Little Lever Precinct Car Park - 2

This is the background stuff for the parking anomaly. Good bed-time reading.

This e-mail sent by me to Bolton Council tries to explain why the Council's statements of justification for the parking ticket are illogical and a nonsense.

Dear Sir

This e-mail relates to parking on the ‘Car Park’ at the rear of the Precinct Properties in Little Lever Village Centre - north of Fletcher St.

This follows the issuing of a Code 1 PCN (contravention of yellow lines) on a vehicle parked immediately behind Cohen's Chemist.

This may seem a bit convoluted but the implications of the uncertainties of what is allowed and what is not allowed are serious.

.............................................................................................................................


There have been a series of e-mails between Sean Hornby, yourselves and the Council’s Asset Management Unit at Highways and Delivery Services relating to this particular PCN.

The conclusion stated by the above unit was that this PCN was correctly issued because, according to them:-

“The waiting restrictions on Fletcher Street apply from the centre of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway on the appropriate side of the road.(originally they said the Building Line) This includes the carriageway and the maintainable footway. The restrictions do not apply to the building line as stated but to the property boundary (ie, at this location, the interface between the adopted footway and the car park). (

The contravention occurred on waiting restrictions which apply to the north side of the road, Fletcher Street, as stated in the traffic regulation order whereas there is no traffic regulation order in place on the private car park. There is no doubt that the vehicle is parked in contravention of the ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction on Fletcher Street.

I trust this clarifies the position and explains that the vehicle was parked on adopted highway and not the car park, therefore the contravention code of ‘parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours’ is correct; it should also be noted that there is no Traffic Regulation Order to enforce on the car park.”

..........................................................................................................

I have submitted three FOI requests about this matter and received replies.

...........................................................................................................

Historically the whole area bounded by Market St, Foundary St, Fletcher St and Mytham Road was made up of houses and commercial premises and for the sake of argument these were surrounded by a pavement say 1.8 metres wide.

There is no doubt that the then ‘Highway’ extended from the centre of the carriageways to the building line (the Property Line) – which was then at the inner edge of the pavement - say 1.8 metres from the kerb.


Subsequently the whole area was demolished and re-developed as the Precinct.

The ‘Building Line’ then changed to what it is now – accommodating the Car Parks.

..............................................................................................................


In relation to the ‘historical pavement’ along the length of Fletcher St, a FOI reply tells me that :- “There is no record of any legal request to close this footway as part of the development of the shops, therefore, its status as adopted public highway remains.( Equally there is no record of this area of the car park being 'adopted')

(The fact of the matter is that any records would be held by Lancashire County Council since the development took place before 1974 when Bolton took over Little Lever and so obviously Bolton Council wouldn't hold any record)
...........................................................................................................


I have seen three different maps of the development.

1) Supplied by FOI request with annotations






2) Land Registry Title Plan LA196662.






3) Your own Highways Plan



.........................................................................................................


There are obvious discrepancies between the three plans.

The annotations on Map 1 are informative.

Whilst the (original) pavements along Market St and Foundry St and in Fletcher St to the end of the West side Car Park are shown in blue as ‘Adopted Highway’, the ‘historical pavement’ from the south west corner of Unit 21 ( Premier Stores) eastwards along Fletcher St to Mytham Rd is not thus shown. (Double Click on the image and use the magnifier to read the annotations)

In fact the back wall of Unit 21 is built over at least half the historical pavement.

On Map 3, the line of adoption behind Cohen’s Chemist and the Bookies deviates from the straight line in a kind of hump which is not shown on the earlier Map 1. The origins or reasons for the ‘hump’ is a mystery but it certainly doesn’t conform to the ‘1.8metres from the kerbline’ quoted above.

........................................................................................................


The problem with the PCN is twofold.

Firstly:-

FOI replies confirm following:-

“We can confirm that the issuing of Traffic Regulation Orders by Bolton
Council is based on the definition of `Road' contained in The Road Traffic
Regulation Act of 1984, subsequent Road Traffic Acts and subsequent Case
Law and that this definition has no relation to whether or not a road or
highway is adopted or unadopted.”

However, these acts and subsequent Case Law make clear that a Highway means a piece of land that the public have unfettered ability to cross and re- cross by foot or by vehicle irrespective of whether that land is Public, Private Adopted or otherwise.

Case Law confirms that for the purposes of Road Traffic Regulation Act and other Road Traffic Acts, the highway extends from the centre of the carriageway to the Building Line even if the land in between is Private. (This was the original statement in the exchange of e-mails referred to above )

....................................................................................................

The commonsense demonstration of this is that if I were parked in my car with the ignition keys on the Precinct car park (Private land) – how can I put it – drunk, then I can be arrested. Ditto no Tax – ditto no Insurance etc.

This means that the whole of the Precinct Car Park is a Highway for the purposes of the Acts and thus the double yellow line restriction on Fletcher St East extends from the centre of the carriageway across the historical pavement and over the car park up to the building line.

So- anybody parking on that car park can be ‘done’ PCN code 1.

You seem to have confused the Council’s definition of a highway as being 'that which has been adopted by the Council as a highway' and the definition of a highway for the purposes of the Acts.


Secondly:-

The car park contains marked bays. The public assume that they can park there. However at least three of these bays cover all or part of the historical pavement width and so would, even by your rules, fall foul of a PCN code 1.

It is obvious that all this needs to be sorted so that the public know where they can park and where they can’t.

..................................................................................................

The original PCN was issued for parking on the historical pavement although there is no indication that there is a pavement historical or otherwise at that point or how far it extends. There is no demarcation between the ‘pavement’ and the rest of the car park.

The Act stipulates that parking restrictions should be clearly marked and understood and in this case they are not. There needs to be more than just the double yellow lines.

..................................................................................

The above e-mail resulted in the following reply:-

"Thank you for your e-mail addressed to the Director of Environmental Services in connection with a penalty charge notice issued to a vehicle parked at the rear of Little Lever Precinct.



I have made further enquiries into the issues you have raised and can confirm that for the purpose of parking enforcement highway rights always take precedence over property rights. The only plan that is relevant to the case where the penalty charge notice was issued is the extract from the highway register.



Any rights over the private parking area adjacent to Fletcher Street are permissive rights that could be withdrawn by the controller of the property at any time. Therefore the matter of the car park has no relevance to the case.



There is a lawful, enforceable traffic regulation order on Fletcher Street. The restriction is marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions that give full effect to the TRO. There are no other signs or markings that would be appropriate here.



It is incumbent upon a driver to ensure that when parking a vehicle it is safe and lawful to do so. In this particular case the vehicle was parked on the footway, within a metre (They previously said 1.8 metres)of the edge of carriageway (with DYLs), where the likelihood of it being highway (with waiting prohibited) was clear.



