Brighton Starbucks demo at inquiry (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Brighton Starbucks demo at inquiry
4:34pm Wednesday 10th June 2009 in News By Samuel Underwood
Protesters gathered outside the public inquiry
Protesters took to the streets of Brighton today to try and convince a planning inspector to close down a controversial coffee shop.
The campaigners waved banners and placards and one played a saxophone as the public inquiry into the Starbucks branch in St James's Street got underway.
It opened just days after being refused planning permission by Brighton and Hove City Council.
The coffee company appealed against that decision and was allowed to remain open while the case was compiled.
Speaking at the Brighton town hall meeting, planning inspector Nicholas Freeman said the key focus of his examination would be “the impact on the vitality and viability of the St James's Street shopping centre and whether these proposals would materially harm its retail function”.
The campaigners are convinced that the branch is detrimental to other traders in the street and surrounding area.
Speaking before the hearing got underway, campaigner Jon Barrenechea said: “This whole campaign started as a group of concerned residents who were worried about the future of St James's Street.
“We think Starbucks' presence is damaging on two levels.
“Firstly that the retail space of the building is lost and also the fact that there are already 16 other coffee outlets in the area so there is no need for it.
“Those local, independent businesses need all the help they can get.”
But the firm maintains that its branch is a boost to the street's trade, employs several members of staff and encourages footfall to the area.
Starbucks opened the St James's Street branch last May.
Planners had rejected the firm's bid to convert the former bookshop in order to limit the number of coffee shops and restaurants in the area.
The store has permission for retail use but not to be run as a coffee shop.
Starbucks appealed against the decision and was allowed to remain open pending the hearing after maintaining that it was a shop, selling coffee, mugs and sandwiches.
That prompted a series of weekly protests by anti-Starbucks campaigners outside the building each Saturday.
They have so far collected almost 4,000 signatures on a petition.
The hearing is expected to conclude on Friday with the crunch ruling announced at the end of July.
Comments(30)
Brigadier Monty
says...
5:02pm Wed 10 Jun 09
puddingandpi
says...
5:07pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Although Starbucks coffee is more expensive than the coffee available from other cafe's in the area, people still want to buy it.
Very strange.
cheezburger
says...
5:18pm Wed 10 Jun 09
jyan
says...
5:58pm Wed 10 Jun 09
cheezburger
says...
6:24pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Starbucks is all about coffee. It didnt start out massive did it you fool.
Jim BB
says...
6:52pm Wed 10 Jun 09
I can't believe other coffee shops don't cater for the massive decaf market.
And, as there are plenty of vacant shops in St James', I'd have thought people should be pleased that there's one less empty shop in the road.
jyan
says...
7:08pm Wed 10 Jun 09
cheezburger wrote:We're all entitled to an opinion. Now go and carry on getting your education in the Daily Star.
What a load of rubbish jyan, you dont know your arse from your elbow. Microsoft has 96% of the worlds OS's for a reason. There is no 'best' operating system you clown. Stick to things you know, like moaning about how unfair it is because no one pays attention to you.
Starbucks is all about coffee. It didnt start out massive did it you fool.
jonathon
says...
7:29pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Dave At Home
says...
7:32pm Wed 10 Jun 09
How many of them actually live or work in the immediate area and are truly affected by this outlet? Not 4000 for sure.
It's all about people power, if people don't go in there, SB's will go to the wall but if they offer something the other local cafes don't, well the local cafes only have themselves to blame.
Simplessss
quedula
says...
8:16pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Dave At Home wrote:I agree. if I was a stranger in the area and had to choose a coffee shop I'd go for Starbucks every time. Familiar, clean and comfortable; reasonable coffee and you can take your time drinking it.
4000 signatures for little Old James's Street, that's very impressive.
How many of them actually live or work in the immediate area and are truly affected by this outlet? Not 4000 for sure.
It's all about people power, if people don't go in there, SB's will go to the wall but if they offer something the other local cafes don't, well the local cafes only have themselves to blame.
Simplessss
Osama bin there
says...
8:19pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Get a life, you muppets.
There are far worse things to protest about.
Like all the junkies and deadbeats in London Rd.
All the untaxed vehicles people are living in on the Level.
I could go on.. but I won't bother.
rostron71
says...
10:30pm Wed 10 Jun 09
Having resided in and around the St James's Street area for the last 8 years I have to say I think it's a great place to live. I have the seafront at one end of my street and St James's Street, with its shops, bars, pubs and restaurants, at the other.
I've made good friends and enjoy brilliant nights out without having to worry about catching cabs or waiting for buses to get me home.
Yes, you may occasionally encounter the odd drunk or beggar, but get a grip - any lively area with shopping and nightlife anywhere in the world attracts unwanted elements, it's not a unique problem.
I find the gaudy picture you continually paint of St James's Street being a cross between Gin Lane and an open-air crack den ill-informed and insulting to local residents. I can only presume you have led a very sheltered life.
Metro Reader on 7.47
says...
11:03pm Wed 10 Jun 09
The area is really on the UP with TESCO due to open soon! Oh the joy of it all.
COOP, Morisons, tesco, Maze(?) and more.
Izzzy
says...
12:25am Thu 11 Jun 09
Carl Bugenhagen
says...
8:59am Thu 11 Jun 09
jyan
says...
10:30am Thu 11 Jun 09
Carl Bugenhagen wrote:Well said.
Point is, if one big brand can stick two fingers up to planning, then everyone will - and all you people complaining about the protestors will be whinging. .
footy35
says...
11:52am Thu 11 Jun 09
After this statement there is no way the protesters will win.Starbucks has bought more people into the area and this will enhance the vitality and viability of St James Street.
Randy Lahey
says...
12:32pm Thu 11 Jun 09
Although i like the idea of being able to protest, is this really necessary?
It's just another coffee shop for cying out loud.
jyan
says...
1:08pm Thu 11 Jun 09
What if you owned a shop (doesn't matter which kind) and another shop (selling the same kind of stuff) with loads of financial backing opened very close by without a license to do so, and then the council allow them to continue trading for a whole year or more while taking most of your business away as they are bigger branded company? Our high streets are ending up as boring copies of the same corporate shops selling same stuff in the same boring old way. Go to Croydon if you like that.
Peacehaven Paul
says...
1:23pm Thu 11 Jun 09
footy35 wrote:They certainly have brought more people to the area. Look at all the protesters, for example!
Having been in most of the coffee shops in St James Street i have to say Starbucks is head and shoulders above the rest. Nice coffee Air condtioned, Very friendly staff and a relaxing atmosphere. The food in starbucks is not great though. I have seen and spoken to many of the protesters and so many of them dont live in or around the St James Street area.Inspector Nicholas Freeman said the key focus of his examination would be “the impact on the vitality and viability of the St James's Street shopping centre and whether these proposals would materially harm its retail function”. After this statement there is no way the protesters will win.Starbucks has bought more people into the area and this will enhance the vitality and viability of St James Street.
GaryS9
says...
1:30pm Thu 11 Jun 09
Randy Lahey
says...
4:44pm Thu 11 Jun 09
jyan wrote:If it gentrifies (even slightly) an area famed for being a mecca for drunks and heroin addicts, what's the big problem ?
The point is they opened without a license and the council allowed them to continue trading. What if you owned a shop (doesn't matter which kind) and another shop (selling the same kind of stuff) with loads of financial backing opened very close by without a license to do so, and then the council allow them to continue trading for a whole year or more while taking most of your business away as they are bigger branded company? Our high streets are ending up as boring copies of the same corporate shops selling same stuff in the same boring old way. Go to Croydon if you like that.
jyan
says...
9:53pm Thu 11 Jun 09
Randy Lahey wrote:So by Starbucks taking over a perfectly nice shop run by Sussex Stationers it will gentrify the area? It was perfectly ok when Sussex Stationers were there, or perhaps you don't remember because you've never been there? And I can't see drunks and heroin addicts saying "oh look a Starbucks I must leave the area immediatlely!" . rofl
jyan wrote:If it gentrifies (even slightly) an area famed for being a mecca for drunks and heroin addicts, what's the big problem ?
The point is they opened without a license and the council allowed them to continue trading. What if you owned a shop (doesn't matter which kind) and another shop (selling the same kind of stuff) with loads of financial backing opened very close by without a license to do so, and then the council allow them to continue trading for a whole year or more while taking most of your business away as they are bigger branded company? Our high streets are ending up as boring copies of the same corporate shops selling same stuff in the same boring old way. Go to Croydon if you like that.
scottforbes
says...
9:58pm Thu 11 Jun 09
P.Dant
says...
11:14pm Thu 11 Jun 09
Bompa 'Clart
says...
6:54am Fri 12 Jun 09
scottforbes
says...
8:01am Fri 12 Jun 09
P.Dant wrote:Any respectable Council would not close a business and put people on the dole! I understand Starbucks sought advice from the Council on whether A1/A3 usage would be forthcoming and when they were given the nod they proceeded and submitted the proposals. The same process is used by the majority of retail/cafe businesses taking up new premises, otherwise the delays in getting approvals overlapping with rents and startup costs would not make the business worthwhile.
Look,any repectable business would get the necessary permissions before opening.Even Costa/Nero would not have blasted there way in like that.
jyan
says...
9:58am Fri 12 Jun 09
scottforbes wrote:Not what I understand, I understand the council objected due to the number of coffee shops in the vicinity. But Starbucks ignored them and opened anyway. A majority of retail/cafes get permission earlier when there is no opposition to them, only Starbucks usually do this sort of thing.
P.Dant wrote:Any respectable Council would not close a business and put people on the dole! I understand Starbucks sought advice from the Council on whether A1/A3 usage would be forthcoming and when they were given the nod they proceeded and submitted the proposals. The same process is used by the majority of retail/cafe businesses taking up new premises, otherwise the delays in getting approvals overlapping with rents and startup costs would not make the business worthwhile.
Look,any repectable business would get the necessary permissions before opening.Even Costa/Nero would not have blasted there way in like that.
b9boy
says...
7:23pm Tue 30 Jun 09
snifferclarke says...
4:59pm Wed 10 Jun 09