Controversial cafe set to be closed down

7:30am Monday 18th February 2013 in News

Tony's Cafe in South Ockendon Tony's Cafe in South Ockendon

A POPULAR cafe in South Ockendon is set to close after a bust-up with Thurrock Council over the building’s use.

Tony’s Cafe, a bustling hub on the eerily quiet Derwent Parade, is set to close this week for being in breach of planning permission.

The cafe owner, Imam Cayir, affectionately known to locals as Tony, has been ordered to stop cooking hot food on the premises and remove tables and chairs from the cafe.

But this has saddened locals who use the cafe every day to meet and socialise over a coffee and hot breakfast.

Cafe user Mary Flowers, 71, who lives in South Ockendon, told the Gazette that coming to the cafe and seeing her friends there makes her day.

She said: “We’ve been coming here for seven years! It’s a huge part of our lives. “Ockendon’s a dead town. There’s nothing here.

“This cafe gives us a reason to get up in the morning.

“If they take it away from us I don’t know what we will do. I would be very sad.”

Norman Blackburn, 76, who also frequents the cafe, said: “There’s never any trouble here.

“We’re all friends together. It’s affordable, provides us with somewhere to meet up and the staff are lovely.”

Mr Cayir, who has owned the cafe for 10 years, said he has tried to change the type of use allowed in the cafe, but claims the council won’t allow it.

He said: “The council wants to keep it as the same type of business.

“But a lot of people love it here. I’m worried that I’ll have to close altogether.

“To change business will mean my two staff will lose their jobs as I won’t make enough money.”

Belhus ward councillor Sue Gray has vowed to support Mr Cayir.

She said: “It’s a community cafe and these people are dependent on it. Ockendon is very quiet.

“I will support Mr Cayir in his bid to keep the cafe open.”

A council spokesman said: "Unfortunately the tenant is in breach of his permitted use under the terms of his lease and permitted planning consent.

“The tenant has been operating outside the lease, as a restaurant and café.

“Cooking is not allowed on the premises or any seating – inside or out – for customers.

“Several attempts have been made to work with the tenant, but he continued to be in breach of the lease.

“The tenant appealed against the planning decision, however the planning inspectorate upheld the council’s decision on appeal.

“There is another cafe in Derwent Parade which has the appropriate agreed planning use and lease in place that will be opening again shortly.”

Comments(42)

OckendonPaul says...
11:00am Mon 18 Feb 13

Typical. This is a great little cafe, surely the council drones could come to some sort of settlement that actually benefits the people they serve for once and allows this place to stay open? But Oh no! when the oppurtunity arises to do something useful for once they go hide behind their petty rulebook.
Meanwhile, round the corner, burgers and kebebs continue to be pushed in soulless takeaways where no one really "meets".
And if by the "other cafe" they mean that orange plastic place at the other end where the only cooking sound is the ding of the microwave then you can keep it...

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
12:20pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Part of me thinks it is wrong to close a thriving business down, the other part thinks that anyone who wants to do as they like without going the legal way about it, shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

This is one case, but what would things be like if everyone were allowed to get away with it?

Report this post »

Jb66 says...
1:49pm Mon 18 Feb 13

So what is the "permitted use"? The cafe is obviously an asset to the local people. I suppose if he had a greasy burger van parked on the street that would be ok? There are enough high street shops etc. closing and one that seems to be thriving the jobsworths at the council want to close it. The owner has asked for permission more than once for goodness sake give it to him.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
2:25pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Just because someone asks for permission, it doesn't mean they will/should get it. What is the point in having to apply if by default you always give them what they want?

If you would have read the article, you would see this shop is not allowed to be 'cooking hot food on the premises and remove tables and chairs from the cafe.'

A normal shop premises is not allowed to serve hot food like this, that's the point is it not? Any argument for, will always be negated by the fact that the rules and regulations have NOT been followed. It is the same argument when people said 'let the people at Dale Farm stay.'

I was undecided, but to be honest JB66, your post has made me remember that without laws, people want to do what the heck they want.

Report this post »

ebagumtrebor says...
3:57pm Mon 18 Feb 13

The most controversial part about this is the fact the council are shutting it down. He's been operating for 7 years at least and his customers seem happy. Why do council employee's spend so much time looking at the anal cavities.