As previously stated Mr Hoyle has since paid the notice and closed the case. If he wishes to have the Council’s decision re-assessed by Traffic Penalty Tribunal; an independent body put in place to regulate all notices issued in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, he may ask for a refund of his payment and a form ‘Notice to Owner’ will be sent to the registered keeper/ owner of the vehicle as identified by DVLA to continue the process.



The attached leaflet explains this process and the grounds of appeal and it should be noted that if the case is dismissed by a Parking Adjudicator the full amount of £70 will be applicable.

.......................................................................................................

Frankly, at this point I became convinced that the Council hadn't got a clue as to the requirements of the Traffic Regulations and forwarded my views to my friend, Mr Eastwood.

I subsequently raised it at the Area Forum from where the Bolton News picked it up resulting in todays article.

I look forward to the officer's visit.

Cheers for now fellow anoraks!

Little Lever Precinct Car Park -1

The following article appeared in today's Bolton News.

Clear up village car park confusion, council urged

Tuesday 26th July 2011

Drivers are calling on Bolton Council to make its parking regulations clear after a vehicle was booked for parking on a private car park.

A ticket was issued to a car parked on the edge of the car park at the back of the Little Lever shopping precinct.

The vehicle was not in a marked parking bay but there are no signs to warn drivers they are liable to be fined.

However, it has now emerged the traffic warden gave the car a penalty charge notice for parking close to double yellow lines in Fletcher Street.

Driver Steve Hoyle, aged 50, appealed against the ticket but the council’s parking services department told him he did not have a case because the car park was a “pavement”.

He said: “I’ve parked there many times before without a problem and I’ve since seen other drivers park there without getting fined.

“There are cars on that car park in marked bays right on the edge of the road and they are more of an obstruction. It’s crazy — it just needs making clear.”

Mr Hoyle, who is licensee at Hardy Hall, Little Lever, had parked on the small triangle at the end of the car park.

But there are other marked bays in the car park that also come right up to the edge of the road, next to the yellow lines.

Paul Richardson, who owns the Village Tea Rooms, opposite the precinct, said: “It’s a car park.

There’s no indication you can’t park there.

“If this part is a pavement then surely it stretches all the way along the car park and through three marked parking bays.

“All we want is for it to be made clear so that no one else gets a ticket.”

A council spokesman said: “In light of concerns raised, an officer will visit the location within the next seven days to clarify whether any part of the car park is within the adopted highway.

“If necessary, we will then consider the best way to make this more clear.

“Cars parked in marked bays on the car park will not currently get a penalty charge notice from the council as the car park is not covered by a Traffic Regulation Order.”

The next post on this will give all the background details.

Tesco at Little Lever - Transport Assessment

Transport Impact Assessments

Here we will deal with the requirement, laid out in Government Guidance, for a planning application to be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment.

There is a stipulation that a planning application for a food retail store such as a supermarket in excess of 800 sq metres must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan.

...................................................................................................

Here we deal with the Transport Assessment.

Most of what is below is direct copy and paste from that Government Guidance.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) states that, where a new development is likely to have significant transport implications, a Transport Assessment (TA) should be prepared and submitted with a planning application for the development.

A Transport Assessment is a comprehensive and systematic process that sets out transport issues relating to a proposed development. It identifies what measures will be taken to deal with the anticipated transport impacts of the scheme and to improve accessibility and safety for all modes of travel, particularly for alternatives to the car such as walking, cycling and public transport.

.......................................................................................................

To produce such a document Traffic Data particular to the roads immediately adjacent to and in the vicinity of the development needs to be collected.



The Guidance stipulates the conditions under which this data should be collected as follows:-

The assessment should include recent counts (normally surveyed within the last three years) for peak period turning movements at critical junctions.

The traffic data should reflect the normal traffic flow conditions on the transport network (e.g. non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions etc.) in the vicinity of the site, and should be valid for the intended purposes.

The recommended periods for data collection are spring and autumn, which include the neutral months of April, May, June, September and October,

.....................................................................................................

The Guidance stipulates the periods during which data should be collected as follows:-

The analysis period should reflect the person trip generation characteristics of the proposed development, as well as conditions on the adjacent transport system. It should be related to known and anticipated peak patterns of demand both for the transport system and development-generated trips.

A TA should normally consider the following analysis periods:

• weekday morning and evening peak period trips for the adjacent transport system, with particular focus on the peak period traffic flows on the road network;

• weekday morning and evening peak period trips for the proposed development;

• an off-peak period selected to assess level of greatest change resulting from the development;

• weekend peak period if the development is anticipated to generate significant levels of new trips at weekends or the adjacent transport system suffers from greater levels of congestion than during weekdays.

The analysis period should also include an assessment of the combination of development related and non-development-related trips.

.........................................................................................................

The Guidance also addresses Environmental Issues and states that the Transport Assessment should address amongst other things the following matters.

• nuisance to people caused by transport-related noise and vibration generated by the development;

• the emission of greenhouse gases as a result of the transport implications of the development and the impact of changes in local air quality on people;


These are only short extracts from the Guidance.

More later

Tesco at Little Lever. This weeks contributions in the Bolton News

With 3pc attending, not that much support for Tesco plan

Tuesday 19th July 2011

Having attended the Little Lever Tesco exhibition, I would strongly disagree that the development is well supported by local people.

Little Lever has a population of 10,000 people, of which three per cent attended the exhibition.

I have to say the local people I spoke to whilst there — probably the 16 per cent of objecting attendees—were expressing grave concerns about the size of the store and the obvious traffic implications the development is going to pose.

A consultation took place with the traffic census company, appointed by Tesco on Thursday, who took the opportunity to complete their survey at a time when 20 per cent of children have broken up for school holidays. They advised they were surveying traffic going up Ainsworth Road, but they hadn’t been asked to survey the traffic going through the busy junction at the top of Ainsworth Road.

Surely, if Tesco fails to survey the traffic through the junction appropriately, then the traffic impact report they need to produce as part of the planning application will be inadequate and unacceptable?

When consulting the public relations guys at the exhibition, they also made it clear that they had no plans to address, or even survey, the problems at other areas that would be affected, such as Lever Street, the junction at Tonge, Marsh and Victory roads, where traffic is also a concern, without the excessive pressure of increasing car journeys by people from neighbouring areas to visit the store.

I was also advised that we can expect between eight to 10 delivery lorries a day, all to enter via Crossley Street, a road that is far too small to envisage entrance to such vehicles within legal manoeuvres.

When raising this concern, I was told they would be widening the road to the grassed area beside it, the one with trees with protection orders on them, which again they seemed to have no knowledge of.

When inquiring about employment opportunities, they advised it would create jobs but these would be advertised via the local job centres and they have no commitments to employing from the local area.

I am not convinced that the three per cent of the Little Lever population who attended this event asked enough questions about the real impact this proposal will have on them.

The fact that the Tesco people advised they would be selling nothing different to their current store (no comparative goods, just more of what they sell now) begs the question of why the people of Little Lever would want this store? Surely the current eyesore the Pennine Pets Factory land could be put to far better use?

