A BID to open a food and drinks kiosk on the banks of the Union Canal has sparked a wave of protests from community groups and residents.

The Edinburgh Canal Society and Merchiston Community Council are among the main objectors, amid fears it will have a “negative impact” on the area.

They argue that the council should not grant a licence for a catering facility beside the canal as it is classified as a scheduled ancient monument.

They also fear the mobile facility will cause litter and odour problems and damage the grass along the historic waterway.

But Nick Burt, who has applied to the city council to operate the catering business on a grass verge at Ogilvie Terrace, rejects the claims, saying he believes the kiosk will “enhance the area”.

His application will be discussed by the city council’s licensing board on Friday, and objectors hope their concerns will be enough to get his bid thrown out.

In a letter to the council, Andy Devenport, chairman of the Edinburgh Canal Society, said: “We consider any type of mobile catering operation to be unsuitable for this section of the canal.

“In conjunction with British Waterways, we have been clearing this area over the last few months of derelict trailers and the assorted junk that has accumulated over the years. The piece of ground is only now beginning to look presentable with the establishment of grass and is earmarked for the installation of picnic benches.

“The daily coming and going of a trailer would soon reduce the ground to a muddy mess.”

But Mr Burt’s application has been supported by British Waterways, which owns the land he wants to trade on, describing it as an “interesting venture”.

Mr Burt, who lives on Ogilvie Terrace, says he will work with the authority to look at ways to avoid damaging the grass. The 40-year-old, who plans to give out information leaflets to customers, added: “I appreciate where the objectors are coming from, and I think some of it stems from the fact that there was very little information on the application.

“I will provide a good service and I want to be able to enhance the area.”

Mr Burt, who will be selling coffee, soft drinks, paninis and muffins, added: “It’s far from being a burger van.”

But objectors believe that even if some of the concerns can be addressed, the location is still unsuitable for a food kiosk. Merchiston Community Council’s chairwoman, Bridget Stevens, said: “We are still deeply unhappy about the introduction of a mobile food unit beside the canal, even if problems with litter, smells, etc, could be minimised.

“Such licences are not usually granted near listed buildings. Given that the canal is a scheduled ancient monument, as well as being a much-valued local beauty spot, we feel that the spirit of this rule should apply here as well.”

In another objection letter, local resident Ann Royden, of Polwarth Grove, said: “The area has been improved recently by British Waterways and the Canal Society clearing their boating detritus.

“A trailer being towed on and off this area on a daily basis would rut and negate this improvement.”

AN underground supermarket designed to blend in with its surroundings has failed to win the backing of city planning officials.

Supermarket chain Aldi had planned to build its first Edinburgh store on vacant land on Chesser Avenue, in a scheme backed by local residents and community leaders.

The German firm, which is also drafting plans for a store in Leith, designed the store to be “sunk into the ground” to avoid spoiling views of the area from neighbouring homes.

But councillors have been urged to turn the scheme down after planning officials ruled that it would still remove a “valuable area of open space” and would overshadow the listed Corn Exchange facade.

Community leaders today said they were “disappointed” with the recommendation, and urged the council to approve the scheme.

Harry Sutherland, chairman of Hutchison and Chesser community council, said: “Most people living in the area were delighted with the plans and were very supportive of having this store here. If this kind of development isn’t allowed, then what will go there in its place?

“It would be awful to see it stay as neglected land or a faceless garage or car park.”

Under the plans, shoppers would enter through a glass-fronted area at ground level before taking escalators down to the main store. A sloping, grass-covered roof had also been included in the proposals, which the supermarket firm said would make it all but invisible from certain angles.

But in a report to the council, the city’s head of planning, Alan Henderson, said the development would be “unacceptable”.

He said: “This proposal is not for a community purpose and there would be a significant impact on the character of the local environment if the site was to be developed. The proposed layout and design attempt to address concerns regarding the impact on the character and appearance of the site, given its proximity to several listed buildings.

“Nevertheless, the building and the large tarmac area and lighting associated with the car park would be visible from a number of viewpoints and have a detrimental impact on the listed buildings.

“These proposals [will] damage the character of the area.”

The 1.4 acre site had previously been used by John Swan Ltd for grazing when it operated its cattle market next door. The new store had been expected to create 15 new jobs for the area.

Andrew Craig, the firm’s property director, said they still hoped the scheme would be granted when it goes to the city’s planning committee next week. He said: “We have worked very hard to ensure that the design proposals for this store development are both sustainable and sympathetic to the surrounding environment and preserve the view for the neighbouring buildings.

“We have consulted widely with local residents, councillors and the community council throughout the planning process, and have had an overwhelming support, particularly from local residents. We await the outcome of our planning application with interest.”

Councillors will decide whether the grant the scheme permission at a meeting next Wednesday.

There’s something rotting at Whole Foods Market («www.businessweek.com») and it isn’t in the produce department. It’s in the company’s management team: «investing.businessweek.com», the chief executive who spent years anonymously posting on the Web about his company and its rivals, appears to share a cynical arrogance with other corporate self-promoters who believe they don’t have to personally uphold the values they publicly proclaim. The Whole Foods mission statement boasts: “We lead by example.” But Mackey’s unapologetic example is hardly the model for the Whole Foods brand.

Any such hypocrisy is not incidental to this particular company following its rapid, acquisition-filled growth. The third most critical challenge the company faces—after market saturation for such expensive foods and the straining logistic infrastructure—is the credibility of its equally straining culture.

Groucho Marx once said, “The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Groucho’s sarcastic advice seems to have been Mackey’s leadership mantra. In fact, one major accounting firm leader told me, “I am going back to buying foods with additives and artificial preservatives.” He was joking, but his distaste for the mess at Whole Foods was real. Talking Head

Mackey’s anonymous efforts to undermine competitors and enhance his own company’s image are as disturbing as they are entertaining. This conduct was not at a scandalized competitor like grocer Royal Ahold («www.businessweek.com»). Rather, it was at a company—like Starbucks («www.businessweek.com»), «investing.businessweek.com», «investing.businessweek.com», or «investing.businessweek.com»—where a total brand campaign was created and marketed to enhance trust and integrity in both product and business conduct.

In endless magazine profiles, public pronouncements, and personal TV appearances, Mackey made honest dealing and fair open conduct part of the Whole Foods brand image. In a CNBC («www.businessweek.com») interview last year, when Mackey explained how he can be both socially responsible and commercially triumphant, he stated: “A lot of people think corporations are the bad guys. There is sort of a disbelief that they can have high integrity, do well, and be successful.” He made a similar point on his blog, complaining about a journalist who wrote a 2004 New York Times («www.businessweek.com») profile on Whole Foods: “It seems hard for him to believe that a business can be both profit seeking and socially responsible at the same time.” Sowing Wild Oats

Many observers, from financial analysts to late-night comedians, were riveted by Mackey’s seeming self-adulation. Posting anonymously on the Web under the name &quotRahodeb,” he proclaimed his own management brilliance and complimented himself on how “cute” he looked after a haircut on Apr. 28, 2000. Others have debated whether he actually damaged competitor and desired acquisition target Wild Oats Markets («www.businessweek.com») in any legal sense through his concealed attacks. But the real issue is how his unsavory conduct has diminished the brand he helped forge, as well as its treasured culture, and undermined the momentum for acquisitions.