Friday, 22 July 2011
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
Thursday, 21 July 2011
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Preservation Orders be rescinded.?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whose authority can those TPO’s be rescinded and development be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the TPO’s be rescinded.?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rescinded?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.
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.
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 !
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 !
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
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
.............................................................................................
*** 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:-
With an allowance for overtrading:-
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.
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.
Monday, 18 July 2011
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
............................................................................................
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
............................................................................................
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Tesco at Little Lever - 2
Just to bring you up to date.
Firstly a Public Meeting was held at Hardy Hall in February of this year.
In order to have some basis for discussion, I created the following document from a mixture of known figures, logic and guesswork.
I wanted people to be able to have some idea of the possible size of the proposed store in comparison to stores they already knew.
Future catch up posts will show what they are now actually proposing and it is interesting to see how close or far away I was.
..................................................................................
TESCO PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared as a basis for people to be informed of and discuss the relative pros and cons of what will almost certainly, in the near future, be an application for planning consent to build a Superstore on the land at Little Lever formerly occupied by Pennine Pets.
At present, there are no 100% certain facts or details of the proposal in the public domain, nor will there be until a formal application is made to Bolton Council for Planning Consent.
However it has been confirmed that confidential pre-application talks are taking place between representatives of the Developer and Officers of Bolton Council Planning Department.
Notwithstanding the ‘off the top of the head’ reactions of people to the idea of this development, both for and against, it is obvious that there will be major implications for and impacts on the ‘Village’ of Little Lever and its future.
No development of this nature and likely size comes with just ‘plusses’. There is always a mixture of ‘plusses’ and minuses’.
It is on the balance of these plusses and minuses that people should be able to make their own decision – for or against.
....................................................................................
Sources of Data.
Bolton Council Website, Land Registry.
...................................................................................
The purpose of this development.
It must be obvious that the prime motivation behind anything that the four or five major supermarket chains do is to increase their share of the market and thus increase the return to their shareholders.
There is nothing altruistic about their motives. They do nothing for the benefit of the community. It is simply about money – Your money - that they want in their tills and not their rivals.
.....................................................................................
Catchment Areas
Convenience shopping has to be ‘convenient’ – no-one wants to be travelling 10 or 15 miles for the ‘big shop’
So, for the purposes of this document, we shall examine the provision of Supermarkets in the following areas –identified by postcode
BL3 ( 1 & 2 ) Little Lever and parts of Great Lever in the vicinity of Burnden – Zone 6 on the map.
BL4 Farnworth and Kearsley – Zone 8 on the map
M26 Radcliffe and Stoneclough. – Zone 7 on the map
The stores currently in this area are Asda Burnden, Asda Farnworth and Asda Radcliffe.
Also being built at the moment is Tesco Longcausway.
By their own admission, the purpose of the development at Longcausway is to break the near monopoly that Asda holds on the majority of convenience shopping in the Catchment Areas above.
The proposed development at Pennine Pets is the second phase of this strategy.
..................................................................................
What is known for certain.
The land at Pennine Pets is held leasehold by Linda Seddon and Alan Mark Seddon of Pelton Fold Farm Bury Road Edgewoth Bolton as trustees of the Pennine Pension Fund.
According to the Land Registry, the value of the land as at 18th February 2008 was stated to be under £100,000.
The area covered by the site is 1.381 hectares
This translates to 13,810 square metres or 148,649 square feet.
....................................................................................
The size of the store
It can reasonably be assumed that the developer will build the store to the maximum size that is commensurate with providing on site parking, onsite roads, delivery access, loading and warehousing etc.
By comparison with the Longcauseway development, which is 2.7 hectares, the Pennine Pets site is likely to have a development of 48.5% of the size of Longcausway in all respects.
The ground floor area of the whole building at Longcauseway is 6,508 sq metres. There will also be within this footprint a mezzanine area of 2,090 sq metres reached by escalators
By comparison therefore, the Pennine Pets ground floor area of the whole building is likely to be circa 3,156 sq metres.
Equally, Longcauseway will provide on site parking for 480 cars.
By comparison Pennine Pets will provide car parking on site for circa 238 cars.
This in fact may be reduced in view of the fact that the Pennine Pets site is bang in the middle of a residential area which Longcauseway isn’t and certain distances between features of the site and adjacent houses must be maintained. This also depends upon whether the store is located towards the centre of the site or towards one or other edges.
.....................................................................................
The size of the proposed development in relation to existing stores we are familiar with.