Kristy Atkinson Little Lever

............................................................................................

Public meeting to discuss proposals for new store

Friday 22nd July 2011

A public meeting is being held to discuss plans for a new Tesco in Little Lever.
About 300 people recently attended a two-day exhibition where Tesco’s proposals were presented to the public for the first time.

The development, which would create 100 new jobs, would see Tesco built on the derelict Pennine Pets factory site off Lever Street, with the new supermarket replacing the current Tesco Metro store in Market Street.

Residents could leave comments on the plans at the exhibition, of which 70 per cent were in favour of a new store, 16 per cent were against, and 14 per cent of contributors had not made up their minds, Tesco said.

Now former Little Lever councillor Sean Hornby has organised a second meeting, which will be held at Hardy Hall, in Church Street, Little Lever, on Wednesday at 7pm.
He said: “The community is divided over the plans.

“Tesco have done their consultation, it’s now a case of getting the community together and saying, what do we really think?

“Tesco hasn’t talked about traffic issues yet, for example.

“And if the new supermarket is going to come to the village, then what do Little Lever people want?

“Some people have been saying they are disappointed that the new supermarket is only going to do food and isn’t going to do clothes or electrical goods.

“This meeting will be a chance to discuss all of these things.”

Mr Hornby said Tesco representatives would be invited to the meeting.

Matt Magee, corporate affairs manager for Tesco, said: “We will continue to hold discussions with residents and community groups while we finalise our plans.”
Tesco is to submit a planning application later this year.

More information about the public meeting can be found on Little Lever’s new community website littlelever.org

.................................................................................................

‘We are selling the soul of the village for a zebra crossing’

Friday 22nd July 2011

“The eyesore of the Pennine Pets Factory land could be put to better use,” says Kristy Atkinson (not much support for Tesco plan, July 19).

You are correct, Kirsty, and people I have spoken to agree with you.

Having enjoyed a pleasant, motivating day at Stocks Park School on Saturday, I am appalled that we can’t do the same thing in Little Lever.

The school and voluntary groups have renovated a patch of land, built raised beds, a seating area, fruit trees and made a community amongst the greens.

Little Lever needs a community more than a Tesco.

Imagine each school in the village having a plot. Learning how to grow more not buy more.

Hands on education of real benefit. Life skills, not ticking more boxes for teachers to mark, Many residents would love an allotment. A place to sit and chat. How many elderly are stuck indoors watching TV because we fail them?

Instead we will have chaos. We are selling the soul of the village in return for a painted zebra crossing and maybe a few dangerous road humps. How many of our local traders who keep the main high street alive will survive?

A Cartmell Little Lever

...............................................................................................

Village meeting over new Tesco

Saturday 23rd July 2011

Tesco says it currently has no plans to sell clothes or electrical items at the proposed new store in Little Lever.

Residents are to hold a public meeting concerning the planned new supermarket later this month.

They will discuss traffic issues the new Tesco could create and also what will be on offer in-store.

About 300 people attended a two-day exhibition where the proposals were presented to the public for the first time.

The development, which would create 100 new jobs, would see Tesco built on the derelict Pennine Pets factory site off Lever Street, with the new supermarket replacing the current Tesco Metro store in Market Street.

Residents could leave comments on the plans at the exhibition, of which 70 per cent said they were in favour of a new store, 16 per cent were against, and 14 per cent had not made up their minds.

Matt Magee, corporate affairs manager for Tesco, said: “We found people were going outside of Little Lever to do their weekly food shop.

“People staying in Little Lever to do their food shopping can only be a good thing for the other businesses.”

Mr Magee added the store would not be selling clothes or electrical items. Tesco is expected to submit a formal planning application later this year. The public meeting will be held at Hardy Hall at 7pm on July 27.

..............................................................................................


And finally – my letter printed today but not yet online.

Dear Sir,

I was pleased to note that Tesco has stated that of the 300 attendees at their presentation in Little Lever, 70% were in favour of the proposal. I would have been astounded if they had announced that 70% were against.

An equally unscientific and unrepresentative poll on the Little Lever Info website informed us that people preferred Asda over Tesco by a factor of three.

Leaving this aside, Mr Davidson (he who talks to Tesco Executives) in the same issue tells us of Tesco’s expansion into 24/7 local mini-supermarkets. Information I have been given which originated from within Tesco says that their aspiration for this site is indeed for 24 hour opening with a petrol station. This would start to make commercial sense but it isn’t what the attendees were asked to comment on.

There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip and my suspicion remains that the final application plus subsequent amendments would be far different from what we were shown last week.

The required traffic survey took place last Thursday, unfortunately when 20% of the High School pupils were already on holiday. This survey was counting the traffic up and down Ainsworth Rd but when I asked the guy if he was going to survey the traffic through the junction he said –‘No – we haven’t been asked to’. Not very representative then!

In my view the access through Crossley St is unworkable and the only sensible thing to do would be to bring it straight into the junction. This would also open up the visibility of the store. Unfortunately this would involve the demolition of Mr Mooney’s shop. If this were the case, he would probably less enthusiastic about the idea.

Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever

......................................................................................................

The story's still very much alive, folks!

Tesco at Little Lever - Let's keep a sense of humour

Just a bit of light relief from all the tedious figures.

Bolton Council Highways Department have come up with the perfect solution to the Junction at Little Lever

Tesco at Little Lever - The Junction

Before discussing the Junction here are a few piccys of the Junction and traffic so you can better understand the nature of the problem

Access - Traffic - The Juction - 1

This is Crossley Street which Tesco tell us will be the access to the Supermarket both in and out for cars, pedestrians, cycles and delivery vehicles.




When challenged at the presentation about the feasibility of this, the Tesco representatives said that they were negotiating with Bolton Council to utilise the first two metres of the Tree Plot (on the left) to make the access wider.

The trees on this plot have Tree Preservation Orders on them and although the trunks are more than two metres in from the kerb, it’s difficult to see how artics could avoid damaging the overhang.

Even with this two metre strip the whole width of the access would still only be thirty feet.

Could the TPO’s be removed?

To clarify this I sent in a FOI request to Bolton Council as follows

Dear Bolton Borough Council,

This is a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. As
usual, it is precisely worded.

It is to do with Tree Preservation Orders.

Where trees situated on land owned by Bolton Council are subject to
existing Tree Preservation Orders, what are the circumstances and
by what procedures and on whose authority can those Tree
Preservation Orders be rescinded.?

Where Tree Preservation Orders are made specifically in order to
ensure that there is no development of the land on which they are
situated, under what circumstances and by what procedures and on
whose authority can those TPO’s be rescinded and development be
allowed to proceed.?

If such land owned by Bolton Council upon which are situated are
trees covered by TPO’s should be disposed of by sale, under what
circumstances and by what procedures and on whose authority could
the TPO’s be rescinded.?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Richardson

The following reply was received:-

Dear Mr. Richardson,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

In response to your request for information we have contacted the relevant
department and Bolton Council are happy to supply the information below.

