Tesco at Little Lever - Objections to Planning Application 86999/11 - Covering Letter

My objections fall under four headings.

1. In response to the Transport Assessment

a) In relation to inadequate provision for Pedestrian Safety in the area of the Junction.

b) In relation to the complete failure of the proposal to address the inevitable increase in congestion, delays and tailbacks caused by development generated traffic on top of existing problems with the same, or to suggest a realistic way of mitigating this.

c) In relation to the inevitable creation of rat runs along residential streets.

2. In response to the Planning & Retail Statement

a) In relation to the selective assertion that the proposal complies with the requirements of the Bolton Core Strategy whilst completely ignoring the time frame set out in that document and the Bolton Retail and Leisure Survey, as well as, in terms of additional floorspace required, failing to take into account the effect of retail convenience provision built since that survey was done.

b) In relation to the bold assertion that this proposal could and would easily and substantially increase the retention rate within Zone 6 and or Little Lever itself without the development actually offering the range of comparison goods alongside convenience goods, lack of which comparison goods is a major cause of the ‘Weekly Shop’ being done at outlets outside of the Village.

c) In relation to the statements that the development would create ‘clawback’ and linked trips which would enhance the vitality and viability of the Village Centre – this in the face of ‘Independent’ studies (ie not commissioned and paid for by Tesco) which demonstrate exactly the opposite.

d) In relation to the assertion that linked trips would increase to the benefit of existing businesses in the Village Centre without admitting that the geographical remoteness of the development from the existing businesses and the lack of provision for easy crossing of the Junction by the Application (see above) as well as the loss of the linked trips from the existing Tesco Metro would in fact produce a reduction in the existing linked trips to the detriment of the viability of the existing businesses.

e) In relation to my firm belief that the true purposes behind this development are the substantial increase in Tesco market share which would result from the development as well as the prevention of any other competitor building on the site.

3. In response to the Ground Investigation Report submitted

a) In relation to the fact that this report which was produced in 2006 for a residential development and carried out when the Pennine Pets building were still standing, repeatedly insists that further investigation would be required when the buildings and hard standings were removed. Ignoring this qualification in the report renders the whole report unsuitable and inadequate for this Application.

b) In relation to the fact that this Survey was carried out in ignorance of the historical presence of an electroplating plant on the site with the accompanying contaminants, in an area that was not surveyed by the report.

c) In relation to the fact that the burning down of this 19th century building most probably produced asbestos contamination spread across the site 3 yrs after the survey was carried out.

4. In response to the design of the Crossley St Access

a) In relation to the fact that no design or details and dimensions thereof
have been submitted with the application, making it impossible to comment or object on the grounds of pedestrian or road safety issues caused by the limited access which would be used by pedestrians, cycles, cars and HGV’s.

b) In relation to the lack of information, methodology or calculations that
Demonstrate that an HGV of maximum permitted size could manoeuvre into this access without interfering with the freeflow of traffic either up and down Ainsworth Rd or exiting the development.

c) In relation to the fact the absence of such information before the expiry
of the consultation period places potential objectors at a disadvantage to the applicants and requires that when the information is provided, the consultation period must be re-opened for a sufficient length of time for objectors to respond.

The details, facts and figures and information backing up the above points are contained in the following pages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------