Skip to content

Big Monster Society

February 10, 2011

Residents massively lose out if crazy Giant hypermarket gets the nod.

Fatcats rubbing their hands in anticipation of big profit ahead.

Residents and councillors weary of years of battering, bullying, abuse and attack from the corporate vulture machine with unlimited resources.


  1. Richard Lane permalink
    February 10, 2011 10:03 am

    The councillors were spineless last time, in allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by a small band of objectors, that somehow managed to portray a wide spectrum of society that were against the plans, while at the same time believing exagerated amateur predictions above their own profesionals.
    They were frightened by the array of different groups represented and couldn’t see that those groups were actually the same people moving from one banner to another.

  2. February 10, 2011 11:35 am

    Fans hoodwinked into becoming cheerleaders for community-busting Mega hypermarket.
    Councillors subjected to massive abuse from small group of nutters.

    Neighbourhood faces traffic nightmare, pollution and death of shopping streets due to fatcats feeding frenzy.

    Greed-merchants sniff property, land and greenbelt and crave the monster profits at our expense.


  3. Silvio Berlusconi, Rome permalink
    February 10, 2011 11:51 am

    Ciao Richard,

    I have a few problemos in the moment that I think you may be able to put a certain “spin” on, if you mio meaning get .

    Get in touch my friend

    Silvio c/o

  4. Lance permalink
    February 10, 2011 1:26 pm

    Anything new here or same old drivel?

  5. RobF, Ashton permalink
    February 10, 2011 3:06 pm

    Have a look at this..

    No mention in the EP..

  6. February 10, 2011 4:52 pm

    Independent retail report clobbers hypermarket.

    Independent transport report batters hypermarket.

    Evening Post has lost the plot.

    Lane has lost his marbles.

    Bedminster-busting hypermarket heading for EPIC FAIL

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    February 10, 2011 10:37 pm

    I never had any marbles, of course you are perfectly lucid.
    Same old drivel.

    Ciao, You need to speek to Alicio Fergusoni or Toni Dyeresci expert spin medicios.

    That’s because those so called news articles are not news. They are articles written for the publication, probably by sympathisers. Do you really think the firm commisioned the report for themselves?

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    February 10, 2011 10:42 pm

    Forget my last comment, I thought you were refering to the traffic report.

  9. Deano permalink
    February 10, 2011 11:08 pm

    Try reading what the item is at the end of the link before you criticise it, otherwise people will realise that you are objecting to it before you have even bothered to read it.

    GVA Grimley’s report was commissioned by the council and funnily enough it says that Sainsbury’s retail consultants have considerably underestimated the impact of the new store.

    Exactly what the objectors said at the last planning meeting.

  10. Country Cousin permalink
    February 10, 2011 11:54 pm

    Just in from a few nice pints and seen the report by GVA Grimley.
    This makes grim reading for the club and Sainsburys. It basically backs up what have hitherto been guesses and critisism. Opening an extra large Sainsbury at the end of what has become a thriving shopping street, dependent on people walking to, it will have an adverse impact on shops there. It states ominously that there will be “closures”.

    Come on Sainsbury, keep that new application going. Its still got every chance of success! Up the orange! I can guarantee that thousands of fans have written in support of your application.

  11. February 11, 2011 12:57 am

    Good to see Lance -back at the blog that doesn’t wimp away from Lansdown & Sexton.

    Country -the Grimleys report is grim news for the Big Monster Society.

  12. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 11, 2011 9:18 am


    Are you saying that a report produced by professional and independent consultants should be ignored because of who commissioned it?

    Why? Is it because you think that the people who commissioned it may have their own reasons for getting a report favourable to their aims and objectives?

  13. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 11, 2011 12:47 pm

    I’ll think you’ll find Tony, that Richard has discovered another conspiracy –

    “GVA Grimley” is just a smoke screen for something far more sinister….

    Richard has found that

    “G = George”, “V = Veronica” “A = Alice” and “Grimley” is double dutch for “Ferguson”

    I’m just telling you before he does!