1.

Where trees situated on land owned by Bolton Council are subject to
existing Tree Preservation Orders, what are the circumstances and by what
procedures and on whose authority can those Tree Preservation Orders be
rescinded?

Response.

Once a tree is protected by an order confirmed by the Council (via the
Planning Committee) trees may only be removed as a result of the
submission and approval of an application to undertake such work. This
process is set down by the regulations in respect of trees covered by
TPO's. The decision on such applications would be taken by the Director of
Development and Regeneration under the powers conferred on him by the
scheme of delegation from the Council. Permission may also be granted via
an application to develop the land on which the trees stand but consent
would only apply to the trees that are required to be removed to allow
development to take place.

2.

Where Tree Preservation Orders are made specifically in order to ensure
that there is no development of the land on which they are situated, under
what circumstances and by what procedures and on whose authority can those
TPO’s be rescinded and development be allowed to proceed?

Response.

This process would normally result in a developer Appealing a decision and
under such circumstances the final decision as to weather development
proceeds would be taken by a Planning Inspector on behalf of the Secretary
of State.

3.

If such land owned by Bolton Council upon which are situated are trees
covered by TPO’s should be disposed of by sale, under what circumstances
and by what procedures and on whose authority could the TPO’s be
rescinded.?

Response.

The subsequent owner would be responsible for submitting an application to
develop the said site and the Council would decide whether to approve or
refuse the development. Approval to remove trees as part of an application
would be granted pursuant to a n approval of a detail/full application.
Should the Council refuse consent then the process would follow that set
down in the answer to the second query.

Note.

The Local Planning Authority are no longer required to get approval from
the Secretary of State to fell trees themselves that are protected and on
land they control.

Should you have any queries regarding this, please contact me.

Regards,

So the answer to my question is that if push came to shove they could probably be rescinded.

Width of the Access.

As I have said, even with the additional two metres the total width is only thirty feet.

The Tesco plan shows a footpath on either side. Let’s be generous and suggest that these are each four feet wide. That leaves 22 feet for the carriageway – 11 feet wide for going in and 11 feet wide for going out.







The maximum width of a refrigerated lorry is 2.6 metres or roughly 8 feet 6 inches.

So, once into Crossley St and going in a straight line, the truck would be say -1 foot six inches from the kerb (and the pedestrians).

But first it has to get into Crossley street.

The maximum permitted length of an artic is 50 feet 10 inches.

Now, I’m working on the geometry but, in the absence, of that I am informed by a person who has 30yrs experience in the transport industry that an artic going up Ainsworth from the junction and attempting to turn left into Crossley St would have to move over to the right hand side of the road in order to swing into the 11 foot wide ‘in’ carriageway.

People have commented that artics have entered Crossley St before when Pennine Pets was there but have taken more than one manoeuvre to achieve this.

The implications of such a manoevre with pedestrians on the footpaths and cars exiting the site on top of the normal Ainsworth Rd traffic are obvious.

Traffic Volume.

Ok, - so Tesco suggest that there would be only some 6 to 10 deliveries per day where the above problem could arise but then we have to look at the customer car traffic.

There are 175 car parking spaces on the plan.

Tesco don’t make money out of tarmac so presumably they expect at peak times up to 175 cars moving in and out of the site.

I have previously posted the Peak Time traffic survey results done by Wainhomes in 2006. These are as follows.

Direction	AM	PM
Market left into Church	634	477
Market right into Ainsworth	7	37
Market straight on into Lever	70	90
Church right into Market	359	644
Church straight on into Ainsworth	45	174
Church left into Lever	20	35
Ainsworth straight on into Church	131	51
Ainsworth left into Market	40	92
Ainsworth right into Lever	1	0
Lever right into Church	20	19
Lever left into Ainsworth	1	1
Lever straight on into Market	38	90
Total traffic through the Junction	1,366	1,710

You will notice that the traffic flow up and down Ainsworth is minimal with the exception of that from Church St straight on into Ainsworth at the PM peak time.

But now, with the access being from and into Ainsworth we are talking about adding up to 350 traffic movements to the figures.

The movements now have to have at least four additional categories.

1. Right out of Crossley into Ainsworth and to the Junction and subsequently left right or straight on.

2. Left out of Crossley into Ainsworth and out of the area via Victory etc

3. Out of the junction into Ainsworth and left into Crossley

4. From Victory etc into Ainsworth and right into Crossley.

All this has to be qualified by the fact that some journeys to the store will be stop-offs from existing traffic flow.

An allowance has also got to be made for the existing Tesco Metro traffic which comes through the Junction.

At this point my head starts to ache.

The main point about this is that in category 1 above it would only take seven or eight vehicles held up at the Junction to have traffic backing up into Crossley St and the car park.

More to follow. I’m now having a rest.

Direction	AM	PM
Market left into Church	634	477
Market right into Ainsworth	7	37
Market straight on into Lever	70	90
Church right into Market	359	644
Church straight on into Ainsworth	45	174
Church left into Lever	20	35
Ainsworth straight on into Church	131	51
Ainsworth left into Market	40	92
Ainsworth right into Lever	1	0
Lever right into Church	20	19
Lever left into Ainsworth	1	1
Lever straight on into Market	38	90
Total traffic through the Junction	1,366	1,710

Tesco - Where are we going

Ok - It's only my opinion - but this is Tesco's aspiration for Pennine Pets.





But where could they put the Petrol Station?

Try This



If Tesco were secretly negotiating with the Council to aquire the park, what procedures would have to be followed.

Have a look at this:-

Dear Bolton Borough Council,

This is a request made under the Freedom of Information Act. As
usual, it is precisely worded.

It relates to the disposal by sale of land owned by Bolton Council
currently designated or used as a Park or as a Play Area.

Could you please inform me of the procedures and processes that
would have to be followed where an area of land owed by Bolton
Council and currently designated or used as a Park or a Play Area
could be disposed of by sale.

Would such procedures and processes include a requirement for
effective consultation with residents and others whose amenity
might be affected by such a disposal.?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Richardson

Reply

Dear Mr. Richardson ,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

In response to your request for information we have contacted the relevant
department and Bolton Council are happy to supply the following
information.

Land which is designated as a park or play area would not be available for
disposal on the open market unless declared surplus to requirements by the
Council's Environmental Services department, who have responsibility for
the day to day management of such areas.

If such an area was declared surplus to requirements, then the land could
be available for disposal. In such circumstances, the Council has to
comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1972 regarding
open spaces and where necessary advertise the proposed sale in a local
paper. The comments made following the advert must then be considered by
the Council when a decision is made about disposal. Ward Members are also
consulted with regard to such a disposal.

A change of use requiring planning permission would also be subject to the
usual planning process and local consultation made at that time.

