Skip to content

Giant Sainsburys retail impact figures double: ‘We will clobber existing historic trading streets’

February 15, 2011

Last July Sainsburys claimed a £4.5m impact on existing North St and East St traders.

Now they claim a £10m impact-more than double that predicted six months ago if that wasn’t bad enough.

They also claimed that North St would see a growth of trading up to 2015 of 14%.

They now predict that it’s more likely to be  4%.

These big superstores suck the lifeblood out of high Streets.

They use their massive resources to push through ever bigger stores as massive expansion is the chosen way they increase their already massive profits.

And they are not averse to presenting false and inaccurate statistics to hoodwink planning officers as has been proven.

And local shopping areas and neighbourhoods bear the brunt of the massive superstores.

The historic Streets of Bedminster, older than the City of Bristol itself, are now in the shadow of a potentially devastating Massive Hypermarket.

Make no mistake, this superstore is MASSIVE-amongst the largest in the country.

It will have a MASSIVE impact.

 

http://www.stopsainsburys.co.uk/seven-myths/myth-5-local-traders/

 

 

Advertisements
55 Comments
  1. Richard Lane permalink
    February 15, 2011 6:34 pm

    Sacredspring
    During the 1980’s two supermarkets leaft the area, Tesco in East St and Fine Fare in North St. At the same time many more shops closed down, there has been a steady reduction especially between the Hen and Chiken and Cannon St.

    This happened to coincide with a reduction in the amount of factories conducting business in the area and the subsequent loss of employment and people coming into the area. Plus a drop in the local population.

    Since that time, peoples working and living habits have also changed, with more women now working and less people at home during the day, so a greater need to shop at different times and on a less frequent basis, so less need or chance to use the local shop for many people.

    Without wanting to state the obvious, there are many more factors to the loss of shops in BS3 than that caused by the evil supermarket.

    There are many ways of presenting figures to prove a point (Tony is magnificent at the deceptive art). I think you are actually critiscising the supermarkets for telling the truth about lower turnovers now.

    I notice shops up to the Bristol Brewery are now included in the at risk retail area, shops which never existed before the planned development at Ashton Gate.
    How can the area not be thriving if more shops are opening? There’s even a new fitness club opened up for the more well off residents of the area. I can’t afford to enrol in a gym, perhaps I’ll have to wait for the freebies at the new stadium.

  2. February 16, 2011 9:25 am

    Massive hypermarket will have massive impact-fact.

    Pseudo-scientific soci0-economic theory -not fact.

    New gym hasn’t got multi-million pound subsidy, but the membership is only £20/month.

    That’s less than a pound a day or 50p if you go twice, bargain.

    Wonder how much the multi-millionaire Lansdown will be charging for his multi-million £££ council funded gym-hope it will be a good discount for ripped off council taxpayers.

  3. Country Cousin permalink
    February 16, 2011 10:15 am

    The new Gym proposed at Ashton Vale will be subsidised not free, and access to it will have already been paid for by giving away land in various places. But of course there is already a good facility paid for by council tax payers at Ashton Park School which is a cheaper option, helps to keep the school facilities new and provides school holiday sports clubs for those who cannot afford to be members of David Lloyd.

  4. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 16, 2011 2:23 pm

    “This happened to coincide with a reduction in the amount of factories conducting business in the area and the subsequent loss of employment and people coming into the area. Plus a drop in the local population”

    And it also happened to coincide with the opening of ASDA, the first superstore in Bedminster , at the other end of the district.

  5. BobS permalink
    February 16, 2011 4:12 pm

    Rich

    Are you not embarrassed by your efforts to argue about local retail issues with a professional retail consultant and a professional local trader ?

    It really is quite shocking. You damage your cause further and demonstrate to everyone the extent to which the club and its stadium supporters will say anything to get their way.

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    February 16, 2011 9:43 pm

    Raynes roader
    Is this the same Asda which it is claimed will lose trade and therefore, the footfall traffic from Asda will no longer go to the East St shops? Which is it to be a benefit to East St or damaging to East St? You can’t blame a store for the loss of shops, then also claim that if that same store loses business the shops also lose.
    I suppose we’ll conveniently ignore the other points why shops would have been forced to close.

    BobS
    If I were making wild claims about traffic increases, Children and old people dying through gassing or being knocked over, or the local community being killed by a greedy multi millionaire, or North and East streets having all the shops closed down. Or telling someone else what to do with their property, then I might feel a tadge embarrassed.
    Who’s the profesional retail expert?
    Professional local Trader? Surely you mean shop magnate.

  7. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 16, 2011 10:33 pm

    BobS to Rich
    “Rich
    Are you not embarrassed by your efforts to argue about local retail issues with a professional retail consultant and a professional local trader ?”

    Rich to BobS
    “No”

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    February 16, 2011 10:54 pm

    Raynes Roader

    Rich to Raynes Roader ” are you ever going to respond legitimate issues put to you”?
    Answer= “No I’m just going to ignore them and do what everyone else on here does, when there is no answer to the point made, attack the poster.”
    What about the reason why shops have closed. I know! It’s all the fault of the supermarkets, there are no other reasons why people can no longer, or don’t shop in the local shops.

  9. February 16, 2011 11:07 pm

    Massive impact is massive impact whatever, that is the issue.

