Starbucks: were residents' opinions taken into account? (From The Argus)

why should they take local residents opinion in to acccount, it is an existing shop, if someone wants to take it over and pay the rent fair enough. many people support a community shop as opposed to an empty derelict grafittied dump, if you are not careful this will become another london road with your attitude.

"Before long, St James’s Street will look and feel just like any other street in any other part of the country – and that will be a very sad day for Brighton."

It would have to improve a lot to reach that level.

I love Starbucks. I don’t even drink coffee but that’s not the point. We don’t protest against McDonalds (who in my opinion are rubbish) or any other International company. Isn’t it a contradiction that Brighton & Hove, City of culture not allowing an American coffee chain to operate in peace? Here’s an idea… Lets all have a go at any international company. How about American Express as they’re not quirky enough, but then again they do employ about 3000 staff. If the public truly don’t want Starbucks then they will naturally go out of business. To all the waste of time protestors out there. GO GET A JOB ! I heard Starbucks are recruiting….

I am one of those residents and I would much rather see a Starbucks there than another boarded up shop or 24 hour off-licence.

But are these protesters protesting against a business operating after its planning application was turned down, protesting because its Starbucks they have a fundamental oppososition to Starbucks, or are they protesting because its a corporation rather than a nice sole-trader or co-operative?

Well, do we really need a Starbucks on every street corner? Are our towns and cities not boring enough already with the same shops, stores, cafes etc wherever one goes? In any case, Starbucks coffee is the most vile and expensive rubbish in town. I am just amazed that the customers do not know the difference between real coffee and something that tastes like bitter acorns.

Would you rather have a grafitti covered empty shop or maybe a druggie drop in centre.

Why all this fuss about Starbucks! Costa Coffee recently opened a new branch in George Street Hove where Lesters the bed shop used to be. George Street is already awash with cafes but I don't recall any fuss about this one! Also being part of a large chain, Starbucks can obviously afford what presumably is an extortionate rent which smaller business would not. So it they weren't there the building would probably remian boarded up.

The objectors KEEP stating Starbucks broke the law / rules - please details where they have done this ????

You are allowed to continue trading as is during a planning appeal. It would appear as with most nimbys lies and mis-information are being used to support a dubious campaign.

So many people have completely and utterly missed the whole point of why others are incensed by the STARBUCKS Coffee Shop on St. James's Street.

All this nonsense about not wanting to see boarded up shops and graffiti, etc. shows most people are still not in possession of the full facts.

We HAD a perfectly good shop on that site, namely SUSSEX STATIONERS... and they would have STILL been there today had it not been for Starbucks back door methods.

When Starbucks got wind that Sussex Stationers lease was up for review, they approached the Landlords ( Not Brighton & Hove City Council incidently ), and offered well over the top figure for the Lease so Sussex Stationers were not even given the chance to continue trading!! It wasn't a level playing field for Sussex Stationers, who wish to remain and continue trading on that site given the chance and opportunity.

So, instead, we got yet ANOTHER coffee style shop in their place. I know who I would prefer to see trading there.

Too many people make mis-informed comments whilst not knowing the full and true facts of the case and why there was such opposition.

Starbucks used their clout and access to top expensive lawyers to put two fingers up to the Council's Planning policy and rules, and totally flouted them, completely disregarding the rules the majority of local traders have to abide by, which is why so many people who know the full story are so against Starbucks trading on St Jame's Street. That's the real reason.

bug eye wrote:
why should they take local residents opinion in to acccount, it is an existing shop, if someone wants to take it over and pay the rent fair enough. many people support a community shop as opposed to an empty derelict grafittied dump, if you are not careful this will become another london road with your attitude.

Totally! Why should locals have any say in what's on their high street and in their area? It's not like we live here or anything! One thing you got right is the shop bit, mind. What the council plan does say is that street needs more retail shops. More cafes (or anything in an area be it chemists or whatever) suffocates the area and is bad news for other businesses/economy, etc. Oh, and the Inquiry revealed some interesting stuff about how Starbucks got that lease i.e. it never went on the market so instead of being negative and assuming that if Starbucks hadn't taken it over then it would have been an empty dump why not assume a local trader would have done the same? And what's so wrong with London Road? A cinema, market and charity shops - terrible!

starbuckslover wrote:
I love Starbucks. I don’t even drink coffee but that’s not the point. We don’t protest against McDonalds (who in my opinion are rubbish) or any other International company. Isn’t it a contradiction that Brighton & Hove, City of culture not allowing an American coffee chain to operate in peace? Here’s an idea… Lets all have a go at any international company. How about American Express as they’re not quirky enough, but then again they do employ about 3000 staff. If the public truly don’t want Starbucks then they will naturally go out of business. To all the waste of time protestors out there. GO GET A JOB ! I heard Starbucks are recruiting….

Erm, people do protest against McDonalds. Rent out McLibel for proof of that! Clearly you are in support of corporations and chains as opposed to quirky, individual traders but please do not criticise those who do care about these issues and protest (just like you are) but out of the armchair! Starbucks is built on their brand and advertising so protesting and raising awareness of their dodgey tactics and policies is the only way to take a stand aginst SB. As for protesters not having a job - does a nurse, college lecturer, journalist and software engineer fit that bill then?

Fight Back wrote:
The objectors KEEP stating Starbucks broke the law / rules - please details where they have done this ????