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    February 11, 2011 5:55 pm

    Tony Dyer
    I can’t believe you missed the post where I said “Forget my last comment, I thought you were refering to the traffic report”.
    As for that traffic report. Obviously the objectors that commissioned the report would have chosen a company they thought would be sympathetic to their cause, possibly by knowing someone in that company, that might also be opposed to the scheme, just a thought.
    The company proposing the plans are obviously working to keep their customer happy as well. But they are also dealing with the local authority that is telling or guiding them to what is required to meet the criteria. As opposed to the company telling the authority what is required, which is the case with the privately commissioned report.
    It’s somewhat similar to an independent advisor telling the council that it’s own officers had got their sums wrong, then expecting the councillors to believe him instead of their own officers. I suppose strange things can happen.

  15. Richard Lane permalink
    February 11, 2011 6:34 pm

    Re: retail report from GRV, it appears to be only a small section of the report printed in the article.
    Is the whole report available?
    This would point to someone leaking the juicy bits to Britol 24/7 or, that 24/7 has edited from the whole article what appear to be damaging quotes.
    Reading what little has been printed, it looks very similar to the previous report, which also said that there is likely to be an adverse effect on the local retail trade but it must be taken into context with the overall positives. Plus the local trade being quite strong that it was expected to continue to thrive. I don’t see how the report could come to a very different conclusion.
    Of course those objecting will not admit that there are any positives.
    This seems to be a case of grab a headline.

  16. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 11, 2011 11:15 pm


    I was going to write a response to your comments but what’s the point.

    The Planning Committee meeting for the Sainsburys is on the 2nd March at 6pm.

  17. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 11, 2011 11:17 pm

    Yes, the GVA report is available.

    It is available from the same place as the rest of the planning application.

  18. Richard Lane permalink
    February 12, 2011 12:56 pm

    It will be interesting what independent (ha ha) role you are going to play this time, I can’t wait to see.Will it be, relatives are going to be affected by noise, new job title as polution monitor presenting an unbiassed report, or perhaps an appearance as Ironside after a crash involving a Sainsbury’s waggon.
    So if the retail report is available at the planning office, are you allowed to take sections from it away for personal use, or is there a copyright question here.

  19. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 12, 2011 2:30 pm


    It’s a public meeting open to public submissions. Any member of the public can make a submission regardless of whether they might be an independent (i.e self-employed) business consultant or whether they are a self-employed (i.e independent) builder.

    You don’t seem to realise that when I said the GVA report was available at the same place as the rest of the planning application that meant it is available online and can be downloaded just like the other supporting documentation that many people have read in order to come to an informed opinion on this application.

  20. Richard Lane permalink
    February 12, 2011 6:07 pm

    Perhaps I’ll try and find it again.
    What section of business consulting will you be expertly representing this time then.

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    February 12, 2011 7:28 pm

    Not as bad as I thought, perhaps it was just a good headline eh?

  22. February 12, 2011 8:00 pm

    Its bad, grim. Bad for the Big Monster Sainsburys Hypermarket society.
    St Catherines place redevelopment-a key part of East st future -highlighted as possibly knackered from day 1 if monster gets the nod.

  23. Still Waters permalink
    February 13, 2011 2:30 am

    Not quite on topic, and previously posted on an older thread (and so probably missed):

    Current Sainsburys at Ashton Gate claim to be over-trading.

    The current (dwindling) staff have ‘had all overtime cut because of under-trading’

    Not hearsay, simple word-of-mouth from local employees.

    An interesting play-off of hypocrisy; Red Dawn states that this is an impoverished area of Bristol, crying out for a re-development (hah – try Knowle West or Hartcliffe, maybe).