If there is a restriction on the title which requires the land to be used
in a certain way and this use is thought to no longer be relevant because,
for example, of changes in the neighbouring areas then an application
could be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Tribunal) to be released from
the covenant. Members of the public could make representations to the
Tribunal.

A disposal of an area of park land for a use in connection with
recreational purposes may also require an advert to be placed in
accordance with the Local Government Act 1972.

Should you have any queries regarding this, please contact me.

Regards,



DISCUSS !

Tesco - Where are we now ?

Where are we now and what does it mean

Figures and information have now been obtained about the proposed development of a ‘Superstore’ at Pennine Pets.
..............................................................................................




Size of Store

The size of the store is 1,925 sq metres retail space and 885 sq metres warehousing etc making a total footprint of the store of 2,810 sq metres.

The current Tesco Metro on Market St has a retail area of 680 sq metres.

Thus the proposed store is 2.83 times the size of the existing store.
...................................................................................................
>
Car Parking

On the face of it, car parking provision proposed for the new store seems excessive and the store size is some 500 sq metres smaller than we thought could be accommodated on the site.

Since we believe Tesco’s original aspiration was for a 24 hr Superstore + Petrol Station, it leads us to wonder if this proposal is a watered down version which could subsequently be altered by ‘working amendment’ by sacrificing some of the car parking and --

1) Increasing the size of the store or
2) Incorporating a petrol station

Against this argument however is the information in the following document

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/04/14550/3211

which basically says that Tesco believe that they require 1 car parking space per 10 sq metres of floorspace (- ie car parking provision proposed for this development is actually less than they would wish.)
..............................................................................................

The Government lays down rules to limit the number of car parking spaces for these developments presumably to encourage walking and cycling. These are called Maximum Parking Standards. Local Authorities can make these more stringent but the National standards cannot be weakened.

The National Maximum Car Parking Standard for this kind and size of store is 1 non disabled car parking space per 14 sq metres of floorspace.

The Maximum Car parking standard for this kind and size of store adopted by Bolton Council is 1 non disabled car parking space per 16 sq metres of gross floorspace.
...............................................................................................

The existing store has 58 car spaces including 4 disabled and 4 mother & child spaces. This figure also includes staff car parking.

The proposed store provides for 176 car spaces for the public (Including 12 disabled) plus 14 spaces in a separate staff car park = 190 gross parking spaces. This equates to 1 non disabled car parking space per 15.8 sq metres of store footprint.


Thus: The car parking proposed meets the National Standard and just about meets the Bolton Standard - ie it is not excessive
.............................................................................................


What will the proposed store sell?

Definitions:-

‘Convenience shopping refers principally to Food shopping plus washing powder etc

‘Comparison’ shopping refers to Clothes, Shoes, Electrical , DVD’s, White Goods etc.

Tesco Metro deals solely with ‘Convenience’ Goods

It is now stated by Tesco that the new store will not be selling Comparison goods. It will just be selling Convenience goods.

............................................................................................

The Tesco development at Longcauseway ( which has 2.73 times the retail floor area of the proposed Pennine Pets development) will sell both Convenience and Comparison Goods)

At Longcauseway, there will be 2,792 sq metres of Convenience and 2,284 sq metres of Comparison goods.

Conclusion

If Pennine Pets sold both types of goods, this would be an attractive proposition for residents and an argument for the development. (Don’t have to trail to Asda for a pair of socks)

If Pennine Pets sold Convenience goods only then the benefit to residents would be limited and it could be argued that unless the existing store is massively overtrading, the new development would be less justified.

In either case, the expectations for the new development noted in posts on Facebook and LL Info would be disappointed.
...................................................................................

The Quantitative Need for the store – Bolton Councils Figures

Figures for the existing Metro store and the proposed development.

Using the figures from Bolton Council’s Retail and Leisure Survey the following can be assumed. (2011 figures)

Annual Turnover of Tesco Metro = 680 x £10,181 = £6,983,080

Annual Turnover of Pennine Pets proposal = 1,858 x £10,181 = £19,598,425

Increase in turnover of new store over existing store is thus £12,615,345
..............................................................................................

The figures below relate to spending on convenience goods by the residents of what Bolton Council call Zone 6. This comprises all residents who have the Post Codes BL1 3 and BL1 2. This is shown on the map below.





All the figures quoted are taken directly from the Retail and Leisure Survey carried out by the Council’s consultants – Roger Tym & Partners in March 2008. This was part of the Local Development Framework which is the basis for the Bolton Core Strategy – the Bible of Bolton’s Planning from now until 2026.

The documents can be found at :-

http://www.bolton.gov.uk/website/pages/LDFEvidencebaseretailandleisurestudy.aspx?bid=2426

Figures for residents of Zone 6

(Little Lever Residents are roughly two thirds of this in each case)

Population 2008 - -21,036

Population 2011 - - 21,177

Population 2016 - - 21,455

Population 2021 - - 21,749

Population 2026 - - 21,986
.............................................................................................

Convenience Goods Expenditure (per capita)

2011 - £1,627

2016 - £1,727

2021 - £1,834

2026 - £1,946
.....................................................................................................

Total Convenience Goods Expenditure and Expenditure Growth (@2005 prices)

2011 - £33.3m

2016 - £35.7m

2021 - £38.4m

2026 - £41.2m
.............................................................................................

Main locations of Zone 6 Convenience expenditure	% of total	Value £m
Asda Burnden	24.57%	£7.89m
Other stores – Little Lever	13.52%	£4.34m ****
Asda Farnworth	9.15%	£2.94m
Asda Radcliffe	12.15%	£3.9m
Sainsbury Trinity St	8.36%	£2.69m
Morrisons Blackhorse St	6.63%	£2.13m
Other stores Bolton	5.81%	£1.87m
Morrisons Mornington Rd	4.74%	1.52m
Tesco Horwich	2.16%	£0.69m
Tesco Bury	3.79%	£1.22m
Tesco Walkden	0.95%	£0.30m
Totals of above	91.83%	£29.49m
Balance spent elswhere	8.17%	2.62m

*** This survey was done before Tesco Metro took over the Somerfield store on Market St.

Using sales density figures for 2011 assumed in the survey, Tesco Metro on its own is now turning over £6,983,080.

It must be assumed therefore that the Somerfield store was massively undertrading

The main observation from the above is that Zone 6 is spending £14.73m at the assorted Asda's and only £2.21m at the big Tesco’s

This must be qualified by the increased turnover at Tesco Metro which must be at the expense of the other stores.
..................................................................................................


Conclusion

It is not unreasonable to assume that Tesco’s purpose for this development is to ‘screw’ Asda.
...............................................................................................

Bolton Core Strategy

The figures here relate to the whole of the Borough.

This document produced at immense expense and recently approved by the Government Inspector lays out the plans for the Borough over the next 15 yrs.

In relation to Retail - This states:-


4.14 The Core Strategy proposes to increase the quantity of retail floor space in the borough, concentrated mostly in Bolton town centre.

