Starbucks opening in Waterford

Caoimhgh1n

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Well has anybody been in yet?

The lines were too long each time I passed.

iseegirls

Passed by around 4pm today, queue was out the door. Must have been about 30 people in the queue. Most were teen girls. Not many inside Costa across from it. Carter's was busy as ever.

Jamie2k9

iseegirls wrote: »

Passed by around 4pm today, queue was out the door. Must have been about 30 people in the queue. Most were teen girls. Not many inside Costa across from it. Carter's was busy as ever.

They do say younger people go for here and older for Costa. I would be surprised if Costa are massively impacted.

callaway92

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They do say younger people go for here and older for Costa. I would be surprised if Costa are massively impacted.

Yeh it's a funny one. Two very similar businesses, two massively different plans.

MRnotlob606

Commodity fetishism at its finest.

Cabaal

This is actually amusing as hell,

So Starbucks ignore or planning laws and people are actually saying its fine and dandy,
People would be in uproar if company's ignored other laws, be it banking laws, dumping laws etc. In this situation Starbucks knew what they were doing, it was planned and yet people think that is acceptable. That is frankly a joke.

The council would be 100% correct by going after Starbucks in relation to this intentional ignoring of our planning laws and its laughable that people think the council are wrong. Next time you complain about a company doing something wrong and ignoring the law you might want to remember your own law attitude to this situation and realise that its this same attitude that has resulted in the company you are complaining about ignoring the law.

Aquos76

So tell me then, why haven't the council gone after them, the should never have been allowed to open in the first place. In my opinion the council are as guilty as culpable as Starbucks here. This was flagged a couple of week prior to them opening by the News and Star also.

Suryavarman

Cabaal wrote: »

This is actually amusing as hell,

So Starbucks ignore or planning laws and people are actually saying its fine and dandy,
People would be in uproar if company's ignored other laws, be it banking laws, dumping laws etc. In this situation Starbucks knew what they were doing, it was planned and yet people think that is acceptable. That is frankly a joke.

The council would be 100% correct by going after Starbucks in relation to this intentional ignoring of our planning laws and its laughable that people think the council are wrong. Next time you complain about a company doing something wrong and ignoring the law you might want to remember your own law attitude to this situation and realise that its this same attitude that has resulted in the company you are complaining about ignoring the law.

There's no good reason for the planning laws to exist in the first place. There are good reasons for banking and dumping laws to be in place.

JohnC.

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no good reason for the planning laws to exist in the first place.

Would you still have that view if someone decided it would be a good idea to open a landfill next to your house?

Suryavarman

JohnC. wrote: »

Would you still have that view if someone decided it would be a good idea to open a landfill next to your house?

I didn't realise Starbucks was a landfill. Sure their coffee might be rubbish but calling them a landfill is a bit extreme.

JohnC.

Well, you were arguing against the very existence of planning laws.

Suryavarman

JohnC. wrote: »

Well, you were arguing against the very existence of planning laws.

No, I'm arguing against laws restricting people turning toy shops into coffee shops. That there is any red tape in the way of such things is ridiculous.

Wanderer78

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's no good reason for the planning laws to exist in the first place. There are good reasons for banking and dumping laws to be in place.

jasus!

Cabaal

Suryavarman wrote: »

No, I'm arguing against laws restricting people turning toy shops into coffee shops. That there is any red tape in the way of such things is ridiculous.

Planning laws exist for a bloody good reason, without them we could end up with 10 bookies in the centre of the city and they'd ruin the place. They also stop any business from putting up whatever sort of signs they want to etc. In this case they are in place to stop a building just changing use without proper checks being in place first.

Claiming there's no good reason for them shows a complete lack of interesting of them.

At the end of the day Starbucks are 100% in the wrong here and trying to defend that is laughable.

Of course if the council are not going after them that is a separate issue that needs to be looked at.

robtri

Aquos76 wrote: »

So tell me then, why haven't the council gone after them, the should never have been allowed to open in the first place. In my opinion the council are as guilty as culpable as Starbucks here. This was flagged a couple of week prior to them opening by the News and Star also.

http://www.thejournal.ie/starbucks-waterford-2975758-Sep2016/


In response to a query from TheJournal.ie, Waterford Council’s planning department say they have opened a planning enforcement case on the store, which would be the first in the city centre.
“The planning authority has come to the view that the development is unauthorised and have opened a planning enforcement case,” the council said in a statement.
We are following the process open to us under legislation.
As result we have served warning notices (on 1 September) on the occupiers and the building owners.
Starbucks have four weeks to respond to the warning notices, they added. The Irish owners of the multinational chain’s operation here did not respond when contacted by TheJournal.ie.

The Bowling Alley

They've also put seating outside, which would require additional planning.

Wanderer78

The Bowling Alley wrote: »

They've also put seating outside, which would require additional planning.

jasus, these lads think they can do anything they want. will starbucks survive?