    Sainsburys ‘checkout numbers’ suggest a very healthy middle-class area, and that they can’t cope, thus needing a new, bigger store. (Have a look at any time of day, you’ll see about 8-10 checkouts running out of about 30)

    Reality checks suggest a median; everyone in BS3 hits Aldi, Lidl or Asda for the cheap stuff, and North Street for those ‘spoil yourself’ (at a decent price) treats.

    Sainsbury UK has a massive expansion plan underway, in order to rival Tesco and Asda. The local attempt is nothing to do with helping the area, it’s big business doing what it can to raise a profit. Local traders will get a severe kicking, much like East Street was destroyed by Asda.

    You might counter by saying that the big companies offer goods at lower prices by bulk-buying. This is very possible, considering that none of the big supermarkets offer fair-trade goods. Check the labels in Asda, Sainsburys or Tesco – bet you they’re all made in China. (waits for Rich to Big Up China’s human rights values and stadium-support facilities)

  24. Richard Lane permalink
    February 13, 2011 10:38 am

    Very contradictory. You disagree with Dawn about it being an impoverished area in need of investment, suggesting a very middle class area. Then you say Reality checks suggest a median; everyone in BS3 hits Aldi, Lidl or Asda for the cheap stuff, and North Street for those ‘spoil yourself’ (at a decent price) treats”. Utter twaddle, which is it poor or middle class? I would suggest that the only middle class area was part of Southville.

  25. Still Waters permalink
    February 13, 2011 1:08 pm

    In times of recession, isn’t it general common sensed to save money by cutting down on shopping bills? So why is Sainsburys claiming over-trading when they certainly aren’t the cheapest in the area..? As I said, visit the store, see how busy it is(n’t).

    Yes, I disagree that the area is impoverished to the extent that a new stadium is ‘much needed’ to improve the lot of the locals – most of the houses in Ashton and the Vale are privately-owned, with plenty of newish cars and vans parked on the drives – hardly impoverished. Also bear in mind that a high percentage of Vale residents are retired and aren’t in the jobs market/ counted as unemployed.

    Now compare that to a wander through Knowle West or Hartcliffe..

  26. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    February 13, 2011 1:29 pm

    Stillwaters. You are confirming what I have said many times. Whether for or against the stadium, the “regeneration” argument is false. Dawn claims it will regenerate the wider SB area by local jobs created and increase in visitors spending money. Jobs and money in AV, regeneration needed in KW and Hartcliffe. This sounds like the old discredited “trickle down” to me and Dawn has turned a blind eye to the reality of the situation. Sad.

  27. February 13, 2011 7:00 pm

    Paul-right on the button. Labour has a Big Monster Society of former ministers.
    Dawn Criminalrolo was a (crap) Labour cabinet member. Sainsbury was a (crap non-elected) minister, and propped up Labour from the bulging monster cash-tills.
    Here’s a BBC report from 1999:
    The Labour Party has confirmed the controversial Science Minister Lord Sainsbury will donate £2m to its coffers this year.
    The pledge is more than a quarter of the total amount given to the party in donations during the past year.

    I’ve previously covered Sainsbury dodginess:

  28. Richard Lane permalink
    February 13, 2011 8:12 pm

    Still waters
    The clasification of overtrading in relation to a supermarket is, where it carries out more business pro rata when compared to other stores in the group, or there abouts.
    How many tills are in use at a specific time is imaterial.
    You can say it’s not busy, when I go it is. Sacredspring claims permanent gridlock on the road system, yet I frequently pass through when there are very few vehicles.

    To claim that the investments in the stadium, food outlets, conference facilities, hotel, new sainsbury’s, new housing at morelands, new housing in existing sainsbury’s will not bring major benefits to south Bristol and for a long time is laughable, you bury your heads in the sand. That’s not even including the possible other developments of the BRT and link rd.

    As for the regeneration of Knowle west and Hartcliffe. The residents of those districts have traditionally travelled to and used East St and North St to do their shopping. If as were told those retail areas are under threat from loss of trade, why are there proposals to build a new retail centre in Knowle west. At present they also use Broadwalk shopping centre which would also lose out. You object to a store in Ashton a few hundred metres from the existing shops (which are getting closer thanks to George) yet champion a scheme which would definately be detrimental to the existing retail centres. That’s not to say that there is not a need for some decent facilities at Filwood.

