OneGuyFromBarlick

We shall see Pluggy but my fear is that if it doesn't we will be inundated by the anti-Tesco bunch telling us it was them that did it!

The retrenchment of Tesco is well known from a business point of view.

I won't hold my breath to see if Pendle actually recognises it's own Planning Policy documents and has thrown out the more than £0.5million of planning gain that it would have filled its coffers with.

The town needs businesses, not parasitic retail space that will simply suck the jobs out and close businesses of other parts of the area.

Both L&P and Albert Hartley's have identified that their premises are too big for them and in need of renovation. Well let them sell that bit to people wishing to relocate back from China and the Sub continent and stop importing inflation from those countries, give people here work and help to restore the balance of payments faster.

Just wondering why it never made the B&E?

Cannot see where Pendle Council benefits with planning gain payments , if a developer pays or has to pay £x , Pendle have to spend that £x , they cannot reduce general rates / council tax elsewhere or use it to fund things that would have been done anyway.

Both L&P and AH are in the position where it would seem the best price being offered for their available land is from developers being funded by retailers. Unless the land is marketed to potential manufacturers ( both plots might be too small for some ) , which Pendle does not seem willing , or able to do ( unlike Burnley I believe that is really going on about its good links to Manchester etc and bringing in new and expanded hi-tech etc companies ).

Perhaps the best move is for AH to sell entire site and build new works on the available land at L&P - being a company it should be able to roll over what is probably a large capital gain on the land against the capital construction cost of new land and plant. [ but maybe not as our UK Taxation system is a bit strange and unhelpful for entities owning long term assets ].

New superstore on AH land could be Co-Op ( meeting the traffic objections ) , with the former Co-Op being ideally sized for an indoor market space for the town. All sides should then be happy ( apart from some townsfolk whom think that Co-Op too expensive and Pendle whom thing that Co-Op are ' over-trading ' and need a similar sized competitor to take some of their revenue away.

Planning gain is normally taken as additional expenditure, although in the case of Tesco here, some of the funding will be used to regenerate the Town Square, which Pendle would otherwise have to fund from budget.

The cycle lanes etc, would still have to be maintained after they were installed which might add longer term budget issues, and these would not be covered by planning gain monies.

Interesting today that Morrisons sales are down 1%. Primarily affected by non-convenience sector position and stiff competition from Sainsbury's, truly a great back handed compliment for the Bradford based company

If Morrisons down like for like 1% then surley its factor of economic slowdown , I would suggest from their core stores locations that they have done quite well, with few defectors to other competitive outlets, and it proves in a way the value of competition from others in keeping consumer prices down.

Cannot see that the town square particulary needs re-generating , so far is doing just about ok and should be left alone as much as possible other than good maintenance of cleaning and roads/pavements which any good public authority should be doing anyway. I think I would like to see as many of the shop name fascias in painted wood rather than plasticky perspex , but thats just a personal opinion.

There was a letter in the BET yesterday from a woman who it seemed believed that Barlick was about to get three supermarkets. I think she'd confused applications with actual developments. We assume that everyone understands what is happening but we may be wrong!

It looks like the Booths store in Barrowford is in deep storage. The car park has now been opened as Disc Parking by Pendle Council. I wonder how many lazy shoppers will bother to use it ?. Nolic

Now we await the fruition of the Lib Dem scares over non-participation by any democratic principles over the developments.

Or maybe they made those up too

I wonder if the delay over all these proposals is because they have to be reassessed because of the new planning framework? i.e. Pendle doesn't currently have one until it ratifies the Core Strategy, and the policies from before do not quite fit in with the new NPPF I posted in a topic of its oqn somewhere else

A number of roadside signs have appeared in the area, "Keep Barnoldswick Special, vote for ALDI" these are professional signs, certainly not home made and they bear the ALDI logo!

Does anyone else get the impression that the supermarket wars have very little to do with any finer feelings about the future of Barlick?

Stanley wrote:Does anyone else get the impression that the supermarket wars have very little to do with any finer feelings about the future of Barlick?

