-
I got some info about crime at my friend's McDonald's Branches.
For one of his restaurants, he has an average of six police call outs per month. Usually most of those will be for theft from vehicles in the carpark and maybe one or two of those for drunken fighting inside.
His other branch is city center (Essex) and averages about three or four police call outs per month. Almost always drunken fighting.
-
Forgot to say, as a rough estimate his two restaurants serve about 180,000 orders per month and he employs 70 people under the age of 25 (per restaurant)and of those, about 80% of them are in part or full time education.
-
Not just American. I either read, or listened to a Thinking Allowed episode, about chain cafes and restaurants and the meaning they had for different people in communities in London. Especially in regard to gentrification. I'm scraping this from the back of my memory, but I think the details were: Chains were generally seen as more welcoming, open, and inclusive to long-time locals and people with lower incomes. New independent places were seen as less welcoming as places "not for people like us."
I don't doubt that this is true of the vast majority of new openings in the last few years (with the usual honourable exceptions), especially considering how much starting capital you need to even rent a place nowadays. When London was still a lot emptier, buildings were often given away for free or next to nothing, e.g. by councils, just so they would get used.
itsbruce:
Sounds like they got their cause and effect the wrong way round. In London in the last couple of decades, a new independent cafe/restaurant mostly wasn't for "people like us" where us is the locals, because rising rates and austerity meant that the locals mostly couldn't afford to open a new business. And the incomers who could afford it were targetting "people like them". Self-reinforcing cycle. Doesn't mean locals would automatically be opposed to independent cafes/restaurants or the older ones in Brixton, for example, would never have gotten started.
Yes, while there have long been shopkeepers who live (far) away from their shops, there are still many who were/are 'part of the community' and who have stayed close by, in some cases because they own the building (and may be 'asset-rich, cash-poor').
-
In this instance, as I mentioned earlier, the independent cafe being forced out was run by a local woman who runs a charity that helps other local women, it was staffed in part by her kids and other local young people, and was a million times more welcoming, and had better cakes, than any fucking Costa.
Many independent shops and restaurants around here are quite long standing, especially the junk / antique / curios shops, and a couple of Italian and Indian places. Bookseller Crow is also a huge asset where reading and writing workshops are held. In fact I cant see any instances here of chains being more welcoming than independent places to "local" (is this euph for working class?) people than perhaps the Wetherspoons, and even that has a rival in the Prince Albert which similarly stinks and has cheap beer.
-
Could you perhaps post the section of the letter that gives the reason(s) for the decision?
It may well be that it's un-appealable, I'm just curious.
-
I'm miffed there's no mention of air pollution, a massive killer
"1 The proposed change of use to a hot food takeaway open late at night would result in an increased level of activity in and around the site at anti-social hours. This would create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance for nearby residents, harming living conditions.
There are also police concerns due to the proposal causing an increased likelihood of antisocial behavior and other crime in the vicinity. The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with Local Plan (2018) policy SP4.
2 The proposed change of use to a hot food takeaway is likely to result in vehicles looking to stop for drivers to collect food or enable their passengers to collect food with inadequate parking facilities.
This is likely to cause obstructions and would have negative implications for highway safety. The proposal is therefore not considered to comply with Local Plan (2018) policy DM 29"
-
This guys videos
-
I don't think so.
One of them is by a football stadium and I know for sure that they don't have security on match days there.
-
I'm not intending this as a counter to your point. I can't argue that McDonalds is healthy.
But did you know that McDonalds is the UK's largest seller of pre-packaged fruit? Learned that from somebody at a fruit importers. It really surprised me.
-
"McDonalds is the UK's largest seller of pre-packaged fruit?" Really? What defines pre-packaged fruit? I find it unlikely given a Tesco or Sainos sells what I consider pre-packaged fruit and would sell far more of it than Maccas. Link?
Also, briefly UK's largest children's book seller
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9005862/McDonalds-UKs-biggest-childrens-book-seller.html -
Prepared and ready to eat, as opposed to whole fruits such as bags of apples.
I don't have a link, I was just told that verbally by the owner of the company that imports and prepares the sliced/cubed fruit for most of the major UK supermarkets.
-
Maybe I should have explained that better.
The owner of the company that imports and makes most of the boxes of cut and ready to eat melon, pineapple, mixed fruit salads etc that are sold in UK supermarkets told me in 2016 that McDonalds sells more of their shitty children's fruit bags than all supermarkets combined manage to sell of their own preprepared fruit boxes/bags.
I have no idea if that is by unit or by value.
-
I don't really know the rules are for defining what is a pre-prepared packaged fruit product.
Perhaps part of it is that the fruit is washed and ready to eat, which most apples aren't as currently sold.
-
Apology not needed.
Anyway, everybody knows that Big Mac > Apple.
Stonehedge
Oliver Schick
William.
Aroogah
AlexD
hippy
Bezzin
n3il
Drakien-
Post a reply
About
Epic win
Posted by
@
That's all very well, but my question was on which policies the refusal is based. Secure planning decisions depend on policies laid down in planning guidance, not on (however sensible) arguments the public write in with. Some of what you said may be reflected in policy, but mostly it won't be. The council must have said in its decision letter something like: 'This application is refused planning permission because it is in conflict with policies ABC456, XYZ123, and ZZZ007' etc. As I said, if the decision is not based on sound policy reasons, it can be appealed, and the applicants would win in that case.