  29. February 14, 2011 10:25 am

    Overtrading definition is a load of made up bull, stolen by supermarket moguls from financial services and stockbroking. It is meaningless-or could mean anything you want but not relevant to planning law thats a fact.
    Big monster society multi-billioinaire companies only sniff massive profits. They don’t care about community except for making trumped-up noises to get through planning.
    Then we all suffer from massive extra traffic, pollution and damage to existing high st’s and services, great.

    Big Monster Sainsburys Society

  30. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 14, 2011 11:18 am

    The level of trading at the Sainsbury store and how it compares to the average for all Sainsburys stores has no real meaning as a measurement of overtrading in terms of the customer experience.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that, for example, a smaller store in a relatively impoverished area of a northern town that has been hard hit by the recession should have the same pro rata turnover as a large modern store in an affluent area of London such as Kensington yet that is the implication behind the use of a national average to claim over-trading.

    What matters to customers is how congested the aisles are, and how long they have to queue at the checkout. In this context, the number of checkouts open or closed has much greater importance. Local expenditure levels, and economies of scale associated with actual store size will also have an impact on what constitutes a customer-friendly level of turnover.

    If Sainsburys were overtrading for the size of store they currently have, then they would be employing more checkout staff to reduce the length of the inevitable queues not reducing staff overtime.

    In any case, if there were long queues, congested aisles and so on, this would manifest itself in the same household surveys that have been used to support the claim of over-trading, and this is simply not the case.

    To claim that the building of a football stadium would have a major regenerative impact across South Bristol is also ridiculous. It’s effect will be localised as Paul Bemmy Down has stated. A business model that sees money taken out of the local economy to pay exorbitant wages to a small select group of employees regardless of their performance levels and despite the company itself running at a loss is hardly going to sustain the regeneration of those parts of south Bristol most in need of it. As a result, the benefits of the stadium have to be counterbalanced against the disbenefits and as far as I can see many local residents in Ashton Vale don’t think the benefits of the stadium outweight the benefits of access to the remaining green space around their community, whilst it appears that many residents in Ashton Gate, Southville and much of Bedminster don’t think that the giant supermarket that we are told is needed to fund the stadium is worth it either.

    The housing at Moorelands was always intended to happen, the difference is that instead of providing much needed affordable housing and some green space, it is now intended to provide entirely private housing at market prices out of reach of those south Bristolians most in need of it. The BRT routes and the South Bristol Link are entirely funded by public money (with local funding contributions having at least doubled) – and the council has confirmed that the stadium itself will make no difference as to whether those projects go ahead. Meanwhile the Knowle West Regeneration Framework is under threat because of a lack of potential investment – and again the stadium will have no effect on whether this project goes ahead or not. As for the mixed-use development at Sainsburys’ existing site, this mixed-use development could be provided at the existing Ashton Gate site if the stadium does go ahead, because, despite uninformed claims to the contrary, the developers themselves confirm that the two sites are approximately the same size with similar restrictions.

    As for the building of a new district centre at Knowle West affecting North Street and East Street. A new district centre in Knowle West designed to service the local community does not compare in its impact to that of the building of the largest Sainsburys in the UK designed to provide a regional service. As has been said, there is a need for decent facilities at Filwood, and the South Bristol Retail Study states that the Sainsburys at Ashton Gate will put the opportunity to provide those new facilities at risk.

    If the new stadium does not go ahead, then the club already had planning permission for a 30,000 seat stadium with modern conference and corporate facilities at Ashton Gate, which they have now allowed to lapse. The only reason that didn’t go ahead is money, and in the end, that is what this all boils down to. Having ambitions that are apparently beyond your financial capacity to support and expecting others, including the taxpayer, to bail you out whilst you continue to pay extravagant bonuses to underperforming staff. Sound familiar?

  31. Richard Lane permalink
    February 14, 2011 6:20 pm

    Your first comparison is not just. Sainsbury’s do not locate their stores in the extreme locations you refer to and would generally be located in a middle of the road area, which would attract a cross section of society and thus give a decent average turnover for their stores. So your first five paragraphs can be ignored as irrelivent, as they are only your opinion based on predjudism.
    Your next paragraph refers to only one part of the major developments planned and so dimisses the benefits from these collective developments. You also like to suggest that the only people employed in that development would be a small select group of overpaid employees, obviously refering to the players of the team you claim to support.
    You conveniently don’t mention the hundreds of other people employed that come from across the whole of Bristol but with a majority from south of the river. This figure would increase on building the new stadium, which would help the unemployed of south Bristol. I’m all for providing housing for the more well off people to reside south of the river, the wealth brought in would be good for the local economy. Affordable housing can be provided at the existing Sainsbury site as opposed to Ashton Gate, where that is the only site capable of (in planning terms) housing the planned Sainsbury store, due to the present structures height and density.
    A new district centre in KW does not compare to Sainsbury’s I agree. But when added to the new development at Symes Ave which has most likely taken custom from East St, it can only add to that scenario.
    You are as mischevious as Ron Morton when infering that the taxpayer will bail out the club. No money is being put up by the council for the stadium. Though you are correct in part when saying, this is about money. Obviously it will cost many more millions to develop the existing stadium, which in turn would not attract the interest from visiting supporters or the increased income from the other benefits of a new stadium. With better corporate facilities provided on a day to day basis, it’s something obviously required to help the club trade on an even keel.

  32. ali permalink
    February 14, 2011 8:48 pm

    Again, why do you bother rich? To contradict tony’s thorough, carefully made argument you are reduced to suggesting that sainsbury’s do not have small stores in northern cities that have suffered during the recession. I can see why this might be fun on otib or thisisbristol, because you’ll get a load of people saying “yeah, screw the Ashton vale nimbys” but you won’t get that here and it’s hardly like you’re winning any arguments.

  33. Richard Lane permalink
    February 14, 2011 10:08 pm

    I’m not suggesting Sainsbury’s are not represented in northern towns. I’m saying because of the type of store they are, they target certain areas and a clientel to locate their stores, somewhat like Waitrose or Morrisons might. And by the location chosen, they have a very even average guide to turnover in their stores.
    As for Ton’y argument, you might think his condescending comments and bullshit paraded as fact are well thought out, I don’t. You know what they say about bullshit baffles brains. It worked once on the planners, will it be twice?
    I rarely post on the OTIB site, you probably base your judgement on me, after reading the derogatory, uninformed, spiteful comments by sacredspring, BobS, stillwaters, HarryT and the best yet Deano. As for winning arguments, I have won many. Though these are ignored and the subject changed. This is a self appreciation society site, full of like minded biassed Monster, megamouth, gut busting, loony people. I would not expect anything other than the rubbish I read on this site.
    I used to enjoy the debates on the Berate site, the posters generally were not as offensive. But they chose to carry out their campaign in relative secrecy when setting up the Stop Sainsbury’s site, including it’s strange link to stop Tesco in Stokes Croft.
    I think that some people might like to know that there are different points of view, after all why am I attacked so often instead of ignored. In fact why are you bothering with responding to my comments?
    I think it’s because they ring true, especially about the exagerations which are rediculous. In fact you even agreed that some of the comments posted are rubbish.
    I don’t favour one store over another, I lust want things to be represented correctly without these wild allegations being flung about.
    Don’t forget that the responses on OTIB are just that, responses to actions or events that have been taken by others. And if those actions are wild, then expect wild responses.

  34. February 15, 2011 12:38 am

    Excellent well researched and accurate post from Tony.