Report this post »

d_2da_ougle says...
4:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13

This place has been operateing for ages how comes its taken so long for them to enforce this. I think the other cae has been moaning

Report this post »

OckendonPaul says...
4:28pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Maybe a simple "Is it a benefit to local council taxpayers" rule should be applied. Dale Farm no, Tony's cafe yes.
Common sense seems to have long been eradicated from the British character, and without it we'll all disappear up our anal cavaties

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
5:06pm Mon 18 Feb 13

The point is, to allow this cafe to remain open leaves a bad precedent. Your over simplistic 'Is it a benefit to local council taxpayers' is by no way a replacement from proper council regulations and legal permission.

If we start going down that route, it would be open to interpretation, personal opinion and people with self interest at heart. I understand the 'common sense' argument, but my common sense argument would be don't do something until you have permission. It really is that simple, so to be 7 years down the line without it, then ignoring the council requests, do you really think it would be a good example to set to let it stay as is?

Report this post »

BigEyes says...
5:47pm Mon 18 Feb 13

The common sense approach is to allow the cafe to stay open. There is a huge demand from a wide-cross section of the community, tradesmen and is a highly popular local meeting place for older people, including those with mobility needs, as your picture illustrates. I am a volunteer working for a charity which funds sports coaches in local schools, I use this cafe a great deal to meet up with my coaches to collect their timesheets etc. Would be a great shame to lose this much needed facility.

Surely Thurrock Council are not going to insist that this shop becomes another fat-fry takeaway? Tony's salads and jacket spuds are a good healthy option and should not be allowed to disappear.

Heads firmly screwed on please, Thurrock Council.

Report this post »

BigEyes says...
5:54pm Mon 18 Feb 13

On another point, there is nothing "Controversial" about the cafe as your headline suggests. I've lived in Ockendon for over 40 years, when I was very young, early sixties, there used to be a cafe in Derwent Parade - might have been at this very unit. Anyone remember it?

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
6:14pm Mon 18 Feb 13

So BigEyes, because you will lose your meeting point, it is wrong to close it down? Does that not go to show that anyone actually involved will always make a decision that benefits them personally?

I am struggling to understand why people think that the place should stay, when the proper regulations were not followed, and warnings ignored. Sure, people use this cafe so there will be the 'it serves a function' argument, which it does. But nothing can negate the fact that this business is operating against the purposes that it was meant to, initially.

I was initially undecided on this one, but if this cafe is allowed to stay, it really does set a bad precedent. Rules and regulations are there for a reason, and no amount of 'common sense' could or should replace proper set regulations.

Report this post »

A Dermot says...
6:54pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Perhaps he should have made a few donations to a political party and you too can build hundreds of homes in the green belt or operate an illegal lorry park.

Report this post »

ardale lad says...
11:21pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Rules is rules. Why not open a cafe to specialize in polish or afro food no competition to others then is there.Still do bacon butties and tea though yes!

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
12:57am Tue 19 Feb 13

Turn it into an African church.

Report this post »

Thurrock Trojan says...
12:59am Tue 19 Feb 13

A Dermot wrote:
Perhaps he should have made a few donations to a political party and you too can build hundreds of homes in the green belt or operate an illegal lorry park.
And Eric Pickles could have had as many free bacon butties and English breakfasts as he liked.

Report this post »

Dave_ says...
7:44am Tue 19 Feb 13

This is ridiculous. How on earth has this been allowed to go on for so long. He has been asking for change of use for 10 years and been told no, without it appears any real or reported reason. In this time he has continued trading without detriment to the local area and built up a good, loyal customer base.
The politicians keep banging on about regeneration of town centres, but seem bereft of ideas to actually do this. The ideas they do have involve making people pay to park cars and get large chain shops in. Whereas a different strategy of getting people in by use of places like this cafe, restaurants, entertainment and similar places, not more fast food emporia, creating a healthy demand for other shops and services.

Report this post »

Bernard 87 says...
8:09am Tue 19 Feb 13

Give him the change of use and allow the cafe to stay open. There's no point going on about precedent as councils say this when it suits them. As someone else has said when a council wants hundreds of homes dumped on the green belt they forget about 'precedent' until they get an application they don't like then the whole precedent issue kicks in again.

Yes rules have to be followed but in some cases you have to apply some common sense. If the council wanted this place to be shut down down they should have done it years ago rather than moaning about it years later.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
10:28am Tue 19 Feb 13

Anything that benefits someone who has deliberately broken the rules for so long, is a bad thing.

