Annie and Belle Cafe (was: The shops thread)

[rmolehusband]

admin: Thread split from The shops thread, and also note earlier discussion on planning application for 100 Portobello High St on the Takeaways, restaurants & Community Council representations thread.

Despite the failure to obtain a change of use (discussed here) there was some activity in the empty shop at 100 PHS - maybe getting a new retailer after all?

[Porty]

Despite the failure to obtain a change of use (discussed here) there was some activity in the empty shop at 100 PHS - maybe getting a new retailer after all?

Not sure if its still the case but the shop was owned by the same people as the BBQ? chip shop next door.

[Epykat]

The new Annie & Belle shop looks great already, and it's not even open yet

[wangi]

The new Annie & Belle shop looks great already, and it's not even open yet

Their page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Annie-Bel ... 9801689077

MTrail Annie & Belle Cafe opening this #Wednesday in #Portobello @ 100 High Street.

[Porty]

It looks very nice. Good luck to them, will be giving it a try next Saturday.

[Maria]

It looks very nice, but I thought this application was refused ?

[Porty]

It looks very nice, but I thought this application was refused ?

It was refused, indeed there was an application for change of use from Dry Cleaners to Cafe about 10 years ago and that was also refused.

Look like the people are just going ahead. Maybe they will try and appeal the decision or just take the risk they can win an enforcement battle, once some busybody had dobbed them in to the cooncil.

[Epykat]

... once some busybody had dobbed them in to the cooncil.

And that won't take long which will be a pity because, unlike Shrek in a Kilt next door, it looks like a really nice shop!

[Maria]

It was refused, indeed there was an application for change of use from Dry Cleaners to Cafe about 10 years ago and that was also refused.

Look like the people are just going ahead. Maybe they will try and appeal the decision or just take the risk they can win an enforcement battle, once some busybody had dobbed them in to the cooncil.

That sounds like an expensive gamble to take.

[Pal of Porty]

..And that won't take long which will be a pity because, unlike Shrek in a Kilt next door, it looks like a really nice shop!

Excuse me - I modelled in my kilt for that graphic!

[Porty]

It was refused, indeed there was an application for change of use from Dry Cleaners to Cafe about 10 years ago and that was also refused.

Look like the people are just going ahead. Maybe they will try and appeal the decision or just take the risk they can win an enforcement battle, once some busybody had dobbed them in to the cooncil.

That sounds like an expensive gamble to take.

Yep-unless they agreed something with the officer; part retail part cafe with emphasis on retail.

[wangi]

They're limited to four tables.

[Porty]

Well good luck to them.

[Annie Scott]

Hello there I am one of the co owners of Annie & Belle Cafe, and just wanted to say thank you for all the kind wishes and support we have received from the lovely people of Portobello, It has made us really happy and very relieved we have picked the best place for our new venture! I just wanted to let everyone know that the shop class use has not changed, we will be selling gifts and homewares and we have four tables for the cafe as the council have instructed. So wish us luck and we look forward to getting to know you all.

[Makaveli]

Good luck - will be in soon for a look!!!

[Maria]

Good luck Annie!

[Epykat]

Good luck Annie, we'll be in soon to relieve you of tea!

[rmolehusband]

Best of luck with the Cafe.

after you`ve been would you drop by tp and let us know if its an open plan design.?

Come on now Porty, even I'm slightly embarrassed by that shameless (and rather unnecessary) dig.

[magbagpuss]

All the best of luck Annie and Belle , will be in to check out the coffee!!! C U soon . Wishing you a long, fruitful and happy time here in Porty !!

[seanie]

Ruling puts a lid on a cafe's bid to create more space

A CAPITAL cafe so popular it has been turning customers away has been refused permission to add extra tables – after officials ruled it would create too many food outlets in the high street.

[Makaveli]

Did Diana Cairns not object to this even though the PCC OK it? Are the PCC scared of her?

