Sizzlers

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 13 Mar 2005, 21:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:I'm very difficult to please when it comes to dessert and should probably have gone with the cheese board.

Have had the cheese at Dalriada - very disappointing - three similar hard cheese types no celery or grapes in sight just walnuts and dried apricots.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 13 Mar 2005, 21:35

Dadaist wrote:I had peanut butter on toast.

crunchy or smooth?

Post by **wangi** » 13 Mar 2005, 21:46

White or brown?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Mar 2005, 21:56

Tesco white split tin loaf, had to stuff the doorsteps into the toaster. Lurpak spreadable and Sunpat Crunchy.

In terms of 'nut butter, I much prefer crunchy - in fact my favourite is whole nut, skins 'n' all - Sun Pat Crunchy was simply a means to an end as it was all there was in the cupboard.

I hate cold peanut butter (ie I would never have it on a sandwich) as much as I hate smooth peanut butter. They gie me the boke.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 13 Mar 2005, 22:18

Dadaist wrote: They gie me the boke.

Would that be the dry boke?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 13 Mar 2005, 22:32

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 19 Mar 2005, 22:48

Gald to see that new restuarant is well received. Undoubtedy adds to the amenity of the community. High quality and nice clientele.
Some facts:
Proprietor (and previous operator) had original application refused. 18 months later work started on re-fitting of restuarant for which application had been granted. Strangely notification of application to immediate neighbours lost in post. Council left residents in lurch - matter between residents and applicant. Severe noise, vibration and smell problems in surrounding properties ensued. Eventually after visiting property, council advises residents - yes in breach of planning conditions but nothing more can be done. New owner, nicey nicey - any problems come and see me and will be sorted. Any problems - noise, vibration and smell, air-conditioning unit 10 feet from bedroom window - listed building consent - none. Remedial action so far - none. Licensed till 11pm - last customers left last night - 2am (tough mate - noise meets NR25). Lives very seriously blighted. All talk no action. Not heard the last. I hope community-conscious, solidarity-seeking CATS enjoy next evening out. May be you will be next!

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 19 Mar 2005, 23:00

What point are you trying to make about CATS exactly? CATS do not have an evening out planned at Sizzlers.

MrSpoon · Post by **MrSpoon** » 20 Mar 2005, 02:16

The users of this forum might as well be cats

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 20 Mar 2005, 10:25

Sorry to hear you're having problems due to living so close to a restaurant isapcdm. (I should also point out that it was a group of POL members that had a meal out at Sizzlers - nothing to do with PCATS at all.)

What was there previously when you bought your flat?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 20 Mar 2005, 10:43

Welcome isapdcm,

You sound as if you're at the end of your tether and I can sympathise as I live very close to the Postal Delivery Office in Windsor Place and know just how disruptive noise and activity can be when it occurs late night/early morning.
There are deliveries through the wee small hours and it can be very annoying.

Like you, we had discussions with the owners, the Council were involved and generally speaking things have improved somewhat.

Hope your situation gets better soon.

ecm

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:28

Full and unreserved apology about misunderstanding about CATS - no offence intended and entirely my mistake. Exasperation got the better of me - I simply feel that all those community conscious persons who are so happy about the addition of a decent restuarant (which I fully appreciate) should be aware that it has a severe downside - for a member of the community.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:46

You have my sympathies. It can't be easy living next door to a pub or late-night restaurant and I sincerely hope that you manage to resolve these issues amicably.

Having built up a very healthy business in a very short time I'm sure the owners will want to do the right thing and keep everyone happy.

Keep us posted on developments, and meanwhile - welcome to the forum.

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:48

With regard to 'living so close to a restuarant' and 'what was there before': it was a grocery store when I bought my flat. I appreciate that living in close proximity to commercial premises always carries a risk. If it had been a restuarant when I came here I would not be complaining. The fact that I was denied the my right to object as laid out in council planning procedures I find extremely galling - even more so that the council, although insisting that neighbours are informed, claims they have no power to do anything about it when it doesn't happen. Before it was the Blue Bean Coffee Company some of you may remember that it was called the Tea Cosy. Propietors at the time applied for a full food licence - which was never granted. There was therefore no precedent that suggested that (for this row of properties at least) an application, if properly submitted, would have been granted under current regulations. There is a precedent now. The environmental health officer at one point during investigations confided to us that planning permission should never have been granted - because the building is fundamentally unsuited to the purpose. I suggest all who might be in an even vaguely similar situation keep a keen eye on planning applications - which can be viewed online (it might the only way you find out about them). If there are no objections (from either the public or other council agencies) the council very often 'delegate the decision' which means, effectively, that it is not questioned at committee meetings and is put through on a nod. Once granted there appears to be no way to reverse the decision.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:53

I'm confused now. Are we talking about Sizzlers or the Blue Bean Cafe?