Yes, the council should have dealt with this before, but it does not in anyway make what the owner did acceptable. You cannot pick and choose which rules you want broken.

I fail to understand how someone can open a cafe without the proper consent, and think it is acceptable. It's all well and good being able to open 'pirate' cafes, but I wonder what the legal cafe thinks about this, as they have had to do everything legally and now face competition from someone who didn't bother.

So Bernard, do you honestly think just because something has been going on for so long, they should be able to get away with it? This is a very dangerous idea, and although it wouldn't matter in this case, playing god by ignoring the rules will only lead to bigger problems.

Report this post »

OckendonPaul says...
11:14am Tue 19 Feb 13

I think I'm right in saying that this cafe has been trading far longer than the other one, so they can't really complain (although I stand to be corrected...).
And as for precedents, David Cameron is just this week telling a billion Indians that Britains immigration laws won't apply to them, and if it's good enough for him to pick and choose, it's good enough for Thurrock Council!
Surely we employ them to enhance our lives, how nice if they just did it for a change. Down with jobsworths!!!

Report this post »

BigEyes says...
11:24am Tue 19 Feb 13

A message to DannyButcher: I will not lose financially if this cafe is closed, but the owner will, and his employees will lose their jobs. The whole economy suffers as a result.There is no other equivalent cafe open at Derwent Parade as you suggest in your latest message. Then we have the issue of the possibility of the unit being used for a fat-fry takeaway. In light of ever increasing obesity, Thurrock Council would do well to look at the consequences again, which clearly runs more deeper than a technical planning consent issue.

Report this post »

Bernard 87 says...
11:29am Tue 19 Feb 13

"You cannot pick and choose which rules you want broken"

Well you better tell the council that as they seem to support picking and choosing.

In 90% of cases I'd be the first one to say close it down, they broke the rules etc etc....but in this case think there are numerous errors by the council and they failed to act in a swift and responsible manner ten years ago. I feel the only reason this story has come out id due to the fact that the other cafe is reopening and is worried about competition.

It is the councils job to help create a sense of community. Here we have a well used facility which seems to cause no trouble, is on a pretty quiet shopping parade in a pretty quiet area. The cafe has been trading for over a decade. On this case I do think the council should grant change of use and allow the owner to continue serving his community.

If only the council was so 'strict' on developers wanting to concrete all over the green belt rather than picking on the small fry who actually benefit this borough.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
12:07pm Tue 19 Feb 13

To be blatantly honest, almost all of the above points for are irrelevant. If someone can give me a good reason why this cafe was opened without relevant permission, and then why the councils requests were ignored, I might be more receptive to arguments that the cafe should stay open.

To Bigeyes, you may not benefit financially from the cafe, but the fact that you use it for certain purposes means that you do benefit from it being there. With that in mind, your opinions on whether it should stay or go, are personal, not unbiased.

For me, this bit is very important...'Mr Cayir, who has owned the cafe for 10 years, said he has tried to change the type of use allowed in the cafe, but claims the council won’t allow it. ' So basically, even though the council said no, the owner did what he liked anyway. I think that says it all.

Report this post »

OckendonPaul says...
2:58pm Tue 19 Feb 13

I don't support the owner and my reasons for wanting to keep it open are personal and biased. What's wrong with that?
I, along with many other people, like it and use it. Who benefits by it's closure?And for what reason should it be closed? Apart from some imagined descent into anarchy if "the rules" are not strictly obeyed...

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
4:54pm Tue 19 Feb 13

'reasons for wanting to keep it open are personal and biased. What's wrong with that? ' Are you deliberately being pig headed, or are you failing to understand that your personal reasons for keeping something open could be negated by reasons why someone else would want something shut? What about if there are people who don't like the smell of cooking wafting in their flats? Do your personal opinions overrule that? Hypothetical of course, but isn't that the point?

That is exactly why there are rules and regulations, personal opinions are irrelevant. I for one believe that if someone wants to ignore these for no other reason than 'the council say no', no amount of usefulness should allow them to stay.

Are you honestly saying that anyone can open a cafe without planning permission, then ignore all council requests and still be allowed to do as he likes?

I personally wouldn't eat at any cafe that doesn't 100% follow the rules, because I would worry and wonder what other corners have been cut? Health and safety, food hygiene etc. Sure, these are all regulations, but apparently rules and regulations are irrelevant if a business serves a purpose. If we get into which rules are relevant to follow or not, what's the point in having any in the first place?

