'The council should be supporting small businesses yet they have given in to the ridiculous complaints of three residents. I just feel bad for the community as groups met at the cafe every day.
'We have a chap that comes and sits for three hours reading a book, as well as students from the Wyvern School.
'Disabled people liked coming here as they could easily stop by on their mobility scooters.
'I'm in shock and I'm trying to figure out what to do next.'
Give up trying to run a business, this council - like so many others - doesn't seem to like that sort of thing. I guess they'll be happy to forego the business rates.
The decision notice states there were also concerns about anti-social behaviour and increased traffic at the site. It concludes: 'The development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.'
Oh, I'm sure there are residents everywhere that would be only too glad to exchange their troubles with the neighbours of this business. The smell of bacon and the clinking of teacups seems quite small beer, after all.
H/T: MisanthropeGirl via Twitter
5 comments:
Yes but the appeal was dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate, an independent body.
It was the noise, all the seating was outside. Odours were not found to be a problem.
It couldn't be that one of those three complaining residents was ... a member of the "religion of peace", now could it?
It would explain the supposed horror of having to smell bacon, and it would explain (since they are currently not just head of the victimhood totem, but de facto owners of every council in the land) just why the council was so quick to pander to them, even against their own interests and reputation.
So, SSDD.
The other regular options are, of course, they are a friend/relative of someone in the council, and/or they own a competing business so need to get rid of the competition.
At this point my automatic assumption is that any, and all, members of councils (or anyone holding any position of power) is now an 'enemy of the people' and should be shot on sight.
Bacon you say 🤔
Her mistake was opening the place before getting planning permission. Puts her right at the mercy of anyone who wants to object, even if they are little bitches
"It was the noise, all the seating was outside. Odours were not found to be a problem."
How much noise could it have possibly generated?
"The other regular options are, of course, they are a friend/relative of someone in the council, and/or they own a competing business so need to get rid of the competition."
Oh, always a possibility.
"Bacon you say 🤔"
Not a factor according to the appeal decision. Just noise.
"Her mistake was opening the place before getting planning permission."
Yes, they had her over a barrel for that, didn't they?
Post a Comment