All posts in the topic Local vs Global (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Brighton & Hove Issues Forum

Summary

There are 16 posts — by 9 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Roy Pennington at May 29 20:07 UTC

From: Tony Cook Date: May 19 06:26 UTC Short link

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.

From: Sue Paskins Date: May 19 07:09 UTC Short link

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 &amp; 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

From: Tom Coady Date: May 19 08:11 UTC Short link

Sorry if this is a slight deviation from planning, but it occurs to myself
and others that it should not be that hard to import green beans direct from
the farmers:
http://www.blackgoldmovie.com/forum/index.php?action=vthread&forum=9&topic=148
as shown here:
http://communityagroecology.net/fairtradedirect.htm

The only problem is that we seem clueless about how to roast the beans.
I think redrooster has a roaster but limits the beans it will roast.

So I wonder if we can educate ourselves about roasting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_roasting
Or establish a community roast house - it only lasts a few days if you like
it fresh :)

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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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/

From: Rachel Fryer Date: May 22 23:25 UTC Short link

Hi

Despite all of this (being refused planning permission) Starbucks is intending
to open on Saturday! How's that for respecting law and local democracy!?

And people wonder why we don't like them.

Anyway we're hoping to have a demo on Saturday at 11am outside - will keep you
posted

Councillor  Rachel Fryer



> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>;
<email obscured>
> CC: <email obscured>
> Subject: Re: [BH-Issues] Local vs Global
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 23:40:52 +0000
>
> 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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/
> Rachel Fryer
>
> Info about Rachel Fryer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rachelfryer
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/69Mk10FfERY1hrmxcx1ZWd
> -----------------------------------------
>   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 &amp; 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

_________________________________________________________________

All new Live Search at Live.com

http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000006ukm/direct/01/

From: Roy Pennington Date: May 26 09:02 UTC Short link

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039

the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap an
enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever the
current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by a
committee.

From: Glenn Williams Date: May 26 09:59 UTC Short link

>after all, this is not Russia, is it?<

Maybe you should watch "on The Verge" - the SmashEDO film. Or go up to the EDO
factory and see how the uses of megaphones (under a council by-law) and cameras
is being controlled. Or see how said film has been (and is still being)
discouraged from being shown by the police. Or have seen how the police
recently made holiday makers and passers-by delete footage from their camera
phones after they had filmed a protester being assaulted by the police outside
the Sealife centre. I could go on.

Their are many people in Russia too who think everything is OK.

With the ever increasing crackdown on freedom and civil liberties and the ever
increasing powers of business in this country people around the world will soon
be saying "after all, this in not Britain".

Glenn

Roy Pennington wrote:
>
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039
>
> the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap
an enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever
the current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
> note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by a
committee.
>
>
> Roy Pennington
> City center - Palace Pier to West Pier via Seven Dials, Brighton and Hove
> Info about Roy Pennington: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roypennington
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JNwsa7QPljkzRi5bkaSXb

From: Vincent Meegan Date: May 26 11:14 UTC Short link

Quite so, Roy. This isn't Russia yet. But soon will be.
I've never been comfortable with 'delegated powers'. Decision making
should be public and transparent.

Your papers, please!

Roy Pennington wrote:
>
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039
>
> the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap
an enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever
the current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
> note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by a
committee.
>
>
> Roy Pennington
> City center - Palace Pier to West Pier via Seven Dials, Brighton and Hove
> Info about Roy Pennington: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roypennington
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JNwsa7QPljkzRi5bkaSXb

From: Ed Bassford Date: May 26 14:24 UTC Short link

I'm not sure that referring EVERY planning application to elected
councillors would deliver what people are looking for.

Most planning decisions are taken within a framework of established planning
policies that have been developed through a very long process of public
consultation and scrutiny.  There can be genuine public input into that
process.

Once clear and detailed planning policies are established, surely the
Council should be bound to follow them?  This is BEST done by using
'delegated powers', subject to the requirement that the officers concerned
have no discretion to set established policies aside.

If you start referring ALL planning applications to a committee of elected
councillors, you are surely inviting councillors to treat each application
'on its merits'.  At the very least, you are inviting councillors to
consider departing from established policy in a particular case, on the
basis that there are 'special considerations' that apply.

THAT is the fastest route to corrupt local government that I can think of.
How long would it be before we saw the re-emergence of the secret lobbying
that we thought had been eradicated when proper planning committees replaced
the 'Old Boy Network'.

And I've not mentioned the sheer volume of work that councillors would have
to do.  Either the planning system would grind to a halt, or councillors
would find themselves so overwhelmed with work that the big, important
issues would have to be neglected.

