Superstore developments

[PanBiker]

Roundabout at Wellhouse/Skipton Rd junction?

[Whyperion]

Why would bus stops have to move to accommodate double yellow lines ? Bus Stops can be designated as no stopping except for service buses only and marked out as such even in an area which is otherwise double yellow.

[Stanley]

"the Town Green/Cenotaph are complications."
I don't agree, the complication is the increase in traffic, nowt wrong with the Green or the Cenotaph. 'Traffic Problems' like area for car parking are the planners favourite subject when planning a new facility, my experience over the years at Ellenroad siting a large hotel taught me this in spades! This is the reason why a smaller development at the old gas works would be a better bet. The developers and planners are starting from the point where they design the largest development (maximum return and profit) and then try to fit it in. They should start from the other end, look at the local infrastructure and then plan the development accordingly. The alternative using their logic is simples! Demolish enough houses and facilities between the site and the main road to install a dual carriage way access road. Problem solved. In other words, their approach demands that the town must make concessions to allow them to develop. The bait is the unquantifiable 'economic benefit'. Throughout the process the developers argue for their case, they aren't interested in what it does to the existing built environment.

[Tardis]

The Town Green can not be developed because of the Law

The Cenotaph, not being moved, also means that widening the road at that point isn't going to happen.

A roundabout from a minor onto a major road, could actually make the situation worse. As seen at Morrisons in Skipton on Broughton Road where sometimes the queue to get out of the car park is extended simply by the large volume of flow along the main road.

Any queue would then force traffic the other way, even if the developer says it won't

As to demolition, I'm not sure Pendle has the money to compulsory purchase the houses.

As a similar point, there is a bit more uproar over the new Tesco in Padiham as the demolition teams have now cut down all the mature trees which were on the original plans to remain.

[PanBiker]

Taking the first four points from above, it would seem that the proposed site is a non starter from the traffic flow point of view.

As another aside, hasn't L&P just secured some kind of multi million pound deal with Silentnight guaranteeing the jobs and future of the firm?

Was securing the firms future not the original reason put forward for flogging off the site to Tesco in the first place?

[Tardis]

I think L&P only want to operate out of the bit at the back. They are demolishing what is left of the old weaving sheds, and I think getting rid of the bit to Tesco pulls down the rates and gives them a necessary asset boost.

As it is I don't know what state Silentnight is in, so L&P tying themselves to the company might actually be a risk rather than an asset

As to the junction, I believe that traffic lights to incorporate pelican crossings have been mentioned.

I do still think the bus stops will have to move because Pennine use it as the stop to swap over their drivers, and the bus might be sat there for 10 minutes, or change their policies

[Stanley]

Interesting to note that at no time has the Carlson site been mentioned. It looks as though they have abandoned the idea of a move and I often wonder how much weight my warning had about the 1932 flood. One thing is certain, the council are to be congratulated because they took notice and since then have kept the trash screen and the area above it in the old Clough dam very clean as this was the choke point that caused the 1932 problem. I still think they should take that culvert out completely and get rid of the hazard. Fifty years ago Harold Duxbury was drawing attention to the culvert under Butts which carries the Calf Hall Beck. That also could be a problem and straightening that out could be part of any final solution. These things are out of sight and therefore out of mind. Think of the effect a collapse of the roof in either culvert would have. I'd like to see more attention paid to these than traffic flows and acres about moving the Cenotaph. In the long run, far more benefit to the town.

[Whyperion]

Some kind of logic is that Pennine could have a bus stop/stand direct outside proposed Tescos allowing for driver changeover there instead. I dont know if L&P's Slientnight deal is for exclusive supplier or if they have more customers elsewhere.

Re Padiham and loss of mature trees / destruction of wildlife habitat, what is the penalty for such an occurance ?

[Tardis]

Some kind of logic is that Pennine could have a bus stop/stand direct outside proposed Tescos allowing for driver changeover there instead. I dont know if L&P's Slientnight deal is for exclusive supplier or if they have more customers elsewhere.

Re Padiham and loss of mature trees / destruction of wildlife habitat, what is the penalty for such an occurance ?

Yes to the bus stop, but you may have traffic lights and road junctions to contend with. Remember that Tesco deliveries would be entering via that little access road opposite Albert Hartleys.

As to the trees, there is no penalty. It does demonstrate the lax nature of planning and Superstores have many previous incidents. Even if tree preservations had been in place I think it might only be a couple of hundred fine per tree. It is, however, the loss of the mature habitat that they provide for the area.