This reflects the objective of creating a transformed and vibrant town centre, as well as complying with Government advice contained in PPS4.

This approach is supported by the findings of the council’s Retail and Leisure Study.

This identifies a requirement up to 2026, of between 9,200 and 11,000 square metres for convenience goods and between 74,300 and 134,600 square metres for comparison goods, in addition to schemes that already have planning permission.

This additional floor space should be developed after 2016.

The study identifies localised deficiencies in convenience shopping in Westhoughton, Little Lever and the northern parts of the borough around Egerton and Bromley Cross, as well as the need to identify easy access to facilities by people facing social exclusion including access to fresh foods.

These figures are for the whole of the Borough.

This results in the Council Policy as follows:-

Policy P2

The council and its partners will:

1. Identify a range of sites for new retail development to allow for a comparison goods floor space of up to 130,000 square metres after 2016, concentrated in Bolton town centre.

2. Concentrate bulky goods retailing on the edge of centres, especially Bolton town centre.

3. Plan for additional convenience goods floor space of up to 10,000 square metres in town, district and local centres where local communities have good access.
...............................................................................................


If we examine the figures in the Retail and Leisure survey we can find the Convenience Floorspace Requirement for the whole of the Borough at each of the five year points in this plan ie 2011, 2016, 2021, and 2026.

There are two sets of figures. The second set includes an allowance for overtrading at existing stores.

These are as follows:-

Without an allowance for overtrading:-

Year	Net floorspace requ’dIn	Gross floorspace requ’d
2011	- 476 sq metres	- 733 sq metres
2016	- 1,256 sq metres	- 1932 sq metres
2021	+ 2,726 sq metres	+ 4,195 sq metres
2026	+ 6,510 sq metres	+ 10,016 sq metres

With an allowance for overtrading:-

Year	Net floorspace requ’dIn	Gross floorspace requ’d
2011	+ 793 sq metres	+ 1,220 sq metres
2016	- 24 sq metres	- 37 sq metres
2021	+ 3,922 sq metres	+ 6,034 sq metres
2026	+ 7,671 sq metres	+ 11,801 sq metres

These figures take into account the Sainsbury’s development at Cricketers Way (which is now trading) and the proposed Tesco development at Central St (Back of the Old Post Office and Victoria Hall) which has outline planning permission for a 7,973 sq metre food store but has yet to be built.

They do not take into account the Tesco Longcauseway development which is shortly to open. This development contains net convenience floorspace of 2,792 sq metres.

They do not take into account the Tesco Kearsley development or any recent or proposed increases in convenience floorspace at Middlebrook.
..................................................................................................


Summary of what the above means:-


(Adding in the Longcauseway figures and allowing for overtrading)

2011 - The Borough already has 1,999 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace more than it requires

2016 - The Borough will still have 2,768 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace more than it requires

Between 2016 and 2021, the Borough will require an additional 1,130 sq metres of convenience retail floorspace.

Please note that these figures do not take any account of reduction of projected turnover due to the recession.
................................................................................................

Conclusion

The Bolton Core Strategy is saying that there is no need for additional Convenience retail floorspace until after 2016.

Thereafter – between 2016 and 2021 there is a need for an extra 1,130 sq metres which is 795 sq metres less than the proposed 1,925 sq metres proposed for Pennine Pets.

I would contend that to grant planning permission for this development would, in this respect, be a breach of the Council’s own Core Strategy.

...................................................................................................




However, against this is the statement in the main report as follows:-

4.58 Thus, the survey findings suggest that there is a need for an improved convenience offer in Egerton, Westhoughton and Little Lever and we endorse the extant consent for a J Sainsbury store at Westhoughton.

Press reports and letters since the February Meeting

(Courtesy of the Bolton News)

Residents fear supermarket in Little Lever

Wednesday 16th February 2011

ANGRY residents have voiced their concerns about the possibility of a large supermarket being built in Little Lever.

More than 50 people attended a public meeting on Wednesday held amid rumours of a major developer planning to build on the former Pennine Pets site, in Lever Street.

Bolton Council has not received a planning application for the land, but residents believe there is a “strong possibility” of a supermarket being built there and leased to a firm such as Tesco.

Areas of concern included the impact a supermarket would have on businesses in Little Lever, increased amounts of traffic and falling house prices.

...........................................................................................

Residents prepare to fight any plans for a supermarket

Friday 18th February 2011

ANGRY residents in Little Lever have told developers: “We don’t want a supermarket here.”

More than 50 people attended a public meeting on Wednesday held amid rumours of a major developer planning to build on the former Pennine Pets site in Lever Street.
Bolton Council has not received a planning application for the land, but residents believe there is a “strong possibility” that a supermarket could be built there.

Areas of concern included the impact a supermarket would have on Little Lever businesses, increased traffic and falling house prices.

Meeting organsier and resident Kristy Atkinson said: “Aggressive pricing by supermarkets has ruined the character of town centres all over the UK.
“Closure of local shops will be a reality if this goes ahead.
People are worried we will end up with rows of boarded-up shops.
”I am quite passionate about where I live. My fear is Little Lever will lose its personal feel should this development go ahead.”

Resident Sheila Booth said: “There are a lot of pensioners in Little Lever and most don’t have cars. The village shopping centre is a lifeline to us. This is a village, not a town. A big supermarket has no place here.”

People living in Ainsworth Road have been sent letters from an agent offering to buy their house. It is thought they could be demolished to make way for a supermarket. Sheila Robinson, whose son, Neil, lives in Ainsworth Road, said: “I have watched my son spend a lot of money on his house. This concerns me greatly. There are people who will lose not just a house, but a home.”

The meeting, at Hardy Hall, heard that planning permission was granted in 2007 for Wainhomes to build 88 homes on the site. But it lapsed last year and Wainhomes has submitted an application to extend the permission.

A Wainhomes spokesman told the meeting: “After we got planning permission, the market became depressed and we had to negotiate the price of the land. Unfortunately, the owner has been offered a lot more money by another developer and has turned to them.”

............................................................................................

End of the village centre

Tuesday 24th May 2011

It seems the Prime Minister has called in Mary “Queen of Shops” to rescue ailing town centres.

I have written to her to suggest that she starts with Little Lever.

Further to this, I have suggested that she gets a move on in view of the imminent planning application to build an “edge of centre”, 24-hour superstore on the old Pennine Pets site — bang in the middle of a residential area.

There is little doubt that this project, apart from creating traffic chaos and loss of amenity to residents, would, if permitted, see off the several already struggling independent convenience retailers and complete the dereliction of the village centre. The area is more than well served with existing supermarkets within a 15- minute journey, let alone the newly-opened ones and the one under construction in Farnworth.

Its only purpose can be the undermining of its main competitor for its own benefit.

Once the application is submitted, a heavy burden will be on the shoulders of members of the planning committee. I suggest they should get a coach up and spend a couple of hours in the village centre and picture what the end result would be.