You are allowed to continue trading as is during a planning appeal. It would appear as with most nimbys lies and mis-information are being used to support a dubious campaign.

Dubious? Starbucks were served with an enforcement notice which if they hadn't appealed or complied with, would have resulted in them ending up in court! Is that detailed enough for you? What Starbucks should always have done was accept fact they were refused permission and jog on! Or at the very least to comply with the notice to take out tables and chairs and operate as a shop until they were granted permission to trade as a cafe. But no, they took up a year of council time and money, upset the local community and carried on regardless, in spite of their website homepage stating they are 'sensitive to communities'. It's the hypocrisy and arrogance that has upset locals. Yes, corporations exist but when chains start taking the mick and doing what they want then that has consequences for everyone. Might should not be right! The lil guy which could be me or you does not have endless vats of money to spend on laywers or to keep trading at a loss for the image so have some support for the independent trader and solidarity for our community. Now more than ever we need to support our local economy and community!! That's the crux of the campaign.

Johnnie wrote:
Why all this fuss about Starbucks! Costa Coffee recently opened a new branch in George Street Hove where Lesters the bed shop used to be. George Street is already awash with cafes but I don't recall any fuss about this one! Also being part of a large chain, Starbucks can obviously afford what presumably is an extortionate rent which smaller business would not. So it they weren't there the building would probably remian boarded up.

There was fuss about that with press coverage and the story making people that the starbucks campaign is important because it sends out a message to corporations that people do care! Starbucks push up rents which is what they do (part of their aggressive business tactics which have been well documented in US hence their drop in popularity) to force local traders out. And no, the building would not have remained boarded up. It's a great spot and I know a nearby florist was up for taking it over.

Barry Kingston wrote:
So many people have completely and utterly missed the whole point of why others are incensed by the STARBUCKS Coffee Shop on St. James's Street.

All this nonsense about not wanting to see boarded up shops and graffiti, etc. shows most people are still not in possession of the full facts.

We HAD a perfectly good shop on that site, namely SUSSEX STATIONERS... and they would have STILL been there today had it not been for Starbucks back door methods.

When Starbucks got wind that Sussex Stationers lease was up for review, they approached the Landlords ( Not Brighton & Hove City Council incidently ), and offered well over the top figure for the Lease so Sussex Stationers were not even given the chance to continue trading!! It wasn't a level playing field for Sussex Stationers, who wish to remain and continue trading on that site given the chance and opportunity.

So, instead, we got yet ANOTHER coffee style shop in their place. I know who I would prefer to see trading there.

Too many people make mis-informed comments whilst not knowing the full and true facts of the case and why there was such opposition.

Starbucks used their clout and access to top expensive lawyers to put two fingers up to the Council's Planning policy and rules, and totally flouted them, completely disregarding the rules the majority of local traders have to abide by, which is why so many people who know the full story are so against Starbucks trading on St Jame's Street. That's the real reason.

Barry, your letter was great and you are someone who clearly is from Brighton, cares about the area and knows what they're talking about! Along with over 3,000 people who signed the petition, 1,800 who did the same online and almost 450 letters! It's great to realise so many people care about their area and local issues. That's what communities are all about!

sorentip wrote:

Fight Back wrote:
The objectors KEEP stating Starbucks broke the law / rules - please details where they have done this ????

You are allowed to continue trading as is during a planning appeal. It would appear as with most nimbys lies and mis-information are being used to support a dubious campaign.

Dubious? Starbucks were served with an enforcement notice which if they hadn't appealed or complied with, would have resulted in them ending up in court! Is that detailed enough for you? What Starbucks should always have done was accept fact they were refused permission and jog on! Or at the very least to comply with the notice to take out tables and chairs and operate as a shop until they were granted permission to trade as a cafe. But no, they took up a year of council time and money, upset the local community and carried on regardless, in spite of their website homepage stating they are 'sensitive to communities'. It's the hypocrisy and arrogance that has upset locals. Yes, corporations exist but when chains start taking the mick and doing what they want then that has consequences for everyone. Might should not be right! The lil guy which could be me or you does not have endless vats of money to spend on laywers or to keep trading at a loss for the image so have some support for the independent trader and solidarity for our community. Now more than ever we need to support our local economy and community!! That's the crux of the campaign.

So they didn't break the law or the planning rules then. Good on them - managed to overcome mob rule - idiot mob rule at that ! Clear;y the objectors are / were a bunch of liars.

I don't use Starbucks and I think they were wrong to go ahead with the shop before they had planning permission. However, there is a smart shop and building there thanks to Starbucks. This has to be better than an empty shop.

If ONLY people would read the comments properly they wouldn't keep going on about Starbucks being on St James's Street is preferable to having an empty shop there!!

As previously mentioned, Sussex Stationers would STILL be there if it wasn't for Starbucks offering a ridiculously high sum of rental, over and above what Sussex Stationers were paying, in order to get a foothold in St. James's Street. The consequence of this is that it has already set a TREND for increased and upward spiralling rents in the area!!

I keep saying all this but people just don't seem to be able to understand... and this is one of the main reasons so many of us opposed Starbucks in St. James's Street, along with the fact that there are ALREADY over FOURTEEN other similar establishments selling coffee - I'm not talking about restaurants as such, but the likes of RED ROASTER, STRENGTH, IZZY CAFE, THE STREET, THE HUB,and many many more already established shops in the immediate vicinity.