From: Roy Pennington Date: May 26 18:56 UTC Short link

ed:
i fully agree -- if the applicant had mustered 5 supporters, the application
would have to have been decided by the local soviet (a.k.a. the planning
committee) -- note: it used to be only one supporter needed to trigger a
committee report and hence a meeting, but this was changed to reduce
officer-time dealing with applications that were not contravorsial...
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/PART_7.1,_7.2,_7.3_Introduction_and_Delegations_160508.pdf
when i was a cllr, i advised (be they applicants, objectors or otherwise) to
log a comment and muster support, else officers would decide.........

From: Sue Paskins Date: May 27 06:52 UTC Short link

Totally agree with open decision making, but where does that put the
governments new planning bill?  Where decisions for large applications
for airports roads etc will be made behind closed doors by unelected
bods? Be interesting to see which way our labour MPs will vote on this?

Sue Paskins

On 26 May 2008 at 12:04, Vince Meegan wrote:

Quite so, Roy. This isn't Russia yet. But soon will be.
I've never been comfortable with 'delegated powers'. Decision making
should be public and transparent.

Your papers, please!

Roy Pennington wrote:
>
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039
>
> the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap
an enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever
the current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
> note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by a
committee.
>
>
> Roy Pennington
> City center - Palace Pier to West Pier via Seven Dials, Brighton and Hove
> Info about Roy Pennington: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roypennington
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JNwsa7QPljkzRi5bkaSXb

From: Rachel Fryer Date: May 27 21:09 UTC Short link

Hi

Just to let people know that there will be another demo outside Starbucks this
Saturday - bigger and better - same time and place (11am).
If you can help with leaflets / placards / providing tea and coffee that'd be
great, just let us know.

Please let me know if you are likely to attend so we can get a rough idea of
numbers - if we think we'll get as many as 250 people we may need to close off
the road.

Rachel Fryer



> From: <email obscured>
> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 07:52:37 +0100
> Subject: Re: [BH-Issues] Local vs Global
> CC: <email obscured>
>
> Totally agree with open decision making, but where does that put the
> governments new planning bill?  Where decisions for large applications
> for airports roads etc will be made behind closed doors by unelected
> bods? Be interesting to see which way our labour MPs will vote on this?
>
> Sue Paskins
>
> On 26 May 2008 at 12:04, Vince Meegan wrote:
>
> Quite so, Roy. This isn't Russia yet. But soon will be.
> I've never been comfortable with 'delegated powers'. Decision making
> should be public and transparent.
>
> Your papers, please!
>
> Roy Pennington wrote:
> >
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039
> >
> > the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap
an enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever
the current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
> > note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by
a committee.
> >
> >
> > Roy Pennington
> > City center - Palace Pier to West Pier via Seven Dials, Brighton and Hove
> > Info about Roy Pennington: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roypennington
> >
> > This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JNwsa7QPljkzRi5bkaSXb
> > -----------------------------------------
> >   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 &amp; 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
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 24/05/2008
08:56
> >
>
>
> Vincent Meegan
>
> Info about Vincent Meegan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/vincentmeegan
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1PO7TskTdeugziEXkzBXuR
> -----------------------------------------
>   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 &amp; 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/56dYCK2j9RCZdjej3gGZpa
> -----------------------------------------
>   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 &amp; 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/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/

From: Tony Cook Date: May 27 22:45 UTC Short link

If the current work load really is too great for the City's Planning
Committee perhaps it's time to delegate mundane, parochial matters
down to those who have to live with the consequences of that
decision-making. It might also free up quality time for strategic
thinking on those decisions that really do need due consideration,
presently impossible under this regime of micro-managing on behalf of
central government.

A "soviet" style of governance, in the original sense of
self-governing councils - before the Bolsheviks bastardised the term
to justify political control imposed  from the centre - would be just
fine by me. It would mean the final say on whether to grant planning
permission for a Starbucks in St James Street could reside with the
local people through, for want of a better term, its Neighbourhood
Council.

Tony C

From: Tony greenstein Date: May 27 22:56 UTC Short link

Planning is of course a highly political issue, as it should be, but it is rare
that councillors openly admit to this.

  When we opened the unemployed centre in Hollingdean, it was in the middle of
the 1999 local elections and we became the target of the local New Labour
campaign.  Local councillor  Jean Lepper also chaired the Planning Committee
and in that 'non-political' role opposed our planning application.  A local
petition was got up with about 125 names on it on the basis of fear - that we
would become a magnet for local drunks, druggies etc.

  Our application was for change of use from a shop to advice centre (the place
had been derelict for a decade) and for steel shutters.

  Well Planning Committee, after an address by one Christine Simpson, a
councillor who managed to hand St. Peters to the Greens (her only
achievement!), voted overwhelmingly against the application.  The reasons?  We
would increase the level of traffic on Davey Drive (by about 1-2 cars I guess!)
and we would disturb the Old Peoples' Sheltered Accommodation (Linfield Lodge)
next door.  Both spurious.  To this day we haven't had a single complaint from
LL.  The shutters were against some strategic planning policy though its
strange that the local Neighbourhood Renewal Office in the Dip has exactly the
same shutters!

