Tesco at Little Lever - I have a theory

Something has been niggling me about this Tesco proposal, particularly from when I saw the plans for the development which were shown to Public in July.

From the fact that they won’t be selling Comparison Goods to the fact that the new store is only 2.83 times the size of the existing one made me think that it was a hell of a lot of money to spend and disruption to be had for what seems to me to be insufficient gain.

I thought that surely Tesco have a bit more savvy than this.

Many people I have spoken to have come up with the same phrase ie – “What’s the point?”

Then the following scenario occurred to me.



1 - Ladson’s the developer or their agent search around for suitable development sites that they can develop and make money out of.

2 - They come across the Pennine Pets site and think “Ideal for a Supermarket”

3 - We could build a Supermarket here and then lease it to a Supermarket Chain – Income from say a 25 year lease minus cost of build etc equals profit.

4 - They knock together a rough plan but before going further they have to gain the interest of a Supermarket Chain who would be willing to occupy it.

5 - Approaches made to Asda, Morrisson’s Sainsbury’s, Lidl, Aldi etc to see if anybody is interested.

6 - Mr Tesco isn’t particularly interested but immediately realises that if one of the others moves onto the site then the existing Metro is well and truly screwed.

7 - By agreeing to lease the development from Ladson’s Tesco ensures that none of its competitors can move onto the site.

8 - Tesco can’t just buy the land and sit on it ‘cos that’s now not allowed.

Whaddya think so far?

If this is Tesco’s main motivation it would explain why the less than convincing commercial prospects for the store are not the main priority.

Trouble is that neither Ladson’s nor Tesco have thought through the costs of sorting the junction out.

I am told that Tesco are in no particular hurry to put in this application – maybe they’re just happy to have prevented anyone else from doing so.

I hope Mr Seddon is prepared to wait quite a long while for his money – unless he’s already done a borrow against it.

Tesco at Little Lever - Some more contributions in the Bolton News

Cost of appeal should not be a factor in giving permission

Monday 1st August 2011

A little while ago, in reply to a letter about the Market Hall development, your correspondent Mr Hornby, the former chairman of the planning committee, said that the committee’s hands had been tied.

This needs clarification for future applications.

Let us make it clear — the hands of the planning committee are tied by planning policy and nothing else.

This planning policy is embedded in the Bolton Core Strategy — devised and developed by Bolton Council, consulted upon, examined by the Government Inspector and adopted at the beginning of this year.

If a planning application meets planning policy then it should usually be approved. If it contravenes planning policy then it should be on all occasions be refused.
Money should not come into it.

If the applicant appeals against a refusal, that is his right. The council has an undeniable duty to defend its decision and its own policies and if this costs money, so be it.

The cost of a possible appeal should not be a factor in the decision to refuse.

Planning officers have no business in saying to the committee, prior to the decision, that if they refused it would go to appeal and cost the council a lot of money — implying that they should approve it whatever.

Equally, there is a fear in the planning committee that if a refusal is overturned on appeal, any Section 106 monies would be lost.

Section 106 monies, whilst very welcome in an approved planning application, should not be a reason for granting an application where there are planning grounds to refuse it.

As I have said before, the planning committee are too much in thrall to Section 106 money. Even on this matter they’re constantly being had on a butty.

Take the Tesco Longcauseway development. The committee managed to negotiate Section 106 money to the value of £325,000.This off a development with a projected annual turnover of £51million. At this rate, the value of thirty pieces of silver for the Tesco Little Lever proposal would be less than 100 grand.

A further point which might interest your readers is that if the competing Wainhomes development for 88 houses went ahead at Pennine Pets, the council would receive the sum of some £730,000 spread over six years from the Government’s New homes Bonus Scheme.

This in addition to the £325,000 Section 106 monies previously agreed with Wainhomes — plus the Council Tax revenue from the householders — plus their spending power for the village.

No contest — surely.

Paul Richardson Little Lever

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





Time to shed light on plan

Monday 1st August 2011

I have heard rumours that Bolton Council are keeping the people of Little Lever in the dark concerning some of the issues surrounding Tesco's Planning application for a new store in Little Lever.

The issues are regarding the traffic problems that will be created by the building of such a large store.