Suryavarman

Cabaal wrote: »

Planning laws exist for a bloody good reason, without them we could end up with 10 bookies in the centre of the city and they'd ruin the place. They also stop any business from putting up whatever sort of signs they want to etc. In this case they are in place to stop a building just changing use without proper checks being in place first.

Claiming there's no good reason for them shows a complete lack of interesting of them.

At the end of the day Starbucks are 100% in the wrong here and trying to defend that is laughable.

Of course if the council are not going after them that is a separate issue that needs to be looked at.

10 bookies? That would be truly apocalyptic. Imagine not being able to avoid the great unwashed coming out of the bookies on a leisurely jaunt through the city centre. You'd have to go straight to Specsavers to get your monocle replaced after it falls out.

Suryavarman

The Bowling Alley wrote: »

They've also put seating outside, which would require additional planning.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: not seating. Anything but seating. The proprietors should be hung in the town square. This is utterly outrageous.

allthedoyles

Suryavarman wrote: »

10 bookies? That would be truly apocalyptic. Imagine not being able to avoid the great unwashed coming out of the bookies on a leisurely jaunt through the city centre. You'd have to go straight to Specsavers to get your monocle replaced after it falls out.

Imagine the uproar then if there were 10 coffee outlets in this area - Wouldn't it be catastrophic alltogether

The Bowling Alley

Suryavarman wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: not seating. Anything but seating. The proprietors should be hung in the town square. This is utterly outrageous.

I couldn't give a bollox if they put a ferris wheel out the front. I'm just stating that outside seating requires planning. Just contributing to the chat.

JohnC.

Suryavarman wrote: »

10 bookies? That would be truly apocalyptic. Imagine not being able to avoid the great unwashed coming out of the bookies on a leisurely jaunt through the city centre. You'd have to go straight to Specsavers to get your monocle replaced after it falls out.

You say this, but shopping streets full of bookies, pawn shops/Cash Converters and pound shops are seen as failures. Nothing to do with snobbery. Just a grim, failing town.

dzilla

JohnC. wrote: »

Suryavarman wrote: »

10 bookies? That would be truly apocalyptic. Imagine not being able to avoid the great unwashed coming out of the bookies on a leisurely jaunt through the city centre. You'd have to go straight to Specsavers to get your monocle replaced after it falls out.

You say this, but shopping streets full of bookies, pawn shops/Cash Converters and pound shops are seen as failures. Nothing to do with snobbery. Just a grim, failing town.

Michael Street like

Suryavarman

JohnC. wrote: »

You say this, but shopping streets full of bookies, pawn shops/Cash Converters and pound shops are seen as failures. Nothing to do with snobbery. Just a grim, failing town.

They're a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Banning runny noses won't make the flu go away.

Cabaal

Suryavarman wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: not seating. Anything but seating. The proprietors should be hung in the town square. This is utterly outrageous.

So you're ok if any business putting out whatever crap they want onto the footpath taking up the public space without having to seek planning to do it?

So no problem with seating, tables etc blocking wheelchair access or anything like that?
Good to know,
:rolleyes:

Not having planning allows for that, not having planning means its a free for all with little regard for the effects of making changes and the impact these changes can cause.

Suryavarman

Cabaal wrote: »

So you're ok if any business putting out whatever crap they want onto the footpath taking up the public space without having to seek planning to do it?

So no problem with seating, tables etc blocking wheelchair access or anything like that?
Good to know,
:rolleyes:

Not having planning allows for that, not having planning means its a free for all with little regard for the effects of making changes and the impact these changes can cause.

Ireland and the UK are the only two countries in the world with planning permission. Every other country seems to get by without planning permission, I don't see what's so special about Ireland and the UK that we require it.

Cabaal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ireland and the UK are the only two countries in the world with planning permission. Every other country seems to get by without planning permission, I don't see what's so special about Ireland and the UK that we require it.

So planning permission doesn't exist in any other country in the world?
Anyone can just do what they want without putting in for planning for building stuff, changing stuff etc?

You're 100% certain about this now?
Don't want to reconsider things at all?

looksee

Well he is probably right in that it is not actually called Planning Permission, but there are equivalents in most places.

Suryavarman

Cabaal wrote: »

So planning permission doesn't exist in any other country in the world?
Anyone can just do what they want without putting in for planning for building stuff, changing stuff etc?

You're 100% certain about this now?
Don't want to reconsider things at all?

Check out the planning permission article on Wikipedia. Only Ireland and the UK have planning permission.

looksee

Suryavarman wrote: »

Check out the planning permission article on Wikipedia. Only Ireland and the UK have planning permission.

As I said. Other countries give it different names, but it is still the same end result. That article simply says that PP is the permission that has to be sought in UK and Ireland. Nowhere does it say that there is no equivalent anywhere else.