No amount of very attractive Section 106 money could compensate for ripping the heart out of a community.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

............................................................................................

‘Village supermarket’ planned by Tesco

Tuesday 31st May 2011

Tesco wants to open a new store in Bolton, the supermarket giant has announced.

Bosses plan to open a “village supermarket” on the former Pennine Pets Factory site, off Lever Street in Little Lever. Before work starts to renovate the derelict site, Tesco will consult with the local community.

Matthew Magee, Tesco corporate affairs manager, said: “A new store would offer our customers more choice in a modern and pleasant shopping environment whilst regenerating a derelict site. Over the next few months we will be talking to local residents, businesses and community groups.

“We want to make sure our investment benefits all of Little Lever, bringing more shopping choice and new jobs at this time of economic uncertainty.”

Tesco says it is in advanced discussions with developer Ladson Group to regenerate the site.

If successful, it will create around 100 jobs, on top of the 49 staff already employed at the existing Tesco Metro in Market Street, who are all guaranteed jobs.
And Tesco chiefs have moved to calm the community’s fears by insisting the new store would be small and in keeping with the character of the village.

Local resident Paul Johnson, aged 65, of Coleridge Avenue, said: “It’s probably a good site for them to be building on, although any development of that size is going to generate opposition.

“Creating 100 jobs is really good, but it all seems a long way off so we will have to see what happens.

“Tesco have got to stick to their word and talk to local people about what they want to do.”

But Samantha Jenkins, aged 35, who lives in Countess Lane, said: “It wouldn’t be good for the area as a whole because a lot of businesses round there would lose trade.

“Tesco aren’t daft. They wouldn’t open a new store if it wasn’t going to be used, so I think people will like the convenience of having it on their doorsteps.”

And Mike Howarth, of R and J Howarth’s Jewellers in Market Street, said: “If Tesco erect a superstore in Little Lever, it will kill the village shops.
“I will do everything in my power to stop this development. They say they will create jobs. What about the jobs it will lose from other businesses?”

When rumours that Tesco was planning to build a new store in Little Lever first emerged in February, around 50 people attended a public meeting opposing the idea, saying it would damage other businesses and increase traffic.

Former ward councilllor Sean Hornby, who chaired the meeting, said: “Whilst welcoming Tesco’s wish to build a store in Little Lever, we should not be fooled by it or the spin which Tesco will put on how it will benefit the people. Little Lever’s roads are stretched to the limits already.”

Mr Hornby plans another public meeting to discuss the announcement. He added: “This application could have many benefits for Little Lever. However, done wrong it could be the nail in its coffin.”

The proposed store will incorporate sustainable features, such as a timber frame, rainwater harvesting and wind catchers.

Consultation will begin in the summer before a planning application is submitted. Tesco say the store will be primarily a food shop.

............................................................................................

Tesco application could be final straw

Thursday 2nd June 2011

IS the Tesco application good or bad for Little Lever?

The application by Tesco to submit a planning application for Little Lever has to be the worst kept secret ever.

Whilst welcoming Tesco’s submission and wish to build a new store in Little Lever, we should not be fooled by it or the spin which this multi million pound group will put on how it will benefit the people of Little Lever.

Tesco are only building a store on the site in Little Lever because it knows it can make a lot of money from this site and it will be hoping to attract custom from Asda at Burnden Park and Asda Radcliffe, along with custom from the Breightmet and Darcy Lever areas as well.

Little Lever’s roads are stretched to the limits already and were never designed for today’s traffic, let alone the possibility of a store with 190 car parking spaces.
In peak times, according to the last traffic survey, two cars pass through the junction every three seconds.

At a recent public meeting, which I chaired, one or two said the application would never come to light, how wrong they were.

I did say at the last packed public meeting that I would call a public meeting for residents to discuss this application as soon as more information was available.
Now that I have spoken with the planning consultants that Tesco are using, I intend to do so independently of any further consultation which Tesco will be doing as part of the planning process.

This application, done right, could have many benefits for Little Lever. However, done wrong it could be the nail in the coffin.

I care passionately about Little Lever and its village centre, which goes back over 150 years. I would like to think in some way this is preserved and improved not destroyed by an outside company.

I am sure discussion about this application will be quite heated over the coming months, but I look forward to the challenge ahead.

Sean Hornby Chairman of Little Lever Action Group

.............................................................................................

Tesco: ‘Is this your final answer?’

Wednesday 8th June 2011

AT last the cynical manipulation of the planning system by the likes of Tesco has been laid bare for all to see.

Their “Oh, did I forget to mention the petrol station?” application for the Longcauseway development has made a mockery of the deliberations of the planning committee and the ability of the public to decide whether or not to object. Too late — came the cry!

This is on top of extending the permitted delivery hours after planning consent was given.

On July 7 and 8, Tesco will attempt to soft soap the people of Little Lever with a presentation of a watered down proposal for a “Village Supermarket” on the Pennine Pets site that is only intended for the residents of Little Lever and that will close at 11pm.

All the time they will be hiding their real aspirations, which are for a 24-hour superstore with a petrol station.

The game is obvious. Get planning consent for the least objectionable scheme and subsequently put in working amendments to opening hours, etc.

The planning committee members must be ruthless in exposing Tesco’s real intentions by asking — ‘Is this it?’ ‘The final version?’ ‘Do you want to phone a friend?’ Without this, our elected representatives on this committee will be seen as gullible idiots with rubber stamps in their hands.

The residents of Little Lever, in deciding whether they are for or against the development, need to be confident that Tesco is not going to pull the Longcauseway trick on them.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

.............................................................................................

Can we afford to turn down Tesco’s bid?

Monday 13th June 2011

Paul Richardson has obviously seen through the powerful and manipulative planning practices of Tesco in his letter “Tesco: Is this your final answer?”

Tesco is very good at attaching incentives to planning applications. During the present economic climate these incentives are difficult to turn down for local councils due to the cuts imposed on them by the banking sector via the IMF and this coalition Government.

We only have to look at recent protests and objections involving Tesco and local communities to see the state of play that’s going down.

Tesco won a planning appeal in Salford, after more than 8,000 people objected to the building of the new store, yet despite this, the store still went ahead. Similarly, in the Stokes Croft area of Bristol, thousands of people objected to the development of a Tesco store there, and once again the wishes of the local community and businesses were completely disregarded which resulted in several nights of rioting and further ongoing protests.

There are currently about 40 separate protests going on around the UK to prevent Tesco setting up in their respective areas, and one by one each of these protests is crushed by the economic power and influence that Tesco holds.

Tesco and others are rushing to set up stores all over the UK, ahead of new legislation that could halt the relentless building of these Supermarkets.

Anyone who believes that Tesco brings economic prosperity to the area are sadly deluded, all that they bring is low paid, low grade employment, the closure of longestablished local businesses and noise and traffic.

There is only one to defeat these predatory businesses and that is to take your business elsewhere.