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:54

Bob, thanks for sympathy. Regarding 'I'm sure the owners will want to do the right thing and keep everyone happy' - I refer you to my original posting and point out that the reason I am now contributing to this forum rather than having done so earlier, is that all evidence to date suggests that I am now right to be extremely cynical that this will ever happen.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:54

Sympathise totally with all the points you raise about living in close proximity to this restaurant. Residents in Baileyfield Road, have lived with industry for many years - absolutley no redress for residents due to the area surrounding the street zoned light industrial in 1997. We too have problems with noise/fumes and associated vehicular traffic of all dimensions rumbling around at 6.00am in the morning and late into the night.
Before anyone says that this area has always been industrial - I should point out that industry ceased before 1905 when the clay pits were exhausted - the cottages were erected around this time, can you believe that there was a large field beind these properties for quite a considerable period afterwards. Thereafter SSEB aquired the land to store coal to feed
the Porty Power Station, the rest is history.

For all the reasons - and more - that you have mentioned, we are against
a Supersore for this site, for us it would be the final nail in the coffin.

Apologies accepted on behalf of CATS

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 12:57

We are talking about Sizzlers. The Tea Cosy reference was intended to be nothing more than an example (the only one I am aware of) that backed my argument that, if properly submitted, the planning application for what is now Sizzlers would not have been granted.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2005, 13:00

Yes, I re-read your post and it makes more sense now. I will ask John Stewart, Chair of Portobello Amenity Society, the group responsible for vetting all local planning applications on behalf of Portobello Community Council to comment.

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 13:14

I have been in touch with John Stewart in the past about this. I am aware that they are supposed to have all applications brought to their attention. If I remember it correcty this was one that unfortunately appears to have slipped through the net - hence the importance of all to be vigilant on their own behalf. I have also been in touch with Maureen Child who has been very helpful but ultimately, I believe due to her duties on planning matters, has a responsibility not to take sides which I fully understand(hope I'm not misrepresenting you Maureen).

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 13:22

I would also like to point out that I have already spent a substantial amount of money attempting to insulate my property against smells - despite the relevant planning condition being that smells do not escape from the restuarant. I am not just sitting on my backside feeling sorry for myself. Unfortunately the smell just seems to move along and come out somewhere else! Ultimately solution appears to be to uplift the solid wood floors (which I put in in the first place) fully insulate property - both above and below ash deafening boards, and re-instate. Hopefully all will appreciate why I am not inclined to do this without first attempting to address the source of the problem.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 20 Mar 2005, 14:31

Hopefully this thread will run until something is done. isapdcm, I can understand why your initial post was cynical, but you have to understand that this is the first we've heard of the whole thing - it would be very different if we had been raving about somewhere in the knowledge that the good time we were having was at the alleged expense of somebody elses peace and quiet.

Hopefully the proprietor will read this too. Just as isapdcm is entitled to judge us by our response now that we know there's a problem, so we are entitled to make observations based on what transpires also....

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 20 Mar 2005, 14:51

Thank you for your response. I will certainly post updates in the form of new topics - when positive, i.e. if you do not hear anything then nothing has changed. I am concerned that people do not interpret this as an incitement to boycott - it most certainly is not. My relations with the proprietor have been very good until very recently - it's just that the fact is absolutely no remedial action has been taken. I am of the opinion that this is an extremely good restuarant and most certainly adds to the amenity of the community. It is unfortunate that it is currently at the expense of some. My ideal outcome is that the remedial action be taken and the restuarant becomes a well-established feature of the community. I really don't think it needs to be at anyone's expense. I must admit, however, to be concerned at the possibility of replies of the 'well I won't be going back' nature being posted. I would much prefer that people take this as a lesson in the sense that I have pointed out some serious shortcomings in the planning process and each should as a consequence be vigilant on their on behalf. I'd much rather people lobbied the council to make the planning process better than that people lobbied in some way against the restuarant. Consequently, I am taking the view that I have made my point and have asked that the discussion thread be removed. But as I said above - positive news will be posted - hopefully soon.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2005, 19:02

I've had a brief chat with isapdcm on the phone and I have persuaded him that the thread should remain. I still remain hopeful that this situation can be resolved amicably.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 20 Mar 2005, 22:44

I live not far from you, also above one of the shops. We are not on good terms with our neighbours downstairs! I'm not meaning this as a slight to the proprietors of Sizzlers since I don't know them - however, these businesses should realise that the flats above them are our HOMES. The shop owners can leave their business at the end of the day but we live there and as such the quality of our lives should take priority. I hope Mr Sizzler takes all comments regarding this on board as he seems a very nice person and after all, it is in the shopkeeper's interest to be on the right side of the neighbours just in case anything goes wrong in the shop overnight etc.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 21 Mar 2005, 21:15

isapdcm, sorry you are having these difficulties and it does demonstrate how much the planning system is loaded against the ordinary person and one of the reasons PCATS is fighting the superstore application. Another person you might want to contact is Susan Deacon MSP, as the Scottish Executive are going to be carrying out a major overhaul of planning legislation. I'm sure she would be interested to hear about your experiences and may be able to do something to help. And at the risk of stating the b****** obvious, have you contacted Environmental Health, Citizens' Advice Bureau, a solicitor...?

