Tesco supermarket plan rejected (From Basingstoke Gazette)
When news happens, text BAZ and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Tesco supermarket plan rejected
12:53am Thursday 26th July 2012 in Local By Chris Gregory
CAMPAIGNERS are celebrating after a controversial plan to build a new Tesco supermarket in Basingstoke was rejected.
The supermarket giant applied to build a new 63,000 sq ft store on the old Smiths Industries site in Harrow Way.
On Wednesday evening, members of the development control committee at Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council rejected the plan. Their reasons included its effect on local shops and concerns about £4.2million worth of highway improvements to the Brighton Hill roundabout.
Planning officers had recommended the plan for approval.
More than 30 objectors turned up to the meeting at the Civic Offices to make their feelings known.
For the full story, see The Gazette on Monday.
Comments(32)
Beats108
says...
8:23am Thu 26 Jul 12
jbee37
says...
10:18am Thu 26 Jul 12
Beats108
says...
10:23am Thu 26 Jul 12
TheGrasshopper
says...
10:47am Thu 26 Jul 12
DCSharps
says...
1:05pm Thu 26 Jul 12
TheGrasshopper wrote:Whilst I see your point. I think your being naive, local people will still drive there, maybe out of convenience, maybe out of laziness.
Ridiculous decision, don't get me wrong I am not someone who believes in supermarkets for the sake of supermarkets but one of the many examples I can think of; people living locally could have walked to pick up those little items instead of getting in a car and driving to say Asda's, Morrison's or Sainsbury's. Just makes me mad at the short sightedness of local politics over common sense.
TheGrasshopper
says...
2:35pm Thu 26 Jul 12
DCSharps wrote:If you read my comments completely you would have noted I said "one of the many examples I can think of". I will take an apology for your rather rude assumption regarding naivety! One further note on laziness is it "you're" or "your"!
TheGrasshopper wrote:Whilst I see your point. I think your being naive, local people will still drive there, maybe out of convenience, maybe out of laziness.
Ridiculous decision, don't get me wrong I am not someone who believes in supermarkets for the sake of supermarkets but one of the many examples I can think of; people living locally could have walked to pick up those little items instead of getting in a car and driving to say Asda's, Morrison's or Sainsbury's. Just makes me mad at the short sightedness of local politics over common sense.
Opinions_opinions
says...
2:47pm Thu 26 Jul 12
robertspet8
says...
2:55pm Thu 26 Jul 12
By extending this logic they should build a supermarket within walking distance of all people. Surely the local shops are there to supply the little items to the local community.
I have no opinion about whether or not they should build a supermarket on this site, but they should use it for something. It is ridiculous to have this large, empty brown field site when we are still digging up the countryside. Although I am not naive enough to believe any development of this site will stop any green field development.
Pacifier
says...
3:01pm Thu 26 Jul 12
deepinsight
says...
4:11pm Thu 26 Jul 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Holy Halitosis - I do hope you meant bated breath, or are you planning to keep people away with your oral offensiveness?
Well, it looks like the majority of Brighton Hill turned up to the Committee! I wait the appeal with baited breath.
JayBee's
says...
5:13pm Thu 26 Jul 12
As for people in support of Tesco, have a good look at the plans. Yes the new road works might speed up the area, but at the cost of safety to children who have to cross six, yes six crossings to get to school !!! Even with the road improvements, the extra traffic generated by Tesco will wipe out any gain plus putting more pressure on Kempshott and Winchester Rd roundabouts. As for so called job creation, do you really think that Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons won't cut their staff if Tesco take away 25% of their trade!!!!!!
Once again great result last night, so say no to TESCOSTOKE!!!!!!
adiebb
says...
5:20pm Thu 26 Jul 12
deepinsight wrote:Either spelling is acceptable nowadays actually. :-)
Best_Name_Ever wrote: Well, it looks like the majority of Brighton Hill turned up to the Committee! I wait the appeal with baited breath.Holy Halitosis - I do hope you meant bated breath, or are you planning to keep people away with your oral offensiveness?
shame
says...
9:38pm Thu 26 Jul 12
stevemac1970
says...
9:18am Fri 27 Jul 12
JayBee's
says...
9:21am Fri 27 Jul 12
shame wrote:Typical, just proves you don't shop locally. Try 55p for a can...rrp 70p!2L Milk and bread any 2 for £2.00. Better than most supermarkets.
well at least the little shops can carry on charging a kings ransom for a can of coke phew they nearly had to give up two of their merc's
Like to see you "shame" working 60 plus hours a week!!!
Plus local shops are for a top up for shopping, hence convenience store !!!
klorane
says...
10:15am Fri 27 Jul 12
Well that's funny, because 4 million pounds is the amount spent out of the B.C. capital fund for the purchase of the Manydown land. That's in addition to the 1 million pounds from the housing fund, the remaining 5 million from the C.C. I believe.
What a coincidence! We now have to have private developers pay for all our road improvements.
Buster Preciation
says...
12:18pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Shops don't make traffic, people make traffic. Double the population and you double the amount of people going to the shop and everywhere else. Keep the population the same and double the amount of shops and the traffic doesn't change - we don't suddenly need more food. If anything the overall traffic will decrease as average travel times to a shop decrease.
JayBee's
says...
12:23pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Buster Preciation wrote:Not true I'm afraid as big supermarkets draw more traffic into a specific area, like Brighton Hill roundabout. Also why would people want to shop at the old Tesco store? So they then travel to the new store which is even more traffic.........comm
Klorane, change the record. We heard you the first few times.
Shops don't make traffic, people make traffic. Double the population and you double the amount of people going to the shop and everywhere else. Keep the population the same and double the amount of shops and the traffic doesn't change - we don't suddenly need more food. If anything the overall traffic will decrease as average travel times to a shop decrease.
on sense !!!!!
Mr_Kipling
says...
12:53pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Wow......
So our local overpaid and underworked lay ward councillors cited a reasons as 'effect on local shops'.
Is this the same set of councillors that allowed two chemists 150 feet apart, a Domino Pizza just round the corner from Herbies, and a Fish & Chip shop just behind an existing takeaway - all in Brighton Hill Centre ???
Something very very fishy, and very anti-competitive about this. Perhaps a 'special relationship' with the Walmart group, eh?
So we lose much needed jobs and choice, well done B&DBC for speaking up for the tiny minority - you seem to have a habit of holding the larger part of the local populas to ransom based on the whining of the verbose few.
stevemac1970
says...
1:36pm Fri 27 Jul 12
klorane wrote:In fairness to the council, it is normal for a large development to pay for that kind of work in order to counter the impact on the local community. They don't always get it right what they expect from the developer. 2 rather pathetic painted roundabouts on buckskin lane out of the budget for the building of the ridgeway centre is a classic example. The other point with getting it wrong with traffic in the area is pack lane humps, I spent hours printing leaflets about how the Tories were getting rid of them, just vote us in, they were still there yesterday when I drove down there. We all struggle to trust because we all feel deceived by those who take the decisions, maybe we would struggle less if they were more open and honest with us all.
stevemac 1970 Well that's funny, because 4 million pounds is the amount spent out of the B.C. capital fund for the purchase of the Manydown land. That's in addition to the 1 million pounds from the housing fund, the remaining 5 million from the C.C. I believe. What a coincidence! We now have to have private developers pay for all our road improvements.
Buster Preciation
says...
2:08pm Fri 27 Jul 12
JayBee's wrote:There will be an initial spike of interest but shops don't stay new for long. Corporate branding means that once inside you won't even know which side of town you are on. That's common sense.
Buster Preciation wrote:Not true I'm afraid as big supermarkets draw more traffic into a specific area, like Brighton Hill roundabout. Also why would people want to shop at the old Tesco store? So they then travel to the new store which is even more traffic.........comm
Klorane, change the record. We heard you the first few times.
Shops don't make traffic, people make traffic. Double the population and you double the amount of people going to the shop and everywhere else. Keep the population the same and double the amount of shops and the traffic doesn't change - we don't suddenly need more food. If anything the overall traffic will decrease as average travel times to a shop decrease.
on sense !!!!!
THX 1138
says...
5:19pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Beats108 wrote:You have been taken in by supermarket propaganda. Yes, jobs would be created (mainly low paid and many part-time), but numerous indpendent studies have shown that the overall increase in jobs is negligible at best. This is because a new supermarket leads to less business for existing shops leading to job losses. People aren't going to spend anymore just because a new supermarket opens - it simply means they will spend less in other shops if they use the new supermarket.
Exactly, this would of created lots of jobs for the local area and reduced the un-employment in the town but hey nobody cares about that apart from there own self!!!
Also, overall job creation in the supermarket sector is quite small, partly due to cost cutting and investment in self-service checkouts which require less staff.
stevemac1970
says...
11:22pm Fri 27 Jul 12
THX 1138 wrote:Other investment is in online shopping, this requires more staff than just having a shop with normal tills. The figures are clear that these companies employ more man hours in existing stores, they have just had to evolve like all businesses in todays economic world. We all have less money and so need to find the best value and that means companies changing the models they use. I remember a local store closing near where I once lived due to a large shop opening near by. The owner now earns more money working in a large store and a coop moved into his old small one man store and employs the equivalent of 8 full time staff. Let's look at real evidence and not just wild speculation. The world is changing, I'm not saying embrace all changes but if it gives jobs, we have to be honest with ourselves that we need those jobs. If you're starving, you wouldn't say no to food because it doesn't sound like something you'd like, you'd eat for the need. Jobs are a need.
Beats108 wrote:You have been taken in by supermarket propaganda. Yes, jobs would be created (mainly low paid and many part-time), but numerous indpendent studies have shown that the overall increase in jobs is negligible at best. This is because a new supermarket leads to less business for existing shops leading to job losses. People aren't going to spend anymore just because a new supermarket opens - it simply means they will spend less in other shops if they use the new supermarket.
Exactly, this would of created lots of jobs for the local area and reduced the un-employment in the town but hey nobody cares about that apart from there own self!!!
Also, overall job creation in the supermarket sector is quite small, partly due to cost cutting and investment in self-service checkouts which require less staff.
Mr_Kipling
says...
12:42pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Give idiots power and this is what happens.
stevemac1970
says...
1:40pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Mr_Kipling wrote:Well it does need to be said, if it's about a choise between listening to the voters and listening to the party, they do believe the party knows best, it's a sad case of inability to see that while the party selects them, the voters give them the responsibility to represent them and not the party concerned.
Does anyone - other than Councillors & their Friends/Family - actually believe these people are open and honest, or actually take the view they are self interested, self important pocket filling parasites?
Give idiots power and this is what happens.
GC31
says...
9:22pm Mon 30 Jul 12
stevemac1970 wrote:I think you have to belive they go into it with good intentions. There's also not much point in moaning about it unless you think you could do a better job and have the balls to go and do it. The politicians can tow the party line, but in the end if the party doesn't listen to the voters it won't get back in, which in my opinion is one of the biggest draw backs with the system - they can't take unpopular decisions without reducing the chances of re-election, making motoring more expensive, defecit reduction, high speed rail, carbon tax etc. That said there isn't a viable alternative, so like it or lump it.
Mr_Kipling wrote:Well it does need to be said, if it's about a choise between listening to the voters and listening to the party, they do believe the party knows best, it's a sad case of inability to see that while the party selects them, the voters give them the responsibility to represent them and not the party concerned.
Does anyone - other than Councillors & their Friends/Family - actually believe these people are open and honest, or actually take the view they are self interested, self important pocket filling parasites?
Give idiots power and this is what happens.
stevemac1970
says...
8:34am Tue 31 Jul 12
Littlebutton
says...
1:32pm Wed 1 Aug 12
stevemac1970
says...
2:27pm Wed 1 Aug 12
Littlebutton wrote:If only councils would make decision making that simple.
Can we assume that the council will now also reject any future planning application to turn the existing Basingstoke Football club into a retail park?? The reasons they have cited for rejecting Tesco's application are no different to those that could be cited for the proposed retail park - , damage to existing businesses, increase in daily traffic, another retail park directly opposite. it will be interesting to see if the Council are consistent in their approach
Mr_Kipling
says...
8:10pm Wed 1 Aug 12
Funny enough I have a feeling that won't happen! Perhaps they are trying to make Tesco pick up the bill for the road improvements so they can let their buddy and fellow chamber of commerce/lodge member having to pay out when he flogs it....
I'm sure we all know who I mean, but I suspect the council think we are all stupid.......
stevemac1970
says...
8:17pm Wed 1 Aug 12
Mr_Kipling wrote:To the best of my knowledge, there were no masons on the committee that turned tesco down. Any chance you can name the one you refer to?
@Littlebutton
Funny enough I have a feeling that won't happen! Perhaps they are trying to make Tesco pick up the bill for the road improvements so they can let their buddy and fellow chamber of commerce/lodge member having to pay out when he flogs it....
I'm sure we all know who I mean, but I suspect the council think we are all stupid.......
Best_Name_Ever says...
8:07am Thu 26 Jul 12