public Hearing - Cafe Nero

[Cassius]

Emily Wrote:

The people on this site with a

> visceral, irrational hatred of children and

> businesses, would hate it regardless of planning

> laws.

What on earth does liking children or not have to do with this argument or is it just a random rant? I don't have children and I don't use Cafe Nero but the two things are not linked.

[snorky]

hahaha

your rants make mine look positively logical

cheers emi, youve made my day

[Keef]

God I've been behind with the forum, but Emily calling Sean the post police has made my day! ;-)

[Loz]

And if the Livesey was turned into a Cafe Neros and lots of people 'voted with their feet and wallets', would this justify the sale, then?

[Keef]

It would do to certain people in the council.

[Cassius]

Perhaps they should have opened a branch of Cafe Nero AT the Livesey.

[Emily]

Actually, that would have been a very good idea. It needed a cafe.

[Emily]

And if you think that there aren't loons on this site who absolutely loathe parents and children, then I'd suggest you aren't reading it.

Can anyone even remember what was on the site before Nero's opened up?

I have yet to find out, despite asking, what the legal bills for this disgraceful waste of our cash are so far.

[willow]

The basic fact of the matter is that Caffe Nero thinks it's above the law. This is a trick favoured by the large supermarkets - build first, then seek planning permission later. They then employ their large and experienced legal team to challenge the local authority position, who really don't have the funds to keep fighting it. Planning laws are there for a reason - they're not there to make life difficult or inconvenient for people just for the sake of it. If organisations think they're above the law, where's it going to end? Like it or not, local governments are democractically elected. They are elected to do a job, one of which is to uphold the law. You can't pick or choose which ones you'd like the council to enforce because it suits your particular purpose. I'd rather certain pubs didn't comply with the smoking ban but you just accept it because of the greater benefit.

[zephyr]

Emily Wrote:

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

> Can anyone even remember what was on the site

> before Nero's opened up?

> I have yet to find out, despite asking, what the

> legal bills for this disgraceful waste of our cash

> are so far.

I can - it was Edwardes Bros - Electrical suppliers who have since moved to larger premises in Penge (near Homebase)

[Mark]

Emily, you seem to be annoyed that the council are doing something that they should be doing, which investigation parties who have flouted planning regulations. You're having a go at the policewoman not the criminal. Why don't you have a go at Caffe Nero? They are the ones who broke the law and so it's their fault the council have to waste your money.

[edited once]

[Loz]

The problem is that of precedent. You may be fine with Neros flouting the law this time around, but when a different establishment - one you don't find acceptable - do the same in a few years and cite Neros as precedent you may be sorry you took this line.

The council is quite right to uphold planning law. More power to their elbow.

[huncamunca]

Emily Wrote:

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

> And if you think that there aren't loons on this

> site who absolutely loathe parents and children,

> then I'd suggest you aren't reading it.

> Can anyone even remember what was on the site

> before Nero's opened up?

> I have yet to find out, despite asking, what the

> legal bills for this disgraceful waste of our cash

> are so far.

hahahahaha

You are Compton Mo'Fo and I claim my ?5

[Dodo1]

Further bad news. Permission has been granted for the "Old woolwich" to become another Betting Shop.

[huncamunca]

Dodo1 Wrote:

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

> Further bad news. Permission has been granted for

> the "Old woolwich" to become another Betting Shop.

But even if they do break the rules a bit with their plans and decide to bluff it out , it now OK isnt it ?

or does that only apply to shops that "we like" ?

[Emily]

So permission granted for a nasty, anti-social betting shop, designed to steal the money of the poor and the addicted, and not for a perfectly nice, harmless cafe. And the council is always right, eh?

[Mark]

The "harmless cafe" have broken the rules: The council have to investigate people who have broken the rules.

That is right, that is what we expect and want our council to do.

Unless of course you want them to turn a blind eye on this particular occasion because you like what the wrongdoer's doing.

[snorky]

Emily Wrote:

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

> So permission granted for a nasty, anti-social

> betting shop, designed to steal the money of the

> poor and the addicted, and not for a perfectly

> nice, harmless cafe. And the council is always

> right, eh?

You know what, I dont think "emily" is real.

I think it is an experimental computer programme that is designned to produce the most obtuse and nonsensical arguments in order to keep MB threads dragging on and on and on an on

a Troll-bot

Which dastardly mind is behind the Emily troll bot ? or indeed Alishia Troll bot

[pebs]

snorky - you are so unbelievably sad. get a life.

[pearcesa]

Dodo1 Wrote:

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

> Further bad news. Permission has been granted for

> the "Old woolwich" to become another Betting Shop

FFS, another bloody betting shop, surely this must cater for a small minority of people? (6)

[nutty]

So - bumping this thread as I thought the decision was mid to late February - any news?

[monica]

Snorky said the same thing about me, not being real!! What is that about, I mean get a grip. Sorry off topic:-$

[katybenno]

And me.....he was serious trust issues

[The Australian]

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 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

glen.camenzuli@southwark.gov.uk

[Administrator]

I have locked this discussion thread now it is continuing over here http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,113084