[wangi]

Did Diana Cairns not object to this even though the PCC OK it? Are the PCC scared of her?

A twisted web... Have another read of the Takeaways, restaurants & Community Council representations thread, which is linked from the top of this one.

A key quote from there:
Subject: Takeaways, restaurants & Community Council representations

Sean or Marya has there been an improvement in transparency with Planning comments written on behalf of PCC? John Stewart is usually tasked with writing, does he circulate his correspondence to the rest of the group?

Looking at his "comment" on the Tea and Cakes application, it doesn't seem to square with either the discussions or voting at PCC.

121 Portobello High Street cafe: there was an application regarding the former clothes shop on the corner of the High Street and Rosefield Avenue, to change its use to a cafe with a take-away element. Most of the subsequent discussion focused on the balance between retail and non-retail in Portobello’s shops. It was suggested that a cafe would be preferable to an empty or boarded-up shop, and that it might be appropriate for a seaside resort to have a higher proportion of cafes than other town centres. It was agreed by 11 votes to two not to object to this application but to submit a comment. John Stewart was asked to do this.

I believe it is pretty clear there was no consensus to object to the application from PCC, indeed quite the opposite 11 votes to 2 against objection. Where can we see a copy of the letter submitted? Then.................

291.10e Planning: John Stewart reported on the outcomes of several previous issues: permission had been granted to raise the height of the building at 78 Portobello High Street, and the applications for a cafe at 121 Portobello High Street and to demolish the house at 11 Rosefield Street had been withdrawn. A new application had been lodged to create a cake and tea shop at 100 Portobello High Street, and it was agreed that John Stewart should comment on this consistently with our previous comments on the proposal for 121 Portobello High Street.

And the letter written can be found here: https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk ... 267358.pdf

In what way is that letter consistent with an 11 to 2 vote against objection? It seems clear that no matter what is discussed or voted upon by the Community Council, the response is left to one or two indivduals who do not circulate their responses. Effectively running roughshod over the democratic process. In the case of 121 High Street- wouldn't it have been more honest to say a significant majority of PCC preferred a Cafe to an empty shop and therfore did not wish to object to the application. John Stewart's "comment" bares little resemblance to what transpired, indeed it reads like an objection.

I would like to know if either or both of these responses were availed to the committee at large?

I'm afraid it just looks like the Stewart/Cairns/Hawkins cabal finding another route to manipulating PCC to impose their personal views. Or maybe its just a coincidence that they are the ONLY three people in Porty to object to the Tea and Cakes application? Eye and ear witnesses confirm that at the meeting in june it was Diana Cairns initiative to vote on the planning application at 121, as she wanted to object. The vote didn't go her way, so hey let's just make the comment read like an objection!!- simples!!

L/

[Puerto bella]

I was at the same Local Review Body meeting that Annie and Belle's appeal was up at. The LRB commented that they were in two minds about the appeal but as a result of the lack of support for the proposal from the community they fell on the side of refusing it. In other words if the community had supported it Annie and Belle would have got their permission.

[seanie]

Given recent enforcement actions and applications, the Planning Department may be a bit more sensitive to change of use issues. In this instance the application was judged to be a breach of the current regulations so the odds were stacked against it, but if there had been significant public support and/or no objections then the outcome may've been different.

There's a proposed change to the development plan whereby generic numerical quotas for retail premises are removed in favour of guideline tailored to local circumstances. That might help in circumstances like this but it'll be some time before any changes are adopted even in draft form.

[Porty]

. The LRB commented that they were in two minds about the appeal but as a result of the lack of support for the proposal from the community they fell on the side of refusing it. In other words if the community had supported it Annie and Belle would have got their permission.

There were very few objections from the public Perhaps three at the most? PCC voted 11 to 2 in favour of a cafe over an empty unit. if their letter of objection had made this clear, as opposed to the opposite, do you think that would have secured permission for Annie and Belle?