According to Pendle the finer feelings of people from Barnoldswick are actually bound up in the Core Strategy Document which everyone has been consulted about. I believe a well known career politian and Craven Cllr sat on the Development Committee that put much of that need into the document.

News this morning that a Sainsbury vegetable buyer has been caught out accepting bribes from a major supplier of potatoes. I have always been a critic of the supermarket's use of their buying power to drive down farm gate prices but must admit I never considered actual corruption. As Lord Acton said "All power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Too much power in too few hands with inadequate regulation. I wonder what difference the Supermarkets Regulation Bill mentioned in the Queen's speech will have? Don't hold your breath lads!

So Tesco, is threatening to go to Appeal simply because of the length of time for the planning application.

That isn't likely to go down very well, although Neil Watson's quote in the B&E report is as brief and accurate as I would expect from him

Means that the delay and appeal also removes any perceived tarnish to our elected representatives too

A whisper that Cllr Whipp and his colleagues now have to declare personal and prejudicial interest in the supermarkets because of the Lib Dems getting the money from the shop on Frank Street, and that money helping them to pay for their election expenses.

Hence West Craven Committee can not be quorate, and any decision taken instantly illegal which any developer could overturn on appeal.

Wonder how true?

An accusation that Tesco may have over egged the pudding somewhat

In their submission of people in favour, apparently it contains duplicates from those already on the Pendle lists. People from quite some distance away, and in many cases multiple household "yes" votes which have all been reshuffled before submission.

One example I was given has 5 people from the same house, all scattered through the spreadsheet submitted to the council, without any idea as to whether or not these people are actually eligible to vote, want a Tesco, or just want a foodstore other than the co-op.

Wonder if anyone will investigate that?

Conspiracy theories, you have to love them:

I was told that the appeal is by Liberty, not by Tesco. There could be a clause in the contract that was signed that allows Tesco to back out if there is a delay beyond a certain point. I was told that Tesco want to walk away as this site is no longer part of their strategy as the Tesco 'New Store' team have not met since before Christmas and have had the announcement of the retrenchment in future policy.

Same person said an appeal will take at least 3 months from submission.

Wish someone would do something, or say something to quash this kind of stuff.

As you have probably realised I have been in a frenzy of indifference about the supermarket wars but in today's BET there is a report which fleshes out the proposed development of the Crow Nest site. While I recognise that there is an element of arm-twisting in that this is seen to be the key to keeping what used to be Hartley's in the town, there are elements in the proposal that look like common sense and it would certainly have no major traffic problems. If I was forced to vote between the three I think I'd go for this one. Apart from anything else the Crow Nest site has been deteriorating slowly for years and this could be a shot in the arm for the whole area.

if the primary school pupils move to near the secondary school at some point,this would mean a huge amount of young and old children in the vicinity. a 20 m.p.h limit might be worth considering near to both schools.

a sainsbury to the south,a tesco to west.a morrison now being built 300 metres(sorry 385yards approx.)to the east of tescos .alidl in town centre.1/3rd.of the aldershot wellington centre closed.the escalator from the high st. turned off.many medium/small units closed or charity shops.out of centre shops turned into multi occupancy units.in the 60s,70s,and the mid 80s,walking in the main shopping area was an art to find a way through the people.now it is spot the shopper.barlick be warned.the town centre will be put under stress.look at nelson.

Tim, nice to see a fresh contributor but I'm afraid you've lost me. I don't see the connection with Barlick. Do you know our town at all?

Tesco have resubmitted their planning permission, so that they have the appeal and this occuring at the same time

So, the L&P site is now "Liberty Properties" and deliberately disacciating iteslf from Tesco.

The Albert Hartley site has agreed in principle to a new bridge and access into Victory Park, and removal of the weir so that a fish ladder may not be required.

The Lib Dems have also asked for a variation on the licence of Victory Park so that they can sell alcohol at events in the park.

Hmmm, the resubmitted Liberty Properties and Albert Hartley planning permission applications are on tonights Town Council agenda