Post in Not another coffee shop?

Jul 03 12:13 UTC

Oxford City Council has a long history of getting its fingers burned
and yours and my taxes swallowed up by appeals.  The first and
foremost presumption of the planning process is that a property owner
should be able to do what they choose with their own property - right
or wrong it is pretty much a fundamental definition of property!
Compelling reasons must be found to deny them that right.  And there
would be no change of use permission required for Smarts anyway (see
later *).

It seems to me that at least one of nearly everything you list as
being needed in central Headington has in fact closed in recent years
with owners either unable to sell their businesses as going concerns
or being offered more for the property alone without the business
which is also a sign that that particular business type is less in
demand than other types.

So far as I can gather it is only class A4, drinking establishments,
which can be the subject of a "saturation" policy such as has
happened in George Street and other parts of the city centre over
drinking establishments and there wouldn't be an equivalent for
cafes, so it would not be as "simple" as declaring a caffeine
overload zone and then be able to oppose any change of use to class
A3 based on that policy.

As has already been noted, transfers within class A1, which is the
ruse many of these coffee shops are using to try and dodge even
asking for permission, cannot be prevented in any way unless it needs
planning consent for some other reason, such as exterior works in the
conservation area.  (*) Indeed it is a measure of the special
protection shops already have in the use class system that almost
anything can become class A1 without permission but something already
A1 needs permission to become another class - in the case of Smarts
A5 can become A3 without requiring change of use.

So it's hardly the City Council's fault that they won't break the
law!  What the City Council achieves in the Covered Market (albeit
precariously at times) it does so because they are the land owner and
condition occupancy by diverse sectors through the leasehold
arrangements not merely relying on planning.  Whether there ought to
be more planning control or not is another matter; what you all think
might be an obviously good thing might result in planning blight as
you try to micromanage what can trade where.  Besides, I thought UKIP
were in favour of considerably loosening planning regulations?

So who here has connections with the various land owners of the
retail spaces in central Headington?  That's where to start in my
opinion.