Has Starbucks decision damaged confidence in planning system? (From The Argus)

Has Starbucks decision damaged confidence in planning system?

8:20am Monday 6th July 2009 in News By Louise Acford

Has Starbucks decision damaged confidence in planning system?

Coffee giant Starbucks has won its controversial planning battle with Brighton and Hove City Council to run a coffee shop on St James’s Street. Argus reporter Louise Acford asks what damage the ruling may have done to public confidence in the planning system.

Kemp Town residents had fought a well-organised, and well-supported campaign, to stop Starbucks from opening on St James’s Street, which is predominantly home to a variety of independent shops, cafes and restaurants.

When Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning committee rejected the application in May last year they celebrated a victory for “people power”.

But the coffee-chain flouted the law and started to trade on the former Sussex Stationers site despite the plans being turned down.

They appealed against the council’s decision and last week (June 30) the Planning Inspectorate gave Starbucks the go-ahead.

The ruling went against the wishes of the elected members of the council, as well as campaigners in the city.

Councillor Lynda Hyde is the chairman of the council’s planning committee and she spoke out about her disappointment with the decision.

She said: “We felt Starbucks’ arrival would be an over concentration of cafes in the area and we have a policy that restricts the amount of cafes and restaurants in a retail area.

“It sends out the wrong kind of message. We expect institutions to uphold council policies. The whole reason we have them is to protect the independence and retail in the city.

“It’s very upsetting when an inspector overturns a democratic decision. The Planning Inspector is not elected.”

The council allows a percentage of outlets in shopping areas to be used for either retail or cafes and restaurants. The planning committee had initially ruled there was already a high concentration of coffee shops in the area and the site should be used for retail.

But the Planning Inspectorate ruled the presence of Starbucks represented a small breach in policy, only just taking the areas of concentration of cafes and restaurants over the council’s set amount.

Coun Hyde acknowledged the decision set a “dangerous precedent” but said she was confident no other, similar applications would be given the go-ahead.

She said: “I think it’s a dangerous precedent for the city but each application is considered on its own merit. It maybe it only just exceeded the limit - I would like to think if another application was made for a cafe or restaurant it would take the number well-over the limit and would not be successful.”

She added: “I think it could effect confidence of the public because they will be disappointed and angry that an elected council was overruled.”

Coun Hyde denied the company’s size had any influence on the decision but acknowledged their financial power made them a difficult adversary in court.

She continued: “The Planning Inspector made it clear that he did not take into account the type of applicant and neither did the council.

“If it had been a smaller cafe it would have been the same.

“They can afford the best barristers. I have to assume Starbucks have got almost unlimited funds.”

The anti-Starbucks campaign was led by Jon Barrenechea who attended the appeal hearing. He said he was struck by the time and money the coffee giant had spent on the case.

He said: “Starbucks had employed marketing teams, surveyors, they had top legal representatives. Their analysis went across the country, they looked at hundreds of case studies and data.

“They spent a lot of money and time on it which, obviously, the council can’t match.

“I’d say there is one law for the big company and another for the little ones.”

According to Mr Barrenechea, the decision not only affected confidence in planning laws but in people power too.

He said: “If you breach policy by a little bit you are open to other companies being able to do the same. The authority of planning departments is undermined and by extension people’s capability to effect change in communities is undermined.”

After the Planning Inspector’s decision a Starbucks spokeswoman said: “We believe Starbucks makes a positive contribution to the area and want to continue to ensure the district continues to be the vibrant and attractive shopping centre that consumers and tourists enjoy.”

There is a six-week appeal period. The council has said it will be considering its position.