Share.

    6 Comments

    1. An unelected Monarchy that is also a landlord evicts hard working businesses in favour of… a bigger office reception?

      Horrible PR if it’s true.

    2. Happy-Diamond- on

      I mean it makes sense from a landlord perspective. They make their money from the offices and they’re required to make it accessible for wheelchairs and probably energy ratings. The restaurant is a tenant ultimately.

      I know this sounds heartless of me but, like, why should they get special treatment? It’s owned by incredibly wealthy people not some local couple or something (former managing director of a bank for UHNWIs). The original owners are long gone. They’re just playing on the narrative of the heritage to get out of the situation.

    3. Dennyisthepisslord on

      Crown estate won’t care. The land they own is worth billions and they make hundreds of millions a year. A old Indian restaurant is something they can easily replace somehow.

    4. idobelievewerenaked on

      My favourite Indian restaurant in London – it would be a tragedy if it closed. I’ve simply never had better food than there. My grandmother first took my mother there in the 70s, then my mother took me there around 15 years ago. It’s my go-to celebration location.

    5. Well that’s a bit of a naff reason to do it really.
      They’re going to force the closure of a 100 year old Michelin star restaurant because the offices upstairs need to be “more accessible” and that*requires* removing part of the restaurant.

      So apparently that’s that. There’s no possible way they could do something like remove part of the restaurant to make these changes *without* completely removing the restaurant. They couldn’t *possibly* let the restaurant be smaller. Nope. Complete eviction is the only way to go… (/s in case you couldn’t tell)