Apparently the council organised a survey of the roads around the junction on Church Street, where the present zebra crossing is on the sharp bend, four to five years ago, just to see what could be done to alleviate traffic problems then, well before the Tesco plan.

They came to two conclusions at that time. The first being the compulsory purchase of the shops and buildings around the junction so that a roundabout could be built.

The second concept being the siting of Traffic Lights, which would drive even more traffic onto Mytham, Aintree, and Redcar Roads so as to avoid any traffic hold-ups.

These roads have infant and junior schools on them as well as being main routes for school children at Little Lever High School.

The first was doomed because of the high cost and the second because of dangers to school children. Will Tesco’s worry about cost or danger to school children so long as they get their store built Is there any truth in these rumours?

Desmond Magurk Bolton

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




Councillors gave no opinions on new Tesco store

Tuesday 2nd August 2011

In response the letter in Friday’s paper “No one wants or needs Tesco” (name and address supplied) I would like to ask the writer where he/she gets the impression that the Conservative Councillor is in favour of the scheme.

I sat next to cllrs Woodward (Conservative) and Connell (Labour) at the meeting and at no time did either of them express their view either in favour or against the scheme.

Both Tony and Mary are not permitted to air their comments as both sit on the planning committee and if they did so they would have to leave the room when the application is being heard.

Surely it is better to have both councillors in the meeting in order that they can make the views of the public known.

As for no one wanting the Tesco scheme, I for one am in favour of the scheme in principle as I said at the meeting. However, the traffic issues would need to be resolved prior to my support being confirmed in writing if they are not you can rest assured that I will object to the scheme on the basis of traffic.

Chris Lord Haseley Close Bradley Fold
.............................................................................................




And finally - one from me not yet printed.


Dear Sir,

In respect of the letter ‘No one wants or needs Tesco’ (Friday 29th July), I empathise with many of the points your anonymous correspondent makes. However I must take him or her to task on the assertion that the ‘Tory Councillor is in favour of Tesco taking the world over’

The lady referred to is Councillor Mrs Woodward who is a member of the planning committee and one of the people who will have to vote for or against an application should it arise. A person in such a position is akin to a member of a jury and must make her judgement solely on whether or not such an application satisfies planning policy.

It is incumbent upon Tesco to prove the case for this development.

They must prove the quantative and qualitative need for such a development measured against the Policies contained in the Bolton Core Strategy.

They must convince the Committee that the development does not impact adversely on the vitality and viability of other stores in the existing Village Centre.

They must produce an up to date survey of the condition of the land both on the surface and underneath and a plan to deal with any contaminants left over from previous usages.

They must address the Environmental impact of the development in terms of noise, light and air pollution and the effect on the amenity of nearby residents.

And finally and most difficult of all, they must come forward with a realistic solution to the Traffic Management at the critical Junction based on contemporary Traffic Data.

Such a solution must improve the already difficult traffic flow issues as well as catering for the extra traffic generated by the development. This - without throwing an increase of traffic onto the other residential roads across the Village - otherwise known as ‘rat-runs’.

Such a solution has, to date, defied the best brains and financial resources of the Council and there is no doubt that if it could be achieved it would involve horrendous cost and temporarily much disruption. They might even ask ‘Is it worth it?’

My view is that they are a heck of a long way from achieving any of the above.

Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever

Area Forums

These are articles and letters from the Bolton News about the proposed alterations to the Area Forum system.

The whole thing is in abeyance at the moment but there are indications of how it will pan out later in the year.

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



Council considers change for forums

Monday 6th June 2011

The way area forums work could change under new plans being considered by Bolton Council.

Two local authority teams — Neighbourhood Management and Area Working — are set to merge and could see the forums run differently.

None of the 18 forums have been given budgets so far this financial year while the council considers the plans.

Last week, area co-ordinator Idris Jeewa told the Great Lever Area Forum: “The forum does not have its budget yet for this year as Area Working and Neighbourhood Management are going to be amalgamated.”

He said there would be a review by the council between June and September. The Area Working team and the Neighbourhood Management team are both part of the chief executive’s department.

There will be a consultation before the plans are approved.

The proposed merger is part of the council’s cost-cutting drive.