The stores we are probably most familiar with are Asda - Burnden Park and Asda -Farnworth.
Both these stores sell what are described as Convenience Goods ( Food Cleaning materials etc and Comparison Goods ( Clothes, electrical etc)
I have only been able to find floorspace figures for Convenience goods.
The figures are
Asda Burnden – Net floorspace Convenience Goods only = 2,601 sq metres
Asda Farnworth - Net floorspace Convenience Goods only = 2,327 sq metres.
The following statement relates to Longcausway
“A food superstore of 8,460 sq m (gross internal area / 5,076 sq m (net) is the focus of the development.
The sales area is assumed to be 60% of the gross which is considered to be a typical net/gross ratio for modern large format foodstores.
The sales area comprises 2,792 sq m of convenience retail floor spaceand 2,284 sq m of comparison retail floorspace.
Convenience sales area is 55% of the total sales area, which is considered to be a typical convenience:comparison ration for modern large format foodstores.
The sales area includes all sales floorspace within the store.
The convenience turnover of the store will be in the order of £33.1m and the comparison turnover of some 17.3m”
Calculations from the above typical ratios give us the following.
Asda Burnden. Convenience goods 2,601 sq m (55%) therefore Comparison goods = 2,128 sq m (45%) gives total sales area = 4,729 sq m.
Total sales area 4,729 sq m is 60% of total footprint (no mezzanine) so total footprint = 7,881 sq m.
Asda Farnworth Convenience goods 2,327 sq m (55%) therefore Comparison goods = 1,903 sq m (45%) gives total sales area = 4,230 sq m
Total sales area 4,320 sq m is 60% of total footprint (no mezzanine) so total footprint = 7,501 sq m
The calculation of the footprint of the proposed Pennine Pets development (see above) is 3,156 sq metres.
So on the basis that there is no mezzanine floor, the store would be something short of half the size of Asda Farnworth.
....................................................................................
Opening Hours
A survey done in March 2008 by Roger Tym and Partners shows that 24.57% of the money spent on Convenience shopping by residents of BL3 1 and BL3 2 is spent at Asda Burnden.
A further 9.15% is spent at Asda Farnworth, a further 8.36% is spent at Sainsbury’s, Trinity St, a further 12.15% is spent at Asda Radcliffe and 2.16% is spent at Tesco Middlebrook.
The majority of the money spent at Asda Farnworth(63.64%)comes from residents of the BL4 postcode (ie Farnworth and Kearsley).
Tesco’s major target must therefore be firstly Asda Burnden and secondly Asda Radcliffe, in as much that the Longcauseway store is already targeting Asda Farnworth.
Of these, Asda Burnden is 24 hour opening.
It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that Tesco would wish the Pennine Pets development to be a 24 hour operation in order to have the maximum impact on Asda Burnden.
..................................................................................
Traffic Impact caused by the development.
All the goody-goody policies of the Government and Local Authorities have to pay lip service to the more environmentally friendly modes of transport such as Buses and Cycling.
Realistically, two trolley loads of food are going to be transported by car, even if you live only 300yards away.
The existing traffic to and from Tesco Metro on Market St is a testament to this as anybody who has tried to cross Foundary St will know.
The figures below relate to the number of vehicle movements in an out of the site. These figures must be added to the normal traffic movements through and in the vicinity of the Junction.
There is a industry standard database available on line which provides a means of calculating typical vehicle in and out movements from different kinds of developments on an hourly basis over a twenty four hour period.
The following figures are for a Food Superstore.
Applying the figures to a store of 3,156 gross sq metres gives the following results.
The discrepancies in the totals in and out are due to rounding up the calculations.
....................................................................................
This might seem excessive but the figures from the former Kwik Save at Longcauseway are as follows. The size of the Kwik Save Complex was 3,700 sq metres but was only open from 8am to 6pm
.................................................................................
Existing traffic at the Junction
These figures come from a traffic survey carried out to see the impact on the Junction of the Wainhomes development.
They only relate to the ‘Rush Hour’ AM/PM and are 2008 figures.
.....................................................................................
Access to site
It is not unreasonable to suggest that visitors to the site would follow the following routes.
1) From Moses Gate up Church St through the junction
2) From Radcliffe end down Market St through the Junction.
3) From Bradley Fold by way of Victory Rd
4) From Breightmet by means of Radcliffe Rd and Lever St/ Victory Rd
5) From Bradley fold end via Tong Rd/ Victory Rd etc
The question then arises as to where the access to the site might be located.
There are currently three entrances.
1) From Lever St via the former Samuel St.
This can be discounted since Wainhomes have the ‘ransom’ strips either side on lease and there is no way they’re gonna co-operate with this development.
2) From Victory Rd - next to the Take away.
This is probably too residential for the main customer access but might be considered for the delivery entrance.
3) From Ainsworth Rd in the vicinity of Crossley St.
This would seem to be favourite since approaches have been made to the owners of No 15 & 17 adjacent to Crossley St and some mention has been made of the Council making available the strip of land with the seven trees between Crossley St and the shop complex at the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd.
However, this access, if at 90 degrees to Ainsworth Rd, would mean that coming out of the site and turning right would, within 50 ft, come up to the Junction.
This would mean that there would be a more or less permanent back up of vehicles from the junction back into the site.
Logic therefore suggests that the main customer access should be straight into a modified Junction.
The Junction - ‘Traffic Lights’ or ‘Roundabout’
Access straight into a modified junction with traffic lights could mean the acquisition and demolition of the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd
Access into a modified junction with a Roundabout could mean the acquisition and demolition of the shop complex on the corner of Church St/Lever St, the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd and the shop complex on the corner of Church St/Market St..
All of this may seem to be conjecture, but there has to be access somewhere, there will have to be a modification of the Junction to cope with the extra traffic somehow - and what other alternatives are there?
.....................................................................................
A final point. – Visibility
If I were developing this kind of store, I would want it to be visible from the main roads surrounding it.
Without the drastic removal of the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd, it would be all but invisible from Church St or Market St.
Removal of the other 6 houses on Ainsworth - 19,21,23,25,27,29 – and perhaps even those on Victory Rd would make it more visible, but not from the main routes.
..................................................................................
Firstly a Public Meeting was held at Hardy Hall in February of this year.
In order to have some basis for discussion, I created the following document from a mixture of known figures, logic and guesswork.
I wanted people to be able to have some idea of the possible size of the proposed store in comparison to stores they already knew.
Future catch up posts will show what they are now actually proposing and it is interesting to see how close or far away I was.
..................................................................................
TESCO PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
This document has been prepared as a basis for people to be informed of and discuss the relative pros and cons of what will almost certainly, in the near future, be an application for planning consent to build a Superstore on the land at Little Lever formerly occupied by Pennine Pets.
At present, there are no 100% certain facts or details of the proposal in the public domain, nor will there be until a formal application is made to Bolton Council for Planning Consent.
However it has been confirmed that confidential pre-application talks are taking place between representatives of the Developer and Officers of Bolton Council Planning Department.
Notwithstanding the ‘off the top of the head’ reactions of people to the idea of this development, both for and against, it is obvious that there will be major implications for and impacts on the ‘Village’ of Little Lever and its future.
No development of this nature and likely size comes with just ‘plusses’. There is always a mixture of ‘plusses’ and minuses’.
It is on the balance of these plusses and minuses that people should be able to make their own decision – for or against.
....................................................................................
Sources of Data.
Bolton Council Website, Land Registry.
...................................................................................
The purpose of this development.
It must be obvious that the prime motivation behind anything that the four or five major supermarket chains do is to increase their share of the market and thus increase the return to their shareholders.
There is nothing altruistic about their motives. They do nothing for the benefit of the community. It is simply about money – Your money - that they want in their tills and not their rivals.
.....................................................................................
Catchment Areas
Convenience shopping has to be ‘convenient’ – no-one wants to be travelling 10 or 15 miles for the ‘big shop’
So, for the purposes of this document, we shall examine the provision of Supermarkets in the following areas –identified by postcode
BL3 ( 1 & 2 ) Little Lever and parts of Great Lever in the vicinity of Burnden – Zone 6 on the map.
BL4 Farnworth and Kearsley – Zone 8 on the map
M26 Radcliffe and Stoneclough. – Zone 7 on the map
The stores currently in this area are Asda Burnden, Asda Farnworth and Asda Radcliffe.
Also being built at the moment is Tesco Longcausway.
By their own admission, the purpose of the development at Longcausway is to break the near monopoly that Asda holds on the majority of convenience shopping in the Catchment Areas above.
The proposed development at Pennine Pets is the second phase of this strategy.
..................................................................................
What is known for certain.
The land at Pennine Pets is held leasehold by Linda Seddon and Alan Mark Seddon of Pelton Fold Farm Bury Road Edgewoth Bolton as trustees of the Pennine Pension Fund.