Report this post »

BigEyes says...
5:55pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Tony's cafe has a valid food hygiene certificate, issued by, er, Thurrock Council.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
6:24pm Tue 19 Feb 13

BigEyes wrote:
Tony's cafe has a valid food hygiene certificate, issued by, er, Thurrock Council.
If it wasn't clear you are directly championing the cafe on a personal basis (or professional), then it is now.

Report this post »

rocket1 says...
8:53pm Tue 19 Feb 13

this same council just allowed a kennels to be built on the greenbelt ,they can ignore the rules when it suits them.

Report this post »

Dave_ says...
7:57am Wed 20 Feb 13

What isn’t stated anywhere is what the original use of the café was, that prompted the owner to ask for change of use.
Also what isn’t mentioned is why after repeated change requests and with an obvious sign sayng “café” and what is sold there, the so called professionals in depts such as planning, and environmental health, hadn’t closed it down or stopped the owner from carrying on.
The owner must have passed food hygiene inspections and not presented a danger to public health.
Slapdash and shoddy doesn’t come close.
Whether or not the owner should be allowed to carry on with the business after all this time should be done on public health grounds. This wouldn’t be bending rules or anything, although the council and other public bodies aren’t exactly squeaky when it comes to applying and sticking to rules or ‘adjusting’ rules when it suits them. Even when it comes to going by public opinion, they will pick and choose purely on grounds of political expediency.

Report this post »

improving road safety says...
9:19am Wed 20 Feb 13

WHY has Thurrock council refused the café owner the licence to cook hot food, has the café owner trod on a Thurrock council officials toes? What are our serving Thurrock councilors of (all parties) doing about supporting the residents of South Ockendon? If Thurrock council is trying to promote our local towns why are they being so pig headed, it is now time to compromise. It is interesting to note that I do not see any councilors import within! Why is Grays town awash with cafes and restaurants but South Ockendon gets the thumbs down? Don’t get me wrong, I am in support of all official hygiene and laws and legal documents being in force and up to date, especially where food is severed, only got to look at the Horse meat problem at the moment.

Report this post »

OckendonPaul says...
12:06pm Wed 20 Feb 13

"Are you deliberately being pig headed, or are you failing to understand that your personal reasons for keeping something open could be negated by reasons why someone else would want something shut?"

I perfectly understand that there could be a reason why someone would want to shut the cafe, that's why I asked the question

"Who benefits by it's closure?And for what reason should it be closed? Apart from some imagined descent into anarchy if "the rules" are not strictly obeyed..."

Still waiting for an answer that isn't hypothetical...

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
1:50pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Hypothetical or not, to be that obtuse in thinking that someone has to benefit from the closure of the cafe, is ludicrous. But then, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

It should be closed because it has not and is not following the rules. What has anyone benefiting from it's closure got to do with it? I'm starting to think you are deliberately not understanding. If that isn't the case, then your 'logic' is clearly flawed.

Report this post »

Dave_ says...
6:41pm Wed 20 Feb 13

In reality another cafe in the area could benefit from the closure.

The fact that the owner has been allowed to operate for so long in contravention of use, is blatant dereliction by Thurrock Council's salaried management and staff. The fact they have issued hygiene certificates is testament to the fact that it is not a danger to the public. Plus on their visits EH would have documentation to say what the business is and if he was operating outside of his licence, they could fine him or close the premises if he persisted. I say give him what he wants and let him continue to offer a service that people of S Ockendon obviously want and enjoy. The council should be supporting and helping small businesses as they are the lifeblood of the local economy, not looking for ways to shut them, because of easily worked around technicalities.

The irony is he's not hiding or disguising what he's doing, which again points to shoddy work practices within the council.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
7:59pm Wed 20 Feb 13

The only reason anyone could benefit from the closure at this point, is due to the cafe not having the correct authorization in the first place. If the cafe was legal, then there is no way it could be closed only for someone else to benefit. Therefore, it is irrelevant who would benefit.