Mr Jeewa told the meeting he did not know what form the new forums would take or whether there would be any changes at all.

Area forums were introduced in 2000, when there were initially six forums in the borough.

This increased to nine in 2004 under the Liberal Democrats, and to 18 in 2008.
The forums meet four times a year.

Power to hand out cash to local voluntary groups was taken away from forums earlier this year.

Previously, £45,000 of funding was available for small grants via the forums. Now small grant applications must be made to Bolton CVS, which has a £160,000 fund to help groups.

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

Alan Calvert wrote

Talks on future of local forums

Monday 20th June 2011

Bolton Council puts some effort in to staging area forums throughout the town.
They are an opportunity for members of the public to have their say about local issues.

Whether anything much happens as a result is sometimes debateable, but the meetings can be a worthwhile communications exercise.

We now learn that two local authority teams — Neighbourhood Management and Area Working — are set to merge and there could be changes in the way the forums are run.

A review lasts until September and there is to be some of that familiar consultation.

It seems inevitable that costs will be reduced during this exercise, but I hope the forums — established in 2000 — continue to exist in some form or another.

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


Tory chief hits out at changes to ward funds




Sunday 24th July 2011

Changes to the way funding is allocated to every ward in the borough has been criticised as “unbalanced, unfair and unacceptable” by the town’s most senior Conservative.

The budget for devolved funding has been slashed from almost £1.4 million to £842,000, with greater emphasis on funding being targeted at areas of higher deprivation.

But Cllr John Walsh says the figures are unbalanced, with four wards being allocated more than half the total budget.

He said: “Labour’s proposals for 2011/2012 are unbalanced with over half the total tar- geted allocations ear- marked for just four wards, Rumworth, Farnworth, Halliwell and Great Lever, while seven wards in total will get less than a quarter of the highest.

“Labour base the allocations on figures for deprivation which are years old and flawed. The present proposals will be seen as totally unfair and unaccept- able to the vast majori- ty of people across Bolton.”

Cllr Nick Peel, a member of the Executive, hit back at Cllr Walsh.

He said: “It was actually his Government who scrapped the area based grants.”
As part of the same drive to save money, Town Hall chiefs have also announced 21 posts are to go in the chief executive’s department.

A reorganisation of the way Bolton Council engages with local communities has been agreed by deputy council leader Cllr Linda Thomas.

Among the jobs top go will be the number of area managers, which is being cut from five to three while the number of area co-ordinators is being cut by the same amount.

Responsibility for area working is being shared with Bolton At Home, the organisation which took over the ownership of Bolton’s 18,500 council houses earlier this year, while the number of area forum meetings for each ward is being cut from four per year to three per year.

Cllr Thomas insisted residents will still be able to have their voices heard.

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




Forums should not lose out to areas of ‘high deprivation’

Thursday 28th July 2011

I am dismayed to hear of the proposed tinkering with the Area Forum system.
Constitutionally, these forums are committees of the council and perhaps the only place where ward councillors and the council can be publicly held to account by voters and be encouraged or embarrassed into acting on local issues.

I appreciate the council has financial difficulties and although it may be that the council views the forums merely as platforms for the views of assorted nutters, moaners and whingers, any reduction in their frequency or emasculation in any other way would be a further dilution of local democracy.

As Conservative leader Cllr John Walsh points out, once again we see that monies, once available equally to all the forums for spending at the behest of the ward councillors, are now to be skewed in favour of the wards of “high deprivation” — this based on figures at least 10 years old.

It’s time this mantra of “areas of high deprivation” was knocked on the head. The majority of people in these areas are no more deprived than I am — in fact, a lot of them are a lot less deprived.

There are health issues, but this is due to the fact that members of the ethnic minority communities are traditionally prone to different kinds of health problems, as minimal internet research can show.

These are matters for the NHS and no excuse for Labour councillors to pour more of our council tax into their favoured areas. There should be a rule that a proportion of the council tax paid by each ward should be returned to that ward for spending on projects decided by the ward councillors.

Finally, what has happened to the £50,000 District Centre Improvement Fund that Little Lever was supposed to get this year?

I think we ought to be told.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

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

Methinks we haven't heard the last of this