Diana Cairns got herself in a position where she can influence correspondence on planning and other matters and she abuses it. The Chair appears to condone this. PCC are not "scared" of Diana Cairns. I percieve they just can't be bothered to resist.

[Puerto bella]

In answer to your question: its possible but we wont ever know that now the time has passed, unless of course Annie and Belle had the stomach for another go at it.
Remember that the Planning Committee are a different beast albeit with the same suit on to the LRB and have a different function.
The conclusion I took from it was if you want something to happen in this city you have to make it happen and get people to actively support your proposal. The elected members are too easily swayed by what they think is public opinion when it isnt necessarily the case.

[Pal of Porty]

They obviously think that Community Councils represent the views of the community - having just read all the above it looks like our Community Council does not even represent itself!

[seanie]

Therein lies a perennial problem.

Even quite small applications can generate a sizeable number of objections from people near a proposal, especially if someone goes to the effort of encouraging and coordinating the effort. Dislike or anger is a strong motivator.

But even applications that people on the whole are well disposed to or even like, rarely generate much in the way of vocal support. Maybe people assume that everyone else will like it too, but for whatever reason it's far less common to get supporting comments, except on rare occasions like the High School where people were very concious of the campaign against an so made the effort to counteract that.

And what you never, ever see, are people writing in to say they aren't that bothered which is probably the majority opinion in most instances. Add in that most people have enough on their plate without following developments on the Planning Portal, and it's no wonder that what genuinely constitutes 'public opinion' may be difficult to discern.

[Chas]

They obviously think that Community Councils represent the views of the community - having just read all the above it looks like our Community Council does not even represent itself!

Time for change...?

[seanie]

Annie & Belle's now have an on-line petition.

[Porty]

The conclusion I took from it was if you want something to happen in this city you have to make it happen and get people to actively support your proposal. The elected members are too easily swayed by what they think is public opinion when it isnt necessarily the case.

Agreed.

I checked the application and the objections. They are here https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk ... 267358.pdf

Just four objections in total:

• John Stewart on behalf of PCC
  Unreadable signature but looks like a competitor.
  A Diana Cairns from West Brighton Crescent- as member of the public.
  A Stephen Hawkins also from West Brighton Crescent- as an elected representative.

In this case it looks very much like the elected rep canvassed his household to gauge public opinion. As for the letter from PCC; someone turned an 11 to 2 vote FOR into an objection. Assuming Councillor Hawkins doesn't self pen letters on behalf of PCC there's two obvious culprits.

[seanie]

There wasn't an 11-2 vote in favour of the first application, just 11-2 not to object. That was the only question put to the vote; whether to object or not. On reflection maybe the various options should've been voted to get a clearer picture: Who wants to object? Who wants to support? Who wants to simply comment?

[Porty]

Fair enough.

However, it doesn't really matter how the vote goes, John and Diana pitch the response to suit themselves.

[Maria]

There wasn't an 11-2 vote in favour of the first application, just 11-2 not to object.

Sean has beaten me to it! I was just going to say the same thing. The vote taken at the PCC was as to whether we should write a letter of objection or a letter of comment.

The letter which was submitted did indeed clearly state at the start :

On behalf of Portobello Community Council, I wish to comment on...

It was planning that choose to view it as a letter of objection, rather than a letter of comment.

As someone who voted against sending a letter of objection, I also feel aggrieved at this. The letter, however, was circulated round everyone on the PCC prior to being submitted, so it is unfair to place the blame on any individuals. With hindsight, some of us perhaps should have suggested alterations to the wording, but I, for one, certainly didn't.



edit - altered date to that of the Sept. letter of comment

[Maria]

Should have made it more clear in my previous post that the Sept.letter of comment submitted for the application at 100 Portobello High Street (Annie and Belle's) was inline with June's letter of comment, submitted for the similar application at 121 Portobello High Street, for which the 11-2 vote was taken.

Both letters clearly stated in the first sentence, that they were letters of comment and both were circulated round PCC members prior to submission.