Published in Brighton, UK

Clagnut

Say “No” to Starbucks on St James’s Street

Starbucks have opened without planning permission on St James’s Street in the Kemp Town (my) area of Brighton, and against the wishes of hundreds of residents and traders.

Every Saturday from 12 noon there is a protest outside Starbucks by kindly folk with placards and megaphones. This has been going since it opened in May, but still Starbucks continues to bully the neighbourhood and council, and flaunt the planning laws. If you want to add your voice to the protest, there is a Facebook group (currently with over 1700 members).

The main issue here is not so much that Brighton is gaining a seventh Starbucks – some might argue it will be good for St James’s Street – but the heavy handed way they are doing it. Running roughshod over local planning laws is not a particularly endearing quality. Local planning laws are currently trying to encourage retail properties rather than restaurants and cafés. Starbucks has just lodged an appeal against the rejection of planning permission by claiming it is not a café, but in fact a shop. It is this kind of heavy-handed distortion that locals are complaining about.

Starbucks’s modus operandi in situations like this is said be to put the competition out of business. The best way to help prevent this is to patronise the competition, so if you’re in Brighton, why not support a local business and have a cuppa in a truly local coffee shop. There’s plenty to choose from (particular favourites are emphasized):

St James’s Street Cafés

  1. Red Roaster Coffee House, 1d St James’s Street
  2. The Izzy Cafe, 2 St James’s Street
  3. Bona Foodie Deli, 21 St James’s Street
  4. Polski Smaki, 36 St James’s Street
  5. The Tin Drum, 43 St James’s Street
  6. Desination 100, 100 St James’s Street
  7. The Street Coffee Bar, 101 St James’s Street
  8. Halo Halo Internet Cafe, 106 St James’s Street
  9. The Cherry Tree, 107 St James’s Street
  10. Strength Coffee Bar, 111 St James’s Street
  11. Options Deli Café, 117 St James’s Street
  12. Café Bella, 120 St James’s Street
  13. Gossip Cafe, St James’s Street
  14. Tea Cosy, 3 George Street
  15. Figaro, 13 George Street
  16. Bom-Banes, 24 George Street
  17. Yummy Stuff, 44 George Street

Update – Starbucks Served Notice

Following a council meeting last week, this branch of Starbucks has been ordered to stop selling drinks and food which can be consumed on the premises. They have also been ordered to remove all tables and chairs to restore the shop to its use as a retail outlet. The order means customers will have to take away their food and drink.

Councillor Lynda Hyde, who chairs the planning committee, said:

We are responding to local concerns and making it clear we will not tolerate planning regulations being flouted in this way. Our planning team has been monitoring the operation since and it is clear sales of food and drink for consumption on the premises form a considerable part of the business, in breach of planning consent.”

2 December 2008

§ Brighton · War & Politics

8 comments

Related photos

  • Must. Twitter. Faster.
  • Birling Gap tearoom
  • Baby Jesus
  • Tazzo d\'Oro by the Pantheon
  • Flat fire
  • Wholefood cafe in Kensington Gardens
  • Kemp Town Carnival
  • Peterborough Cafe, Parsons Green
  • Hulk

Next

Previous

Related posts

Keywords

Machine tags

Comments

  1. 1

    Ah multi-national corporations, what would we do without them. Well done for publicising this further Rich. I salute you with a cup of columbia supremo.

    Graham Carlyle
    Graham Carlyle’s Gravatar
    3 Dec 2008
    09:31 GMT
  2. 2

    What a great post – thanks for bringing this issue up. I understand that thousands of petitions are bing delivered to the council tomorrow!

    Jon
    Jon’s Gravatar
    3 Dec 2008
    14:22 GMT
  3. 3

    Jon that’s good to hear, however my impression is that the council is doing all it is empowered to do. Starbucks can and has put in an appeal and that in itself gives them a 6 month stay of execution.

    To be honest I really wouldn’t mind a Starbucks on St James’s Street if they had actually been honest and above board, and gone through the same legal process that anyone else would have to.

    I wouldn’t have gone there anyway – why would you with Red Roaster at the bottom of the street? And now I boycott all other Starbucks completely because of their actions. No great loss (to me or them, I guess).

    Rich
    Rich’s Gravatar
    3 Dec 2008
    17:01 GMT
  4. 4

    What is so wrong with starbucks? A friend has been employed by them for years and loves it. She recently had a baby and her husband and child were added to her health insurance for and extra $29. So now she pays only $60 dollars a month for insurance. To me that is pretty incredible in hard times like these.

    I understand big business coming in and smashing to bits the small businesses, but calm down. It looks like you have an overload of coffee shops to begin with. Not all of them would survive anyways. I am from Asheville, NC where the city doesn’t allow large company’s to have businesses downtown. But some slip by. That’s why they pay their lawyers so much money to know the laws so they can slip by them. You’re not getting rid of them. Consider them a good addition to the neighborhood and get over it. They help the economy in a way that small business can’t.

    whitney
    whitney’s Gravatar
    5 Dec 2008
    08:02 GMT
  5. 5

    Whitney – there are a matters of principle and law at stake here.

    Are you saying that because Starbuck has got expensive lawyers it’s alright? What if a company you didn’t like flouted the same laws and moved set up shop illegally? Would that still be OK because they had expensive lawyers?

    There can’t be one law for one, and another law for everyone else.

    Starbucks may be beneficial to the street in the long term; that’s not my argument and the root of much conjecture. Will they cause one or two of the existing local businesses to fail? Almost certainly. Some might call that natural selection, and I might even be inclined to agree if Starbucks weren’t there illegally.

    Rich
    Rich’s Gravatar
    8 Dec 2008
    16:21 GMT
  6. 6

    Why do big corporations do this?

    Starbucks = Microsoft = Arrogance
    (hmm! all have 9 letters…coincidence???)

    Matt
    Matt’s Gravatar
    16 Dec 2008
    15:46 GMT
  7. 7

    I can honestly say that I do not care for starbucks coffee in the least bit. Their taste more like a softdrink to me.

    I do think that they did start a great thing with the atmosphere they created. It was the perfect place to hang out. But even the re-empowering Mr.Schultz has not impressed me much. It seems the damage done can no longer revive this once business giant. I have seen similar issues where they have practically built one on top of the other (literally across the street)

    Amber
    Amber’s Gravatar
    26 Dec 2008
    17:14 GMT
  8. 8

    I live half way between Brighton and London (as the crow flies).

    We have one Starbucks, but they planned on opening another…. It’s a very small town.

    The plans have been “put on hold” for about 9 months now :)

    I hate all these large corporations putting local shops out of business!

    Abe
    Abe’s Gravatar
    28 Dec 2008
    00:37 GMT

Add your comment

Comments are now closed on this post. If you have more to say please contact me directly.

Outside interest

Top Referrers