Taking into account the one in Barnoldswick. A bat survey was done. It proved that there were some 'feeding' but no evidence was found of habitation. The Tesco plans included clearing the site and intially no provision was put in for the animals. Even now I'm not convinced that the "new" plans will actually provide a rich enough habitat to support the animals and because of the development there may be a full 12 month gap in food provision. No reason to refuse the building of course, but it might be noce to think that someone might provide the stop gap that the population needs to survive.

[Stanley]

Didn't I read that the enhanced Foster's Arms service is to be 'Hail and Ride'? Knocks bus stop arguments on the head or do they ignore the 'Hail' at certain places?

[Big Kev]

Pendle Projects posted a letter through the door today. There's an open day, at the Civic Hall, on March 12th to discuss the proposed Aldi store on the gasworks site.

[Stanley]

Got the same flyer Kev. I can see that at some time in the future we'll have a topic in local history on the Supermarket War of 2012.

[Tardis]

they missed our side of the street with the flyer

Saw the Town Council consultation today in the Rainhall Centre. It says 'no' to any supermarket although it did obviously only consult on Tesco as that was the only plan on the table at the time.

[Tardis]

Interesting Town Council Consultation meeting last night, lots of against and a few for, and an initial lay out of the Aldi store from the developer.

What did strike me was that the members of the council came in with a resolution, and even after over an hour of submissions from the public that resolution went through unchanged.

Also interesting that the meeting had only the Lib Dems members present. Wonder if the Tories are concerned about their "prejudicial lawful" conflicts when deciding upon the planning permission.

Looks like the next West Craven meeting will be at Rolls Social Club to accomodate the interest in the Tesco proposal

[Tardis]

Aldi in the Civic hall on Monday

Tesco planning at Rolls Royce 7pm Monday 19th March according to the B&E, though I haven't seen notices about the town yet.

[Tardis]

Got the email today.

notice here:

http://www.pendle.gov.uk/meetings/meeti ... _committee

Planning "approval" here in an additional file:

[Whyperion]

The proposal has been assessed to have a limited impact on the centre of Barnoldswick. The
reasoning for this is in summary:
a. Supermarkets will complete with each other rather than smaller independent stores such as
those represented in the centre

b. The development will capture a large proportion of the outflow of convenience goods
expenditure from the catchment area.

The applicant’s assessment argues that the result of the development of the proposal is that some
67% of convenience goods expenditure will be retained in the catchment area (rather than 17%).
This will mostly be expenditure diverted from the supermarkets in Colne and Skipton.

There appears to be some kind of Statistical fudge happening here, with a real mix up of causations , co-relations and extrapolations from
asking one simple question (where do you shop ) , and applying that if shopping moved from Superstore Skipton to Superstore Colne it was simply because Colne was closer ( rather than a more realistic Colne nearer if I am working in Burnley/Nelson , Bus Service to Colne more comprehensive than Bus Service to Skipton , Skipton supermarkets really busy on traffic than Colne, Sainsburys is nicer/better (non food ) range than Tesco/ Asda is Cheaper ). The extrapolation being that a closer Supermarket will mean most Skipton/Colne shopping will now occur in Tesco Barlick ( even though its smaller and range of food and non food not as large as those alternate places ) , and that taking away 30 to 40% of Co-Op turnover is OK , along with 3.3% of town center shop turnover ( which is funny as I said on old OGFB site that its the margin of reduction of turnover of just a few percent that is the tipping point of viabilty ).

[Whyperion]

Sorry thats 10% of food turnover ( which is about 3% profit ) and 3.3% non food - around 1% profit.
Another inconsistency in planning summary
Impact on economic and physical regeneration – As the proposal represents a significant private investment in Barnoldswick, it would assist in the regeneration of the town.
( How , its already acknowledged as being an out of town location? ) [ Mild argument - all or most employment will be from local persons so tiny
feedback of disposable income into Barnoldswick. ]

It would ensure that expenditure which currently flows out of the West Craven area,
including outside Pendle (to Craven) would be retained, to the benefit of the local economy.
- Not for the cost of bringing the stuff in , or for the suppliers , most of whom are the same whether the retailer is in Skipton , Colne or Barlick?

[Whyperion]

planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably (Policy EC10). The proposal would lead
to more jobs, both part time and full time, being created in Barnoldswick as well as retaining a large amount of spend that currently goes out of the town and Borough. It would assist in enabling investment in the remainder of the Leggett and Platt site. The loss of the site in itself would not
prejudice the approach the Council is taking on the development of its employment land base.