    Sad cheerleading for the Bedminster-busting hypermarket-usual cheerleading no arguments to counter. Campaigning for exclusive housing for the rich and wealthy with no affordable element as is required in planning law? Sad.

    Big Wealthy Landowning Selfish Society

  35. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 15, 2011 10:48 am


    You accuse me of bullshit but let’s look at your post in response to mine.

    You state that Sainsburys don’t have stores in the extreme areas that I mention.

    One of the areas I mentioned was Kensington.

    There is a Sainsburys on 158A Cromwell Road, Kensington, so immediately we can see who is really writing bullshit.

    Nor do you seem to be aware that Sainsburys have been fiercely criticised by the Citizen Organising Foundation for charging higher prices in poor areas than rich ones. How can this be if Sainsburys only have stores in “middle of the road” areas?

    You also say in a later post that Sainsburys “have a very even average guide to turnover in their stores”

    Here are some examples from the Bristol and South Glos area alone of independent estimates of turnover densities produced for retail studies;

    Sainsburys, Emersons Green, convenience floorspace 3,307sqm, turnover estimated at £18,022/sqm
    Sainsburys, Stoke Gifford, convenience floorspace 3,441sqm, turnover esimated at £7,962/sqm
    Sainsburys, Winterstoke Road, convenience floorspace 3,545sqm, turnover estimated at £9,986/sqm
    Sainsburys, Kingswood, convenience floorspace 1,293sqm, turnover estimated at £9,667/sqm
    Sainsburys, Castle Court, convenience floorspace 2,800sqm, turnover estimated at £6,071/sqm

    So five Sainsburys stores, yet one has a turnover level that is almost three times that of the lowest. Yet you say Sainsburys have an even average.

    This is why people respond to your comments – it is because if your inaccurate responses to other peoples comments are left unchallenged, others who are not familiar with your record of unsubstantiated claims may assume that you might actually know what you are talking about. If you want things to be presented correctly then make an effort to fact check your own posts before posting “facts” that you have simply made up on the spot.

  36. Richard lane permalink
    February 15, 2011 4:25 pm

    Thank you for finally coming up with those facts, which are, that none of those stores are in poor areas.
    I see that the store you refer to in Kensington is not in a really wealthy area as you try to insist. It is in the borough of Kensington only, in an area of high density housing and serves all social classes which do exist there. So once again your bullshit is exposed.

    None of the stores you refer to in the Bristol area are in poor areas, they might have different turnovers due to other factors such as nowhere else to shop (Emmersons Green) which means a higher turnover perM2. The others are quite close in turnover figures.
    You have used your abillity of presenting figures with a steep curve to them to claim a different picture from reality. When they are disected they are far from how you portray them.
    As you are on the side of opposition, you are not scrutinised, merely applauded for acts of fiction. For example: I said “would generally be located in a middle of the road area” not as you claim, “only have stores in middle of the road areas? ” yet another example of your twisting by misquoting my actual statements.

  37. February 16, 2011 9:35 am

    Empty vessel makes most noise-Lane doesn’t know when his ass is kicked.

  38. Richard Lane permalink
    February 16, 2011 9:19 pm

    No foot has even got near my ass, not even a swishing sound.
    As for empty vessels, there must be plenty around your feet before posting.
    You obviously don’t know how to differentiate bullshit from facts, must be the empty vessels.
    It’s simple to do, quote a few reports which have no substance, quote from an organisation that nobody has heard of, pretending they are as important as the W.H.O. or the United Nations. Then make some condescending comments that give you a superior stance and everyone thinks your marvelous and the bullshit appears to prove somebody wrong.

  39. February 16, 2011 11:23 pm

    Arrogant trolling of my blog,.- vaccuous claims and cheerleading for Bedminster-busting hypermarket has been suitably quashed.
    Trousers are now around ankles.

    Exclusive housing for the Rich on council owned allotments? Know what its like to be on the street? What a sick joke.
    Lansdown in Guernsey mansion kicks homeless and first-time buyers in the teeth.

Comments are closed.