Report this post »

Dave_ says...
7:26am Thu 21 Feb 13

How would closing it because of a legal point, benefit anyone?
Has it been the source of food poisoning or similar?
What is missing from this story is why the penpushers in New Road have prevented a change of use, maybe comments outlining the reasoning from the head of EH, Trading Standards and Planning would shed some light on this. But they are faceless bureaucrats keen on sucking an extortionate salary from the taxpaying public, but not being publicly accountable.
There are plenty of legal food outlets that cause health problems, that aren't shut when they probably should be.
There is an irony that many businesses we now regard as being part of the furniture, started out as someone doing something they shouldn't or outside the proper legal process.
I seem to recall you were in favour of the market in Corringham. Are you opposed to the notion of local shopkeepers and town centres? I would regard many mobile market traders as being a bit dodgy and probably not operating entirely within the same legal framework as a shop trader. If you buy something or contract something from a market stall, and it's not right or you get ill, you may never see them again and they would be likely to deny responsibility. A shop owner in general has nowhere to run or hide.

Report this post »

aerobic1 says...
8:24am Thu 21 Feb 13

This decision should be based on the needs of the community or whats the point of having a community - these people make the town a little busier as all Thurrock towns are extremely quiet - perhaps there should be another discussion and this time vote in favour of the people - is it causing a problem. When I read the head line it sounded like it was a cafe which dealt in the 'wrong kind of thing' but its only being used as a meeting point for community. Have a rethink!

Report this post »

Jamessounds says...
10:36am Thu 21 Feb 13

The last change of use application was in 2005. Doesn't seem like the story of a man desperate to work with the council and obey the rules. Eight years?

Report this post »

OckendonPaul says...
11:31am Thu 21 Feb 13

Still waiting....

For the benefit of those who don't seem to understand, the majority of contributors on here are coming from the point of view that the 'rules' are meant to serve the community, and not the other way round.
Bearing that in mind, I still can't see an case for the closure of a popular asset.

The argument that the community should suffer the loss of this asset simply to appease the 'rules', esspecially speaking as a member of that community, is so preposterous that it seems almost malicious.

Report this post »

Jamessounds says...
12:35pm Thu 21 Feb 13

I too see no reason for the closure of this "popular asset" but he should stick to the terms of his lease until such a time that he and the council can come to some sort of agreement on the situation. As far as I am aware this premises is licensed to be a sandwich shop, and again as far as I am aware the last change of use application was placed several years ago.
The story leads you to believe he has applied over and over to the council with no rational reason returned for the rejection. This would appear to be simply not the case.
Consideration must also be given to the properties around this "cafe" as the change of use would have a detrimental effect to both the value and mortgage prospects of these properties should the be privately owned. You cannot simply assume that no one would be harmed by the granting of this change of use with out looking at all sides of the argument.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Still waiting for what exactly, because I think you will find that ALL of your points have been covered. Or are you talking to yourself again and ignoring replies....

Rules are meant to serve the community? So I guess anyone who wants to open a cafe just needs to provide a service and not go about it legally.

What you seem to be deliberately ignoring is that fact that the owner hasn't exactly made much of an effort to work with the council, so why on earth should they bend over backwards for him? I understand that it provides a service, but that does not overrule everything else.

You are clearly have an interest in this case, which is why your points are all aimed at 'there is no reason to close the cafe down.' Where as the obvious point is, why did the owner open up without getting proper permission. If you can answer that one simple question sufficiently, as to how a cafe owner opens a business without getting proper permission, then ignores the council for so long, then people may be more receptive. A reason of 'he applied but was refused' is not an excuse by the way. You see, rules and regulations are there so that things like this do not come down to personal opinions, and your opinions are clearly personal and not based on reality.

I agree it is unfortunate that the cafe has been open so long without proper permission, allowing it to build up a good customer base, but the reality is it should not have been able to do that in the first place. To say the council should not have let it, completely absolves the owner of any guilt, which we know is not true.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
12:39pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Jamessounds wrote:
The last change of use application was in 2005. Doesn't seem like the story of a man desperate to work with the council and obey the rules. Eight years?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!

Report this post »

Dave_ says...
3:43pm Thu 21 Feb 13

"The last change of use application was in 2005. Doesn't seem like the story of a man desperate to work with the council and obey the rules. Eight years?"
So it has taken 7/8 years for the New Road crowd to catch up with him, hardly sounds like a council desperate to enforce the rules etc.
It would be intriguing to know how this has come to the fore after so long. Dont tell me that someone in the councl saw it was still operating and decided to do something.

Report this post »

DannyButcher says...
3:48pm Thu 21 Feb 13

So because it took the council so long to act, it makes a cafe operating without permission right?

I agree the council should have acted more aggressively, sooner, in this case. But two wrongs do not make a right. And it certainly doesn't mean that the cafe should remain open by default.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree