Brighton News RSS Feed


Brighton braced for "big brand invasion" after Starbucks victory


Shoppers and traders are fearing a big brand invasion after coffee giant Starbucks won a controversial planning battle.

The decision to allow the American chain to continue trading in St James’s Street, Brighton, despite flouting planning laws has been branded a ‘slap in the face’ by campaigners.

They believe the decision - which comes just weeks after a similar win by supermarket Tesco - could lead to multinationals deliberately ignoring planning law in the future.

And they claim even when faced with opposition from councils, the companies employ huge legal teams to fight their battles, potentially putting independent businesses at risk.

Jon Barrenechea, who has led the anti-Starbucks campaign, said the decision was a worrying step towards the city becoming a ‘clone town’.

Meanwhile councillor Rachel Fryer, who was also heavily involved in the campaign, said: “Once again, it’s a victory for big business over local people.”

The St James’s Street Starbucks branch has been open since May last year despite being refused permission by Brighton and Hove City Council.

This led to weekly protests and a petition signed by thousands of campaigners.

But Starbucks bosses appealed against the council's decision and the cafe remained open while the appeal process was underway.

Campaigners spoke out after it was revealed yesterday (Weds) that a planning inspector had ruled the branch must be granted planning permission as it did not adversely affect the “vitality and viability” of St James's Street.

The decision came after supermarket giant Tesco took the city council to court in April after being refused permission for an alcohol licence at its new Express store in St James’s Street.

The council had refused the store a licence because the branch is in the cumulative impact zone, meaning that any prospective licensees must prove that their selling alcohol will not add to the area's problems.

But the firm’s legal team had the decision overturned.

Mr Barrenechea said: “I think we were listened to but we weren't heard.

“The inspector didn't acknowledge any of the local issues which were raised by councillors, community groups and the thousands of people who signed our petition as well as those who spoke at the hearing.

“Planning law can't exist in a bubble. It is meant to protect the vitality of towns and shopping districts but if you are not going to listen to the concerns of the people who live and shop there then what is the point in having the process in the first place.”

Green ward Coun Fryer said: “This is a slap in the face for the thousands of local people who have campaigned against giving Starbucks planning permission.”

She added: “Our objections have been ignored. Once again, it’s a victory for big business over local people.

“Greens have been calling for years to protect communities against the negative impacts of huge chain stores like this.

“We urgently need stronger planning law to ensure that in David versus Goliath battles such as this, local people are better able to defend their communities.”

Roger Cross, owner of the Hot Potato Café in St James's Street said: “As soon as Starbucks put in their appeal I knew they wouldn't lose.

“They have got the money to pay for lawyers and to fight it.”

Tim Hume, who runs the Red Roaster café maintained the decision did not really affect him.

He said: “It's not really a problem and it won't do us any harm.

“I'm surprised that they won though.

“It did seem as though they were clearly in breach of the planning guidelines but they are welcome to do business in St James's Street.

“We do sympathise with the protesters but we hope that people will vote with their feet.”

Councillor Lynda Hyde, chairman of the council’s planning committee, said: “We’re massively disappointed. We’ve used every weapon available to us to try to stop this.”

A Starbucks spokeswoman said in a statement: “We are pleased with the decision of the Planning Inspectorate and are delighted to be able to continue to provide the Starbucks experience to our Brighton customers.

“We believe that Starbucks St James’s Street coffee-house makes a positive contribution to the local area, and we want to continue to play our part in the local community to ensure that the district continues to be the vibrant and attractive shopping centre that consumers and tourists enjoy.”

The council said there is a six-week period in which to appeal and the authority will be considering its position.


Your Say YourArgus

S.T. Rewth, Brighton says...
10:37pm Wed 1 Jul 09

I would suggest that any new shops opening at the moment is rather unlikely. It has to be another fairy story!

Pebbles, Brighton says...
10:48pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Welcome to the real world. I am a Brightonian since birth and I welcome all businesses to invest in the city.

People should realise that there is a deep recession on and trade-mark businesses should be made very welcome.

Greyrun, Hove says...
10:53pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Decisions like this leave people with only one way too react Direct Action.

ed27, Brighton says...
10:57pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Sorry have i missed something??? Brighton is full of "Big brnd" names already, the shopping centre is as faceless and souless as every other city/town in the UK - Different City's same shops ETC. Traders and independant shops in the lanes stopped being supported by the Council years ago.
Another non argus story!
Security word Loss-toll!!!

ed27, Brighton says...
11:00pm Wed 1 Jul 09

"big Brnd" meant "Big brand". Obviously.
DOH!!!!

peebee9, Crawley says...
11:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Don't they drink coffee in Brighton?Sounds as if they did the World would end.

Cap'n Pugwash, Shoreham says...
11:51pm Wed 1 Jul 09

Greyrun wrote:
Decisions like this leave people with only one way too react Direct Action.
It's an effing Starbucks for crying out loud-not a Taliban training camp.

If you are desperate for 'Direct Action' it's simple-don't bl00dy well go in there. That'll show 'em.

IKDRF, Laughton says...
12:11am Thu 2 Jul 09

Pebbles wrote:
Welcome to the real world. I am a Brightonian since birth and I welcome all businesses to invest in the city. People should realise that there is a deep recession on and trade-mark businesses should be made very welcome.
But do you welcome big business that flout planning law, ignore local concerns,push up rents and price local traders out, use the full muscle of resources to defeat poorly organised councils,gain a stranglehold on markets to keep third world workers in poverty and pay bigger dividends to shareholders....
The real world is that which we collectively allow.When I put my cross on the ballot paper I trully know now that this country is really run by big business and the media and its you passive attitude towards this dear friend that means it will only continue.

chris elmes, shoreham by sea says...
3:32am Thu 2 Jul 09

IKDRF wrote:
Pebbles wrote: Welcome to the real world. I am a Brightonian since birth and I welcome all businesses to invest in the city. People should realise that there is a deep recession on and trade-mark businesses should be made very welcome.
But do you welcome big business that flout planning law, ignore local concerns,push up rents and price local traders out, use the full muscle of resources to defeat poorly organised councils,gain a stranglehold on markets to keep third world workers in poverty and pay bigger dividends to shareholders.... The real world is that which we collectively allow.When I put my cross on the ballot paper I trully know now that this country is really run by big business and the media and its you passive attitude towards this dear friend that means it will only continue.
"This country is run by big business".
You did not know this? Actually the whole world is run by big business,welcome to the new world order.

Angela Brighton, Brighton & Hove says...
6:01am Thu 2 Jul 09

This whole thing is a big put up job by a small group of lefties with hidden agendas. 1. Starbucks have never done anything wrong. Their original pp was declined, so they appealed (the same as any small shop owner would). 2 During that time they are allowed to continue trading - so again they did nothing wrong. 3. They have won their appeal quite openly and legally, so stop moaning. 4. The wierdos who dont like American companies ie the idiots protesting outside Starbucks every saturday, only got 'thousands' of signatures because they told blatant lies to everyone they spoke to, convincing people that Starbucks were evil for supplying coffee to troops in Iraq and other war zones, and that quote 'their actions were illegal and criminal in the appealing the refusual of pp'! How stupid! But people fall for it and sign the clipboard! The vast majority of residents (inc me) are very happy to have a nice shop like Starbucks open in St James's Street. It the best thing that could happen in an otherwise run down area. The wierdos would rather have a 'dirty needle exchange shop' of course. Idiots - everyone of them.

dolphy, hanover says...
7:18am Thu 2 Jul 09

The futility of the protesters' way of life. The law has been followed to the letter, good luck Starbucks

Brian62, Brighton says...
7:32am Thu 2 Jul 09

Well said Angela,I agree totally.
But yet another misleading Argus story,no ones worried about Big Brand invasion.

Bennn, Brighton / Dieppe (FR) says...
7:50am Thu 2 Jul 09

I support independent businesses and am proud to live in a city that still has a quirky and different side to it, but I must agree that I would rather see people socializing in a café rather than another boarded over outlet. I live just off St James's Street and even if I don't go into Starbucks very often I think it is a nice and comfortable place. I do not agree with Angela Brighton though: St James's Street is not a run down area. New stores are opening, there are fabulous places such as Redroaster or The Tin Drum and if you look around town you will see that North Street, Queens road or London Road seem far more run down that St James's street.

quedula, brighton says...
8:22am Thu 2 Jul 09

The protestors shouldn't worry. If people don't want Starbucks they will vote with their feet and it will soon close down. (Or perhaps not)

Osama bin there, Brighton says...
8:44am Thu 2 Jul 09

'Big brand invasion'.
Look around. It happened years ago!
This really isn't a story.
And by the way, there's a lot of misinformation on this website.
There was no flouting of the planning laws. Starbucks followed the same procedures as anyone else would have had to.
And as for the protestors stating on banners and in leaflets that Starbucks are somehow involved in the Iraq war..... then so is every other company who supplied foodstuffs to the US army.
Do me a favour.

King from Hove, Hove says...
9:09am Thu 2 Jul 09

Whats the problem?.Do the protestors want boarded up empty shops because of high rents charged by landlords?No of course not.Would rather have shops occupied.Otherwise Brighton will become another Ghost town.

prof, bton says...
9:36am Thu 2 Jul 09

I dont use the big brand coffee shops but I find John B, the leading rebel rouser a bit of a hypocrite. He doesnt live any where near St james st.He runs the half empty Duke of Yorks, which sells overpriced coffee and cakes. I also object to the constant bunch of rent a mob that seem to scream at anything they dont like-regardless of the facts.I passed this mob outside Starbucks one saturday and the insulting, intimidating behaviour by some was disgraceful. Protest about the scum on the streets,druggies etc? no,thought not.Too much up their own ***es to bother.

Fercri Sakes, Hove says...
9:56am Thu 2 Jul 09

Hooray for blandness. I always find St James Street a bit too varied for my liking but soon hopefully it'll look like every other High Street in the Western World. That will make me feel really confortable as I don't have much imagination or intelligence.

Now I better take my valium and go to my work cubicle as all this thought is giving me a headache.

Vote for whoever the Sun tell you to vote for!

BBBrighton, Brighton says...
10:55am Thu 2 Jul 09

oh why wont some independent coffee shop invent the Grande Raspberry Frappuccino. Its perfect for long hot summer days and priced at only £2.99 and with a free side of order of ignored corporate ethics whats not to love!

superlative, Brighton says...
10:58am Thu 2 Jul 09

Well said, Angela.

And as the man from Red Roaster said himself (and to his credit) "It's not really a problem and it won't do us any harm."

Well there you go then! If the competing coffee shops a few doors down don't care it can hardly be the apocalyptic travesty the protesters make it out to be.

For some reason they think it's fashionable to have a downer on "big business", and they've got nothing better to do on a Saturday morning than to intimidate people who choose to go into Starbucks. Well tough luck, you lost, and as a genuinely local resident I'm very pleased about it!

GaryS9, Brighton says...
11:26am Thu 2 Jul 09

whinge, whinge, whinge... Why don't these people stay in their tents and caravans and leave the rest of us to modern life. Now, can I please have John Lewis, Ikea and some other city-standard brand shops, bars and restaurants? If Brighton wants to be a city, its high time it lived up to it!

Pebbles, Brighton says...
11:34am Thu 2 Jul 09

IKDRF wrote:
Pebbles wrote: Welcome to the real world. I am a Brightonian since birth and I welcome all businesses to invest in the city. People should realise that there is a deep recession on and trade-mark businesses should be made very welcome.
But do you welcome big business that flout planning law, ignore local concerns,push up rents and price local traders out, use the full muscle of resources to defeat poorly organised councils,gain a stranglehold on markets to keep third world workers in poverty and pay bigger dividends to shareholders.... The real world is that which we collectively allow.When I put my cross on the ballot paper I trully know now that this country is really run by big business and the media and its you passive attitude towards this dear friend that means it will only continue.
It appears that there were no flouting of any laws. The only reason why big brands survive is because people have a choice to spend their hard earned money wherever they choose.

If Starbucks and the likes survive it is because people want to go there to spend their hard earned money.

Whilst people like the protesters have a right to protest they do not have the right to try to dictate to others.

The irony is that Freedom of speach and Freedom of choice are exactly the same.

Stripes, Brighton says...
1:00pm Thu 2 Jul 09

So why aren't there any protests outside the Tin Drum, they're a chain? Or the Co-op? Presumably some of the pubs and bars are owned by big brewery's so protest against them too?

Maybe (just maybe)the few people who actually care about that cesspit of a road are a little blinkered?

Scorpion, Newhaven says...
1:16pm Thu 2 Jul 09

As far as planning law goes, there is no presumption against development. In other words, all development is allowable. (this goes back to the time pre 1947 when there was no planniung law). However, these days councils come up with their policies and government issues guidelines. If a planning application is not strictly counter to the policies or guidlines its hard to argue for refusal. Even if the application is counter to policies and the application is refused, the applicant has leave to argue to the inspectorate that the policies are being enforced to harshly or unreasonable. Its up to the inspector to decide. If it goes to a public inquiry then barristers and legal teams can get involved and argue the case but you still have to follow the law and consider the policies. Therefore, anybody can make a fair point to the inspector no matter how much money the other side has.

So the inspector has ruled in favour of Starbucks. Presumeably those that are advocating direct action are the people who would invade the pitch at a football match if the ref ruled against what they thought was right? Or do we follow the referee?

Maybe the planning committee should have allowed it in the first place but with conditions? Or would that not suit either?

rexorr, Brighton says...
1:30pm Thu 2 Jul 09

Pebbles wrote:
Welcome to the real world. I am a Brightonian since birth and I welcome all businesses to invest in the city. People should realise that there is a deep recession on and trade-mark businesses should be made very welcome.
I completely agree. There is MORE than enough choice in Brighton. Starbucks in St James' Street is warmly welcomed!

kkj, Brighton says...
1:37pm Thu 2 Jul 09

Stripes wrote:
So why aren't there any protests outside the Tin Drum, they're a chain? Or the Co-op? Presumably some of the pubs and bars are owned by big brewery's so protest against them too?

Maybe (just maybe)the few people who actually care about that cesspit of a road are a little blinkered?
I was under the impression that the protests were originally about Starbucks ignoring the planning decision, rather than the fact that they are a chain.

UglyAmerican, Hotlanta says...
1:39pm Thu 2 Jul 09

Sniveling soap dodgers.

Vote with your wallets & feet.

If Starbucks is managing to do enough trade to stay afloat, perhaps it might be prudent to look at their business model and see what they are doing right?

Here in our nice American bubble, Starbucks is in the midst of closing nearly 600 outlets. The complaints here are around job loss, not "corporate invasion".

I have to think that the whinging banner wavers are used to the concept of joblessness, so it doesn't enter their minds that any business is good business.

Randy Lahey, Sunnyvale Trailer Park says...
3:56pm Thu 2 Jul 09

ah its free enterprise, they won their appeal, what's the big deal ?

It seems to me that the rent-a-mob protesters are using Starbucks as a proxy battle to promote propaganda about capitalism. (I say propaganda, but it's probably all true)

If you are going to picket anywhere, I would recommend every chain pub in the Hanover area who are forced to purchase their inventories from their parent entity at huge cost to the consumer.

sugarhorse, says...
7:10pm Thu 2 Jul 09

I personally think there are more important issues that residents of Brighton (and maybe Hove) should be worried about, than a "big brand invasion". Whilst I support the individuality of local shops there are far more important issues going on around us.. things like yobbish behaviour, violent crime, drug dealing, terrorism etc.

Why aren't these "communities" doing something to stop these things? I hardly rank coffee as a priority.

yorkie44, Woodingdean says...
7:47pm Thu 2 Jul 09

The campaigners don't want another coffee shop, they don't want another supermarket selling drin. What do they want? Could they tell us? It seems a run down street is their aim. Keep up the protests - keep this one of the worst streets in Brighton.

Coffee Drinker, Beer Country says...
3:01pm Fri 3 Jul 09

So common sense takes hold at last. I have little sympathy with the protesters case particularly given the amount of miss information that was employed in supporting their cause.
So I can enjoy my coffee as I want it along with a quiet spot to read / watch the world go by. The protesters can now focus on their next victim, will it be your business next?

Fercri Sakes, Hove says...
4:13pm Fri 3 Jul 09

I see Starbuck's PR department has been let loose on the board.

Argus, take a look at the IP addresses of these commentators and see if they match. Then you'll have a story for once. ;)

lowebrighton, Brighton says...
1:26pm Sat 4 Jul 09

The march towards uniformity in our towns and cities is relentless. Our own Churchill Square is as faceless and soulless as Ed27 describes above.
Years ago there were those who wanted to demolish the Royal Pavilion as an eyesore not worth the money needed to repair it. Today it is a draw to tourists and a spur to local imaginations.
Locally elected Councillors play a vital role in supporting what is best about the Brighton. To see their decisions repeatedly ignored and overturned on appeal is deeply concerning.

Angela Brighton, Brighton & Hove says...
12:03am Sun 5 Jul 09

You silly person Fercri Sakes. The vast majority of Kemptown residents support Starbucks and anything else that improves their neighbourhood. I live in Kemptown and object to a fringe group making so much trouble for the sake of hidden agendas. I personally dont drink coffee, and dont give a hang about Starbucks, but I know they are a decent firm that can only help an otherwise run down area. Go back to looking out for untaxed cars for gods sake, after of course youve had my IP address checked in case im from - Starbucks PR dept!!! - you silly person.

P.Dant, Brighton says...
2:28am Wed 8 Jul 09

Angela Brighton wrote:
You silly person Fercri Sakes. The vast majority of Kemptown residents support Starbucks and anything else that improves their neighbourhood. I live in Kemptown and object to a fringe group making so much trouble for the sake of hidden agendas. I personally dont drink coffee, and dont give a hang about Starbucks, but I know they are a decent firm that can only help an otherwise run down area. Go back to looking out for untaxed cars for gods sake, after of course youve had my IP address checked in case im from - Starbucks PR dept!!! - you silly person.
Ah,Letitcia ! The local photo-op prostitute.The Pee Lady with delusions of glamour(with respect).Your real life writing is even more squalid than the fiction.But that`s enough personal abuse.
Just to correct one of your wild assertions : The locally elected council is NOT a "fringe".Nor is the MP for the area,Des Turner,a "fringe".I might also say that the many hundreds of people who wrote letters to the planners,before the campaign had even started,were not all a "fringe".

Angela Brighton, Brighton & Hove says...
5:20am Fri 10 Jul 09

Haha - a response from Brighton only living brain donor Ms P Dant! Marvelous!

Comments are closed on this article.

Brighton braced for "big brand invasion" after Starbucks victory Brighton braced for "big brand invasion" after Starbucks victory

Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »