Local vs Global
From:
Rachel Fryer
Date:
May 19 23:45 UTC
Short link
Fantastic news. In case you haven't already heard, Starbucks has been refused
planning permission. The main reasons for refusal was because it would cause
more than 15m breakage in shop front from A1 retail.
The application for the cafe signage is likely to be approved although
hopefully that won't be necessary now.
But it will almost certainly go to appeal and Starbucks is likely to afford a
good lawyer so it ain't over yet!
However if the premises were already a cafe there'd be no grounds to refuse
permission. This highlights the fact that we clearly need better planning laws
to empower the community to object to multi-nationals taking over their towns!
Not to mention the outrage people feel that building works are allowed to
happen before permission is granted, causing immense disruption as well as
waste in building the cafe if it has to be pulled down again.
Best wishes
Rachel Fryer
Green Party Councillor for Queen's Park Ward
> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:09:04 +0100
> Subject: Re: [BH-Issues] Local vs Global
> CC: <email obscured>
>
> the problem is that Starbucks claim they are A1! B & H Planners seem to
> be too timid to contradict them. We need to make the Planning
> Committee realise that they must stand up to this type of bullying.
>
> Also the application seems to have "lost" some of the premises space!
> Now the area declared makes it small enough not to count as a "large"
> unit, however ealier applications for this site declared a larger size and
> clearly showed that it was then big enough to be classified as a large
> unit.
>
> Sue Paskins
> Former Planning Committee Member (Green)
>
> On 19 May 2008 at 7:26, Tony Cook wrote:
>
> Another example of the creeping homoginisation of our high streets.
> Had this planning proposal been submitted 20 years back, when Kemptown
> really needed this kind of investment, I might have wished it luck.
> Now I only see profiteers trying to muscle in on the success of
> others, like an opportunist cuckoo to the nest.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: hungry onion <<email obscured>>
> Date: May 18, 2008 8:20 PM
> Subject: Fw: Starbucks planning applications
> To: <email obscured>
>
>
>
>
> Please forward this to everyone you know who objects...
>
> This is the email, to be sent to <email obscured>
>
>
> Application numbers: BH2008/01039, BH2008/0095315
>
> Please register my objection to these applications, and, if minded to
> approve, that this be brought before a Planning Applications
> Sub-Committee. I have stated my reasons below:
>
> St. James' Street has a unique character and this is achieved in a
> large part thanks to its independent retailers and cafes. This also
> helps to create a vibrant local economy. A Starbucks coffee house
> would I believe have a detrimental effect on the street's uniqueness
> and, particularly in these times of economic uncertainty, could push
> these independent stores out of business which would have a negative
> effect on the local economy. This is because a corporation such as
> Starbucks is likely to increase rentals which would put further
> pressure on local businesses.
>
> There are already 12 coffee outlets on St. James' Street so to have yet
> another, particularly of this size, is unsuitable and could cause
> some to go out of business.
>
> I believe in supporting local based business in line with the
> decision in Council Chamber last September to support the Transition
> Towns (TTs) and Cities initiative by declaring BHCC a Transition City.
>
> I believe that this application goes against the Local Plan, in
> particular: * SR5 which states that St. James's Street should have a
> clear predominance of A1 retail. (at least 51%) * SR12 which states
> that any new large A3 should not abut residential property which this
> site does.
> * SR12 also states that such a change of use should not be allowed
> within 400m of another large A3.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> a href="http://www.redbubble.com/people/myndzi"
>
> Tony Cook
>
> Info about Tony Cook: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/tonycook
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7p79NxBxI8J1fOw7i2aL44
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Brighton & Hove Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/bh
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> Sue Paskins
>
> Info about Sue Paskins: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/suepaskins
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2K4pemmVLDuFSULkwKY0iD
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
> More info about Brighton & Hove Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/bh
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000009ukm/direct/01/
.