According to the Land Registry, the value of the land as at 18th February 2008 was stated to be under £100,000.
The area covered by the site is 1.381 hectares
This translates to 13,810 square metres or 148,649 square feet.
....................................................................................
The size of the store
It can reasonably be assumed that the developer will build the store to the maximum size that is commensurate with providing on site parking, onsite roads, delivery access, loading and warehousing etc.
By comparison with the Longcauseway development, which is 2.7 hectares, the Pennine Pets site is likely to have a development of 48.5% of the size of Longcausway in all respects.
The ground floor area of the whole building at Longcauseway is 6,508 sq metres. There will also be within this footprint a mezzanine area of 2,090 sq metres reached by escalators
By comparison therefore, the Pennine Pets ground floor area of the whole building is likely to be circa 3,156 sq metres.
Equally, Longcauseway will provide on site parking for 480 cars.
By comparison Pennine Pets will provide car parking on site for circa 238 cars.
This in fact may be reduced in view of the fact that the Pennine Pets site is bang in the middle of a residential area which Longcauseway isn’t and certain distances between features of the site and adjacent houses must be maintained. This also depends upon whether the store is located towards the centre of the site or towards one or other edges.
.....................................................................................
The size of the proposed development in relation to existing stores we are familiar with.
The stores we are probably most familiar with are Asda - Burnden Park and Asda -Farnworth.
Both these stores sell what are described as Convenience Goods ( Food Cleaning materials etc and Comparison Goods ( Clothes, electrical etc)
I have only been able to find floorspace figures for Convenience goods.
The figures are
Asda Burnden – Net floorspace Convenience Goods only = 2,601 sq metres
Asda Farnworth - Net floorspace Convenience Goods only = 2,327 sq metres.
The following statement relates to Longcausway
“A food superstore of 8,460 sq m (gross internal area / 5,076 sq m (net) is the focus of the development.
The sales area is assumed to be 60% of the gross which is considered to be a typical net/gross ratio for modern large format foodstores.
The sales area comprises 2,792 sq m of convenience retail floor spaceand 2,284 sq m of comparison retail floorspace.
Convenience sales area is 55% of the total sales area, which is considered to be a typical convenience:comparison ration for modern large format foodstores.
The sales area includes all sales floorspace within the store.
The convenience turnover of the store will be in the order of £33.1m and the comparison turnover of some 17.3m”
Calculations from the above typical ratios give us the following.
Asda Burnden. Convenience goods 2,601 sq m (55%) therefore Comparison goods = 2,128 sq m (45%) gives total sales area = 4,729 sq m.
Total sales area 4,729 sq m is 60% of total footprint (no mezzanine) so total footprint = 7,881 sq m.
Asda Farnworth Convenience goods 2,327 sq m (55%) therefore Comparison goods = 1,903 sq m (45%) gives total sales area = 4,230 sq m
Total sales area 4,320 sq m is 60% of total footprint (no mezzanine) so total footprint = 7,501 sq m
The calculation of the footprint of the proposed Pennine Pets development (see above) is 3,156 sq metres.
So on the basis that there is no mezzanine floor, the store would be something short of half the size of Asda Farnworth.
....................................................................................
Opening Hours
A survey done in March 2008 by Roger Tym and Partners shows that 24.57% of the money spent on Convenience shopping by residents of BL3 1 and BL3 2 is spent at Asda Burnden.
A further 9.15% is spent at Asda Farnworth, a further 8.36% is spent at Sainsbury’s, Trinity St, a further 12.15% is spent at Asda Radcliffe and 2.16% is spent at Tesco Middlebrook.
The majority of the money spent at Asda Farnworth(63.64%)comes from residents of the BL4 postcode (ie Farnworth and Kearsley).
Tesco’s major target must therefore be firstly Asda Burnden and secondly Asda Radcliffe, in as much that the Longcauseway store is already targeting Asda Farnworth.
Of these, Asda Burnden is 24 hour opening.
It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that Tesco would wish the Pennine Pets development to be a 24 hour operation in order to have the maximum impact on Asda Burnden.
..................................................................................
Traffic Impact caused by the development.
All the goody-goody policies of the Government and Local Authorities have to pay lip service to the more environmentally friendly modes of transport such as Buses and Cycling.
Realistically, two trolley loads of food are going to be transported by car, even if you live only 300yards away.
The existing traffic to and from Tesco Metro on Market St is a testament to this as anybody who has tried to cross Foundary St will know.
The figures below relate to the number of vehicle movements in an out of the site. These figures must be added to the normal traffic movements through and in the vicinity of the Junction.
There is a industry standard database available on line which provides a means of calculating typical vehicle in and out movements from different kinds of developments on an hourly basis over a twenty four hour period.
The following figures are for a Food Superstore.
Applying the figures to a store of 3,156 gross sq metres gives the following results.
The discrepancies in the totals in and out are due to rounding up the calculations.
| Hour | In | Out | Total |
| 0.00-01.00 | 21 | 24 | 45 |
| 01.00-02.00 | 17 | 16 | 33 |
| 02.00-03.00 | 13 | 10 | 23 |
| 03.00-04.00 | 10 | 8 | 18 |
| 04.00-05.00 | 7 | 5 | 12 |
| 05.00-06.00 | 17 | 12 | 29 |
| 06.00-07.00 | 31 | 28 | 59 |
| 07.00-08.00 | 64 | 45 | 109 |
| 08.00-09.00 | 124 | 78 | 202 |
| 09.00-10.00 | 179 | 125 | 304 |
| 10.00-11.00 | 195 | 172 | 367 |
| 11.00-12.00 | 195 | 200 | 395 |
| 12.00-13.00 | 209 | 210 | 419 |
| 13.00-14.00 | 204 | 208 | 412 |
| 14.00-15.00 | 197 | 202 | 399 |
| 15.00-16.00 | 199 | 205 | 404 |
| 16.00-17.00 | 214 | 211 | 425 |
| 17.00--18.00 | 216 | 228 | 444 |
| 18.00-19.00 | 201 | 220 | 421 |
| 19.00-20.00 | 154 | 185 | 339 |
| 20.00-21.00 | 106 | 131 | 237 |
| 21.00-22.00 | 68 | 87 | 155 |
| 22.00-23.00 | 29 | 43 | 72 |
| 23.00-00.00 | 40 | 44 | 84 | Totals | 2,710 | 2,697 | 5,407 |
....................................................................................
This might seem excessive but the figures from the former Kwik Save at Longcauseway are as follows. The size of the Kwik Save Complex was 3,700 sq metres but was only open from 8am to 6pm
| Hour | In | Out | Total |
| 08.00-09.00 | 164 | 110 | 274 |
| 09.00-10.00 | 238 | 179 | 417 |
| 10.00-11.00 | 279 | 245 | 524 |
| 11.00-12.00 | 294 | 291 | 585 |
| 12.00-13.00 | 296 | 308 | 605 |
| 13.00-14.00 | 290 | 298 | 588 |
| 14.00-15.00 | 287 | 291 | 578 |
| 15.00-16.00 | 296 | 301 | 597 |
| 16.00-17.00 | 318 | 312 | 630 |
| 17.00--18.00 | 325 | 343 | 668 | Totals | 2,788 | 2,678 | 5,466 |
.................................................................................
Existing traffic at the Junction
These figures come from a traffic survey carried out to see the impact on the Junction of the Wainhomes development.
They only relate to the ‘Rush Hour’ AM/PM and are 2008 figures.
| 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 |
.....................................................................................
Access to site
It is not unreasonable to suggest that visitors to the site would follow the following routes.
1) From Moses Gate up Church St through the junction
2) From Radcliffe end down Market St through the Junction.
3) From Bradley Fold by way of Victory Rd
4) From Breightmet by means of Radcliffe Rd and Lever St/ Victory Rd
5) From Bradley fold end via Tong Rd/ Victory Rd etc
The question then arises as to where the access to the site might be located.
There are currently three entrances.
1) From Lever St via the former Samuel St.
This can be discounted since Wainhomes have the ‘ransom’ strips either side on lease and there is no way they’re gonna co-operate with this development.
2) From Victory Rd - next to the Take away.
This is probably too residential for the main customer access but might be considered for the delivery entrance.
3) From Ainsworth Rd in the vicinity of Crossley St.
This would seem to be favourite since approaches have been made to the owners of No 15 & 17 adjacent to Crossley St and some mention has been made of the Council making available the strip of land with the seven trees between Crossley St and the shop complex at the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd.
However, this access, if at 90 degrees to Ainsworth Rd, would mean that coming out of the site and turning right would, within 50 ft, come up to the Junction.
This would mean that there would be a more or less permanent back up of vehicles from the junction back into the site.
Logic therefore suggests that the main customer access should be straight into a modified Junction.
The Junction - ‘Traffic Lights’ or ‘Roundabout’
Access straight into a modified junction with traffic lights could mean the acquisition and demolition of the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd
Access into a modified junction with a Roundabout could mean the acquisition and demolition of the shop complex on the corner of Church St/Lever St, the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd and the shop complex on the corner of Church St/Market St..
All of this may seem to be conjecture, but there has to be access somewhere, there will have to be a modification of the Junction to cope with the extra traffic somehow - and what other alternatives are there?
.....................................................................................
A final point. – Visibility
If I were developing this kind of store, I would want it to be visible from the main roads surrounding it.
Without the drastic removal of the shop complex on the corner of Lever St/Ainsworth Rd, it would be all but invisible from Church St or Market St.
Removal of the other 6 houses on Ainsworth - 19,21,23,25,27,29 – and perhaps even those on Victory Rd would make it more visible, but not from the main routes.
..................................................................................
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
Tesco at Little Lever -1
Not blogged for ages but I feel that 2001 will be a very controversial year for Little Lever in relation to the following.
Early in December it came to light by means of a circular from Eric Hyde that approaches had been made to houses on Ainsworth Rd by Mason Owen of Liverpool with a view to purchasing those houses.
To cut a long story short, it was believed that they were acting on behalf of Tesco with a view to creating an access to the old Pennine Pets site to facilitate the building of a supermarket there.
This map shows the site with the old Pennine Pets factory still there
The buildings burned down and have subsequently been demolished.
The supermarket plan was more or less confirmed in the words of Councillor Mary Woodward on the Little Lever Info forum
“Its now pretty much out that Tesco are looking into putting a multi million pound investment store in little lever, it will be proposed to replace the already store with a much larger one. They have suggested that they will pay for the much needed Highway works on the corner of Church/Lever and Ainsworth Rd. Talks are still underway and we will hopefully know more real soon.”
Way back in 2006, Wainhomes had submitted a planning application to Bolton Council for the building of 37 Houses and 44 Apartments on this site. (74765/06)
This application was approved in October 2007 with the condition that the development started within three years.
Now, the guy who owns the site is called Mark Seddon and in amongst the Planning Documents was a draft agreement for him to sell the site to Wainhomes. This apparently fell through when the market conditions changed Wainhomes’ view of the value of the site to them.
In October this year the time period for the Planning Consent expired and Wainhomes re-applied for an extension of this for a further two years. (85003/10).The decision target date for this was 23rd December but no decision has yet been posted on the Bolton Council Website.
It is unlikely that this can be refused and if it were it would surely be allowed on appeal.
So we have the bizarre situation where there are two plans for the same site circulating around Bolton Town Hall – one for residential which has already been approved and one for a supermarket which is the subject of ‘Confidential Talks’
One interested resident has already submitted a FOI request about these talks and has received the following reply
In response to your request for information you requested:
“Any correspondence with the Planning Department and any supermarket chain or developer representing supermarkets in relation to the land that is covered under planning permission applications 85003/10 and 80410/08, which relates to Lever Street, Little Lever. If you could also provide me with any information and correspondence between the planning department and the local ward councillors both past and present, with regards to the above site.”
Your request has been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which is the legislation which applies in requests for information which relate to the environment.
In this case, we consider that the exemption under regulations
• 12(5)(e) The confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest
and
• 12(5)(f) The interests of the supplier of the information
applies to this information as we believe releasing the information would unfairly prejudice the interests of the parties involved and public interest in withholding outweighs public interest in disclosing.
At this moment there is interest in developing the site for retail. However, the information which has been provided to date is commercially sensitive. It is our opinion that any third party which wishes to consult with Bolton Council informally on issues relating to development and planning, should have an expectation of confidentiality in those discussions."
Interestingly, Bolton Council have not considered the request under the Freedom of Information Act but have quoted the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
A quick persusal of the said Regulations make it clear on any interpretation of the English Language that they are sod all to do with building supermarkets – as follows
This is the definition of information relating to the environment as contained in the regulations
“Environmental Information” has the same meaning as in Article 2(1) of the Directive, namely any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on—
(a)
the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b)
factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);
(c)
measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;
(d)
reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;
(e)
cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and
(f)
the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);
This sounds like another sleight of hand by the beloved Mr Eastwood in his time-honoured manner of re-interpreting the lawof the land.
I have suggested to the the submitter of the FOI request that he insists that the request is treated under the FOI Act and any exemptions from the release of the information be under articles in that Act.
We’ll see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