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 21 Mar 2005, 21:41

I have contacted a solicitor in the past who's advice was to keep in with planning as much as possible and try to keep them on my side. I intend to pursue this further - problem is probably going to be finding one who is extremely well versed in these matters. Perhaps on reflection CAB would be a good starting point.
Environmental Health have been involved from the start and are about to be again.
I've involved Maureen Childs but not Susan Deacon - I intend to this time around.
I never consider helpful suggestions so obvious that they are not worth making. Thanks.

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 22 Mar 2005, 00:40

I have reviewed my initial posting and would like to substantially expand in the interest of accuracy (apologies for the long-windedness):
Smells: the current proprietor on taking over the restaurant installed air-conditioning which dramatically improved the situation. We were unaware of any smells and rightfully delighted. At New Year smells re-appeared. On discussing with the proprietor it transpired that problems were also being encountered in the restaurant. He called out his engineer who found that two parts of the extraction ducting had come apart. All appeared well again. Two weeks ago smells re-appeared. This time the restaurant was not affected in any way. I was taken aback by the animated reaction of the proprietor who insisted that he would not be changing his extraction system (something I had not suggested). A vague commitment was made to have his engineer look into it. Smells are now a consistent problem. Exposure work in my property at my cost has found an air-stream carrying a rancid smell under my floor. The strength of the current appears to vary with the level of wind outside - this undoubtedly explains why the smell varies from day to day. It is obvious that the fabric of the building is being steadily impregnated with this smell.
Noise: My only problem is with operation of the air-conditioning unit after 11pm. This is a matter I have discussed several times with the proprietor. In the last conversation we had I pressed for a timescale for improvement given recent late (well beyond 11pm) operation at weekends. 2-3 weeks was indicated (engineer only having left hospital). The following weekend the unit was again operated well beyond 11pm and this weekend again (until 2am) despite our conversation and clear knowledge that this disturbed our sleep. On enquiring about the lateness of the hour the only response I received was that Environmental Health had measured noise from the unit and said it was ok (nothing about the measurement being in the context of an 11pm license).
Vibration: I have no issue. My neighbours have (and also worse smell and noise problems than myself). I had wrongly assumed this matter had been raised by them. I understand this will change shortly.

My last conversation with the proprietor and experiences since have been a turning point for me. Although a best case scenario might be that something will actually happen in the proprietors own good time I am convinced that nothing will actually be done unless through planning department enforcement. The whole 'come and see me and we'll sort it out' approach has led to a situation where it appears the proprietor will actually be doing me a favour if he does anything at all. Recent regular late operation demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the neighbours.
As I should have done from the start, I have now formalised matters in correspondence with relevant council agencies.

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 02 Apr 2005, 14:25

Extract from communication from Planning department (received 1/4/05):
It appears that the property has been changed from a hot food takeaway to a restaurant. This would have required planning permission and I can find no record of this having either been sought or obtained. I have asked the owner to apply for consent retrospectively so that this matter can be properly considered. If an application is not submitted or is subsequently refused, further action in respect of the above legislation (TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997) will be considered.

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » 03 Apr 2005, 10:00

Did anyone see EN last night, I was told by a friend that there is a full page spread all about Sizzlers in the "Good Grub Guide" Section.
Apparently its quite complimentary apart from the fact the writer mentions he felt the tables were a bit too close together !

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Apr 2005, 10:26

Here's the link:

Crowd cramps style but food turns tables

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Apr 2005, 11:26

Word of explanation: I have merged the 'Sizzlers' thread with the 'New Restaurant at last thread' to avoid confusion.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 05 Apr 2005, 16:46

Saw the review at the weekend and thought it was a fair reflection of the place. I would be happy with it if I were the owner.

isapdcm · Post by **isapdcm** » 06 Apr 2005, 19:27

Noticed that restaurant owner had knocked a hole in rear wall - apparently in connection with pipe work. This was causing smells to enter my rear bedroom. Went to see him to confirm what he was doing and to make sure that the stonework would be repaired. He simply wasn't in the mood to listen - he lost it really. Eventually he called me a liar several times (that very word) - there are no smells coming into my flat! I pointed out that for the first 3 months there had been no problems and we were all happy, it was only at Xmas I first reported smells - and at that time he found the source and fixed it - so why would he think I was making up complaints. He started ranting about the restaurant being here forever and being licenced - I pointed out that he did not have a restaurant licence - only a carry-out licence (see earlier post). He then attempted to deny that he had to operate to any particular hours - despite my having already been told by the council that if he operates after 11pm it is a matter for the police. I also have correspondence from the council informing the previous propietor that the doors and windows of the restaurant were to remained closed as keeping them open interfered with the effectiveness of the extraction system and caused smells in surrounding properties - they suggested he install air-conditioning to avoid the need to open doors. Current propietor has started keeping the rear fire exit open and is operating the air-conditioning unit less and less to save money on electricity (as he confirmed during this evenings exchange) - wonder if that has anything to do with the smells I am now getting (doh). I thanked him for wasting my time - in the sense that when he first opened he had asked me to go to see him if ever I had any problems (they would get sorted out) when in fact he clearly had no intention of ever doing anything. A charming fellow. Enjoy your meal.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 07 Apr 2005, 09:55

isapdcm wrote:..... Enjoy your meal.

Cheers.