Successive Governments have taken community power away in terms of having a voice, but they can’t tell you where to spend your money, so hit them where it hurts and shop elsewhere!

Steve Jones Morris Green

.............................................................................................

Store giants hold exhibition for residents

Thursday 16th June 2011

Residents concerned about a Tesco development in Little Lever will be able voice their worries directly to the supermarket giant.

Representatives from Tesco will unveil their plans for the new store next month at an exhibition and will be on hand to discuss concerns.

As reported in The Bolton News, Tesco wants to open a supermarket on the former Pennine Pets Factory site, off Lever Street, to replace its Metro Store in Market Street.

A two-day exhibition will be held at St Matthew’s Church House, in Market Street, on July 7 and 8.

Matthew Magee, Tesco corporate affairs manager, said: “This is an exciting development for Little Lever and we are looking forward to talking to residents, businesses and community groups about our plans.

“Our proposal is for a replacement store, which will provide Little Lever with a wider range of products, and help residents to cut down on trips out to stores outside of town.”

The proposed supermarket would be twice the size of the Metro store. It would not be open 24 hours and the company said it would not be looking to purchase any further properties around the site. Bosses say they are working with Bolton Council’s highways department “to ensure the scheme does not significantly impact on the local road network”.

The store would employ 150 people, including guaranteed roles for staff working at the Metro store, and incorporate sustainable features such as a timber frame and wind catchers.

In February about 50 people attended a public meeting to oppose the proposed store, saying it would damage other businesses and increase traffic.

Representatives from Tesco will be on hand to discuss the plans on Thursday, July 7, 2pm to 8pm and Friday, July 8, 2pm to 7pm.

............................................................................................


Tesco to hold us to ransom

Wednesday 6th July 2011

Sean Hornby, in his letter last month, is wrong to say that the Tesco application “done right could have many benefits for Little Lever”.

Tesco, like other supermarkets, will simply hold the Labour council to ransom with promises of road improvements, etc, to get their way.

The council will fall for that ploy, as they have done with all other applications all over the town.

This is why Bolton now has at least 19 supermarkets and the figure does not include all the small Co-op stores, Tesco Metro and Express and Sainsbury’s Local stores.
I doubt whether any other town in the country has so many.

The proposed Tesco supermarket will do nothing to enhance Little Lever, but will simply destroy the other local businesses as all the supermarkets have done in other areas.

R Swindells Bolton

.............................................................................................

The Plan revealed on 7th July




............................................................................................


Underwhelmed by Tesco store plan

Wednesday 13th July 2011

So, finally, the details of the proposed Tesco development at Bradley Mill have been revealed to the villagers of Little Lever.

Having attended the presentation, I must say I was underwhelmed — in fact I was mystified. I felt sorry for the chaps tasked with flogging the idea to the public. It was pretty clear that they hadn’t got their ducks in a row.

The proposal is just for a bigger food store — no clothes, electrical or other goods that the village needs. What a trick to miss!

The Tesco representatives were adamant that there would be no petrol station in spite of there being seemingly more car parking spaces than required.

They were less reassuring in ruling out the possibility of 24- hour opening, saying that this was a matter for Bolton Council.

They were confident they could manage to get up to 175 cars, plus pedestrians, cycles and 40ft long HGVs safely in and out of a side street that is no more than 30 feet wide.

They were dismissive of concerns about the traffic impact on the already congested junction, even though they have yet to do a traffic survey to find out the figures.

They didn’t seem to think their proposal for traffic lights and pedestrian controlled crossings at the junction would increase traffic backlogs and suggested that speed humps down the resulting rat runs would solve the problem.

They were not concerned that the store, being surrounded by houses, would be all but invisible, saying that the shop was only for local people.

They stated that although the new jobs created would be sourced through the Jobcentre Partnership, there was no guarantee that they would go to the local unemployed.

I went to this presentation hoping that they could convince me it would make sense for Little Lever. I came away thinking that it didn’t even make sense for Tesco.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

............................................................................................


People ‘support’ new Tesco plans

Sunday 17th July 2011

Residents in Little Lever have shown their support for plans to replace the town’s Tesco store, the retail giant says.

About 300 people attended a two-day exhibition where the proposals were presented to the public for the first time.

The development, which would create 100 new jobs, would see Tesco built on the derelict Pennine Pets factory site off Lever Street, with the new supermarket replacing the current Tesco Metro store in Market Street.

Residents could leave comments on the plans at the exhibition, of which 70 per cent said they were in favour of a new store, 16 per cent were against, and 14 per cent had not made up their minds, Tesco said.

Stuart Mooney, who runs the Hair Lounge in Lever Street, said: “It’s going to keep more people shopping in Little Lever, which will be good for my business.

“The village is really struggling at the moment and needs an injection of life. All I hear from my clients is they are very supportive of the development.”

But other residents and businesses are concerned that other traders will lose out, and that the scheme will cause traffic problems.

Former councillor Sean Hornby said: “The main concerns are the highway issues and access into the site and what it will do to the village centre, it will kill it. Some people are a bit deflated because it is not what they expected. It is not going to sell clothes and electricals, just food.

“I plan to hold another public meeting about it in the next couple of weeks.”

Matt Magee, corporate affairs manager for Tesco, said: “We had some great feedback from residents who were excited about a new store that would create new jobs and regenerate the Pennine Pets site.

“We spoke to a large number of people who told us they had to get in their car and travel outside of town to do their weekly shop.

“We are going to continue to hold discussions with residents and community groups while we finalise our plans.”

Tesco plans to submit a planning application later in the summer.

.............................................................................................

And finally:- My response to the above article which has yet to appear.

Dear Sir,

I was pleased to note that Tesco has stated that of the 300 attendees at their presentation in Little Lever, 70% were in favour of the proposal. I would have been astounded if they had announced that 70% were against.

An equally unscientific and unrepresentative poll on the Little Lever Info website informed us that people preferred Asda over Tesco by a factor of three.

Leaving this aside, Mr Davidson (he who talks to Tesco Executives) in the same issue tells us of Tesco’s expansion into 24/7 local mini-supermarkets. Information I have been given which originated from within Tesco says that their aspiration for this site is indeed for 24 hour opening with a petrol station. This would start to make commercial sense but it isn’t what the attendees were asked to comment on.

There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip and my suspicion remains that the final application plus subsequent amendments would be far different from what we were shown last week.

The required traffic survey took place last Thursday, unfortunately when 20% of the High School pupils were already on holiday. This survey was counting the traffic up and down Ainsworth Rd but when I asked the guy if he was going to survey the traffic through the junction he said –‘No – we haven’t been asked to’. Not very representative then!

In my view the access through Crossley St is unworkable and the only sensible thing to do would be to bring it straight into the junction. This would also open up the visibility of the store. Unfortunately this would involve the demolition of Mr Mooney’s shop. If this were the case, he would probably less enthusiastic about the idea.

Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever

............................................................................................