London SE1 community website

Payday loans

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 2 of 7
Tuesday 17 April 2012 5.09am
Gosh, well done, I thought you had no chance of opposing this one. Shows you must always try even when it seems pretty hopeless, as it is possible to win.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 11.17am
I think we should pay tribute to Cllr Nick Stanton for proposing the motion to refuse the application.
His encyclopaedic knowledge of planning law enabled the committee to vote with a degree of confidence in a way that may change the law on these matters.
The objectors presented a moral case, but Nick's analysis presented a legal case.
The legal and planning officers asked for time to prepare the wording of the rejection, which may enable the applicant to assume permission through a failure to determine within a reasonable time, so its not over yet, but Nick's motion may thwart further applications like this.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 2.46pm
Indeed, well done to Nick Stanton. Nice to see the good guys win for once, even if it's only for a short while.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 4.00pm
A wider issue here is why it is such folly to take planning powers from local Community Councils, and centralise them in the Council HQ.
The plan is to set up a 'taxi rank' planning committee scheme, where all contested applications will be heard centrally, by councillors from across the borough.
I doubt if Camberwell, Dulwich or Peckham Councillors would have had the local knowledge necessary to refuse permission for this application.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 4.10pm
graham wrote:
I doubt if Camberwell, Dulwich or Peckham Councillors would have had the local knowledge necessary to refuse permission for this application.
Hang on. Cllr Hickson, who you've all been praising upthread, says that her argument is based on the National Planning Framework.

If that's the case, then it seems irrelevant to try to link this with local knowledge in the way you do above.

If there's a national framework, with guidelines which make it hard for payday loan co's to set up shop, then fair enough. This sounds more like you just don't want a legitimate business to set up shop in your neighbourhood.

In particular, the "sustainable development" argument seems particularly far-fetched to me. (In what way is a payday loan shop any less "sustainable" than an amusement arcade?

Which one is it?

(To be clear, I have no interest in payday loans. However, if the business is legal then I would question the morality of trying to ban it setting up shop. Are there any other businesses that you would like to protect us weak-minded citizens from? In these days of obesity and binge drinking, wouldn't it be sensible to close down all the restaurants and bars on Bermondsey St in order to save us from their temptations? I note that people already used the "B St is full of licensed premises, so in the interests of sustainability we should restrict TBR to retail" argument in last night's planning meeting. Where does this type of thinking stop?)

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 5.13pm
My point was simply that cllrs sitting on a central planning committee are unlikely to know or care about the area like local cllrs do.
Last night the local councillors sitting on the committee invoked an untried piece of law, possible setting a legal precedent.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 5.14pm
I respect so much what these people have done for the community, I wish there were many more like them.

this is a Pure example of what we were talking about when discussing the spreading of betting agencies.

"Some" supported the issue that if a business is legal you cannot oppose it.

Others that instead you can plan the area by using common sense and no communist block rules.

Again. I really respect these councillors.

(and she looks a bit like Andie Macdowell... off topic)
Tuesday 17 April 2012 6.06pm
Well done Nick Stanton and all others who managed to get the planning application rejected.

However, I would go one step further and have these legalized extortionists outlawed altogether.

They pray on the poor and vulnerable who are desperate to make ends meet, and tie them into an escalating spiral of debt that ends with County Court judgements and heartbreaking repossessions by bailiffs.

I note that the location in question was a former 'amusement arcade': these days there is no such thing(home gaming consoles are now better fun than coin operated machines): they are nothing else than gambling venues that also pray on the poor and in my opinion should also be banned.
Tuesday 17 April 2012 9.48pm
Betting shops and loansharks are two completely different debates,to lump them together,I think,is worrying and shows where people are really coming from on this,was this ever really a moral issue?
Do us a favour,leave Manzes alone eh.
Wednesday 18 April 2012 4.32am
Personally I did not have any moral issues versus gambling or betting. Just practical ones. When they SPREAD they take away from the 90% community valuable space that could be used differently. That is why I compare to payday loans shop.

Just this. But I think is enough. I do not mind one but not 5 or 6 in a highstreet. Specially if the highstreet has only a total handful of retail points..
Again this is what I think. But I am nor alone in this.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Current: 2 of 7

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions