers, space for buggies and small children and even to have a business meeting - then it wouldn't be so popular. Seems to me Southwark is actively working against the interests of the people in East Dulwich who pay for the sodding councillors in the first place.

I like le petit chou, it does a fine toasted sandwich, but it is totally unsuitable for people with kids and buggies, the lighting is brutal and the seats are so uncomfortable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shu.Kurimu.Sensei

Shu.Kurimu.Sensei

Posted
Posted

I liked the "ghost town" vibe. The area certainly looked and most importantly felt a thousand times better than it does now.


Am lucky in the sense that at least I have the option of moving back to a wonderful part of North Japan in the future which is looking increasingly likely, its a whole lot more down to earth than ED has become plus the food and telly are 1000x better >:D<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dulwichmum

dulwichmum

Posted
Posted

Bye bye then Shu Uemera,


That "ghost town vibe" as you call it, can cause post natal depression when you are sat at home with baby Tarquin on your lap. Nice places to shop, familiar friendly faces to see, somewhere nice for a cup of coffee with chums is progress as far as I am concerned.

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...