  We went ahead anyway and put in an appeal and Planning Committee, now chaired
by Chris Morley, unanimously reversed itself!!  We painted a mural on the
shutters and that was deemed acceptable but let noone believe that planning is
a neutral area of decision making.

  Tony Greenstein

Tony Cook <<email obscured>> wrote:
  If the current work load really is too great for the City's Planning
Committee perhaps it's time to delegate mundane, parochial matters
down to those who have to live with the consequences of that
decision-making. It might also free up quality time for strategic
thinking on those decisions that really do need due consideration,
presently impossible under this regime of micro-managing on behalf of
central government.

A "soviet" style of governance, in the original sense of
self-governing councils - before the Bolsheviks bastardised the term
to justify political control imposed from the centre - would be just
fine by me. It would mean the final say on whether to grant planning
permission for a Starbucks in St James Street could reside with the
local people through, for want of a better term, its Neighbourhood
Council.

Tony C

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/4gl0uyt7BVsWdX7Dl4qtEG

From: Glenn Williams Date: May 27 23:03 UTC Short link

I will be there. I've also informed the SaveOmar group (we had protests
against Starbucks and occupations a few years back and they seem keen to
come) and maybe some SmashEDOers there too. Personally I think that
better than 250 people (assuming that many turn up) blocking the road at
St. James' we'd be better off with 50 people outside 5 different
Starbucks simultaneously.

Cheers,
             Glenn

rachel fryer wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Just to let people know that there will be another demo outside Starbucks
this Saturday - bigger and better - same time and place (11am).
> If you can help with leaflets / placards / providing tea and coffee that'd be
great, just let us know.
>
> Please let me know if you are likely to attend so we can get a rough idea of
numbers - if we think we'll get as many as 250 people we may need to close off
the road.

>
> Rachel Fryer
>
>
>
>
>> From: <email obscured>
>> To: <email obscured>; <email obscured>
>> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 07:52:37 +0100
>> Subject: Re: [BH-Issues] Local vs Global
>> CC: <email obscured>
>>
>> Totally agree with open decision making, but where does that put the
>> governments new planning bill?  Where decisions for large applications
>> for airports roads etc will be made behind closed doors by unelected
>> bods? Be interesting to see which way our labour MPs will vote on this?
>>
>> Sue Paskins
>>
>> On 26 May 2008 at 12:04, Vince Meegan wrote:
>>
>> Quite so, Roy. This isn't Russia yet. But soon will be.
>> I've never been comfortable with 'delegated powers'. Decision making
>> should be public and transparent.
>>
>> Your papers, please!
>>
>> Roy Pennington wrote:
>>
>>>
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1151084&action=showDetail&application_number=BH2008%2F01039
>>>
>>> the planning law allows the applicant to use the premises until the LA slap
an enforcement order etc: after all, this is not Russia, is it? (or whatever
the current metaphor for a dictatorship...)
>>> note that the Refusal was under delegated powers i.e. by an officer, not by
a committee.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roy Pennington
>>> City center - Palace Pier to West Pier via Seven Dials, Brighton and Hove
>>> Info about Roy Pennington: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/roypennington
>>>
>>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3JNwsa7QPljkzRi5bkaSXb
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>   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 &amp; 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
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG.
>>> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 24/05/2008
08:56
>>>
>>>
>> Vincent Meegan
>>
>> Info about Vincent Meegan: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/vincentmeegan
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1PO7TskTdeugziEXkzBXuR
>> -----------------------------------------
>>   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 &amp; 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/56dYCK2j9RCZdjej3gGZpa
>> -----------------------------------------
>>   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 &amp; 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/msnnkmgl0010000002ukm/direct/01/
> Rachel Fryer
>
> Info about Rachel Fryer: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rachelfryer
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/60Ms19OR1GWuTJd2D3UOoL
> -----------------------------------------
>   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 &amp; 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
>
>

From: Roy Pennington Date: May 29 20:07 UTC Short link

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/commentandanalysis/display.var.2301947.0.keep_the_coffee_row_brewing.php

adam trimingham drinks coffee; I drink tea:
my copy of Kelly's c. 1967 in St James's St, shows over 100 traders, none being
bookshops, no charity shops, one Tesco's (No 30).......
No. 115 was a builders...
and 1d was the post office, now a coffee shop with a drink's licence...

the local plan is designed to be flexibility as guidance for officers, having
been approved by cllrs; decisions often depart from the plan:

i was surprised that Starfucks did not get supporters writing in beforehand,
just to show some support....

i do hope they do not put tables and chairs on the f=ck pavement....

Add to the topic Local vs Global [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Brighton & Hove Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Brighton & Hove Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

For questions or technical support: support@e-democracy.org