Overall the development would have a significant benefit to the local economy.

Taking all these factors into account, there would be significant benefits to the local economy arising from the development. In addition there is an adequate supply of industrial accommodation in the West Craven area. The proposal complies with Policy 22 and that refusal on the basis of
loss of employment land would not be justified.

- I think not , economic growth overall is close to not a lot ( its been shown to be diverted expenditure not generated ), and summary already indicates a strong and potentially latent demand for employment ( manufacturing and industrial land ) in Barnoldswick as long as price is right. There is a bit of a roll over and ignore potential industry which is already being marketed for by Manchester , Burnley and Blackburn , Pendle seems to have
not policy or plan to attract new industries to its suitable sites.

[Whyperion]

To do a deal with the Devil ?

£60,000 contribution to Brownfield Site Development Fund (level of contribution to be
determined)
£300,000 for other public realm improvements in the town centre and for marketing the
town centre
£24 000 for travel plan preparation and advice.
£8 000 for the future establishment of resident's parking scheme along Wellhouse Road
and Skipton Road, plus the first five years of the resident's permit costs.

Please note I personally do not object to Tesco - If Tesco wished to buy out Co-op in town centre that would not bother me , it is only the planning
aspects I object to. Oddly if Co-op were to propose the plans I probably would not object as the level of economic abstraction from town centre would not be as great - there is a real economic pull of retail brand names that makes each superstore development different which cannot
be measured in planning terms and requirements,

[Whyperion]

So what do you think Barnoldswick Town Council could spend £300,000 on, as this promised amount would seem to create bias in passing the plans- indeed should this proposal be passed to secretary of state for consideration rather than be wholly decided at a local level ?

[Tardis]

I believe the money for the Town centre is already ear marked for several things, like cycle ways etc which will promote Barnoldswick i.e. bring people in from outside

It is possible that this is why the memorial gardens/cenotaph was dropped as the money would not be available for that.

Does sound like we'll be getting quite a few sets of traffic lights too, which will mean greater traffic flows along Wellhouse, Valley Road etc which isn't reflected in these plans

[Tardis]

I have read it all now.

The LCC objections are fairly major, and there is no getting away from the traffic modelling which suggests that there will be bottlenecks at the Wellhouse/Skipton Road Junction and also at the Gisburn Road/Skipton Road junction. To my mind the development is a recipe for chaos especially at shift changes for Rolls and Silentnight, and probably the people on Gisburn Road didn't think that they would be materially affected. The LCC stuff says queues regularly which would not be solved by traffic lights, and puffin crossings might actually decrease traffic flow.

I wonder if all the people along Valley Road, and up Rainhall Road have actually been contacted about the acceptance of traffic movements away from the Tesco site along that route.

The road widening is good to overcome the fact that the residents park their cars in Wellhouse Road, but the having to apply for a permit which will only be funded for 5 years is a bit bizarre. Plus it looks like it will come at the same time as the introduction of the 20mph zone throughout the town.

There is also much evidence elsewhere that Superstore planners usually underestimate the traffic flow.

I did laugh at the fact that Tesco would have to reconsider parking options if the car park was regularly more than 90% full. Eh? where are they parking otherwise or should we accept that Tesco will simply expand into the rest of L&P when they move away from the site completely because they got an enormous grant to produce in Barnsley?

58 full timers, 117 PT people and only 183 parking spaces.

No deliveries outside of 8am-8pm

Only 2,000 sq feet of selling space in a 3,500 selling space store allowed. Wonder how long Tesco will keep to less than 2/3 of the full store?

Plus, the planning says that all delivery vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in forward gear i.e. turn around inside the yard and not reverse out onto the major road (Road Traffic Act). There isn't enough room for that in the plans.

Then finally, the planners can drive a coach and horses through one regulation (put in to protect) because it 'might' help achieve another for which a target has not yet been set or accepted.

They do acknowledge that that this Tesco will take money away from Skipton and Colnes' superstores, but I do wonder about the "negligible" effect upon the Town Centre, as Colne is now starting to see the drag of Sainsbury's and that is only at 75% of projected sales.

[Whyperion]

Bit of the non selling space used for enlarging deliveries area, mix of shelving under re-stock for next seasonal promotion , use for community projects / customer circulation area could all fit in the non selling space area, collection area for Tesco Direct.

[Tardis]

I know originally they had talked about moving the Post Office, but the people in there wouldn't comment or denied it