    No stupidly massive hypermarket and the historic shopping streets continue to develop and prosper for the benefit of residents and community cohesion.

  10. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 17, 2011 7:58 am

    Rich, arguing with you on this blog is not part of the democratic procedure – it achieves nothing down at the Council House.

    Look at YOUR sidestepped question –

    “Are you not embarrassed by your efforts to argue about local retail issues with a professional retail consultant and a professional local trader ?”

    Why are you arguing with a professional independent retail consultant? He has nothing to gain either way.

  11. Deano permalink
    February 17, 2011 5:53 pm

    From OTIB;

    “The report came from a GREEN PIECE councilor! ”

    Meanwhile somebody else is saying that the GVA report was done by the same people that did the DPDS report. Here’s a hint Einstein, the clue is in the name!

    Meanwhile the idiot responding to him says;

    “One was done by someone who was ‘Independent’, the other done by a Green Party Activist…….how on earth can that be allowed?.

    Has to be done by someone who has nothing to gain from the decision.

    Come on Cllr Benyon stand up for yourself and all BCFC fans and chair the meeting, don’t let an inexperienced, biased person have a massive influence like he did last time.”

    Has anybody seen Sean? Or is he out consulting his BCFC season ticket, sorry electors, on what to do next…….

  12. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 17, 2011 6:27 pm

    OTIB
    “BCAGFC 5;57 16Feb

    “North Street is not a shopping area anymore……………….

    Have a look around, it is mostly bars, pizza shops, chip shops, estate agents & the like.

    Sainsburys will have very little affect on North Street shopping…….unless they have a bar & pizza shop in there as well”

    Rich must have nodded his head sagely at such a comment… Because he did nothing, during the same conversation to correct the error…It astounds me how these people lie to each other in public, to build a case..

    So let me remind Rich & BCAGFA that last time they were there, they also saw –

    A Fruit & veg shop
    Fishminsters wet fish counter
    the glass & gift shop
    The TV shop,
    The Card shop
    The computer repairs
    another computer repairs & sales
    The Hardware shop
    The newsagents
    The convenience store
    the deli
    The bakers on the corner
    the butchers
    The remedy & supplement shop
    the photography shop
    the chemists
    the next butchers
    The bike shop
    the opticians
    another bakery

    God bless you.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    February 17, 2011 11:28 pm

    Raynes Roader
    I have always praised the shops of North St and appreciate the shopkeepers.
    The poster is correct in pointing out the amount of shops which are not shops anymore. You have confirmed that out of 60 odd shops, only 20 are actually retail outlets, that’s 60 percent non retail and 30 percent retail.
    I do believe it is rather niaive of you to expect me to correct posters on the OTIB site when not one person has ever been corrected for the many wrong statements and incorrect wild exagerations on this site. I don’t run the site, yet on occasions have corrected people.

    In Fact I did correct and inform all the posters of the correct situation with this following post: “Basically they are saying the negative effects will outweigh the positive effects on a retail basis only. These must then be considered in conjunction with the positive effects of development at the existing Sainsbury site, the benefit in monies towards the new stadium, the new housing at moorelands and the extra facilities for all of Bristol these bring. So the council must decide if they want these things to be helped by that financial boost towards the stadium and the extra housing or not.

    Another independent report has also been commisioned to assess traffic impacts. This surprisingly found that there would be a negative effect as well. Though there is one difference. That report was commisioned by the objectors, so they obviously chose the firm carefully that probably has one of them working in it. I suggested this to them but they did not reply. Make up your own mind if you think it was a biassed report to satisfy the customers needs”.
    What do you expect me to do correct every post?
    Any chance of you responding to the points I raised?
    Answer= No. Instead I’ll have another childish dig at Rich for not single handedly policing a site which regularly has 600 readers and thousands of posts. Generally I ignore stupid comments from ill informed people, though not on here.

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    February 17, 2011 11:35 pm

    Raynes Roader
    Again I ask who is this professional independent retail expert?
    I have argued with no professional, no expert, certainly no independent and I believe only one retailer.

  15. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 18, 2011 8:43 am

    I have to say that I am not aware of anybody commenting on this site who is a Professional and/or Independent Retail Consultant. Some of us have experience in Business Consultancy working with some of the large food retailers but it is very rare that you will find a retail consultant willing to criticise any of the Big Four retailers.

    In any case, even experts should not be beyond reproach. I myself criticised the report provided by the previous independent retail consultants for the council because I felt it had failed to fully take into account the impact of the new store and instead put too much weight on Sainsburys own consultants analysis whilst largely ignoring the independent analysis done by others, such as for the South Bristol Retail Study.

    Rich likes to bandy around words like “hoodwinked” but the reality is that enough councillors on the last planning committee were able to see that the retail impact of the scheme considered at last July’s planning committee was likely to have been underestimated, and this formed part of their reasons for refusing planning permission.

    That they were correct and the impact was under-estimated has largely been confirmed by the fact that the current scheme, with exactly the same retail floorspace, is now estimated by the applicants themselves to have an impact more than twice the previous one. In turn, the council has commissioned GVA to provide an independent assessment of the retail impact on the basis that GVA have already conducted their own independent survey of the retail market in South Bristol, and thus can compare WYG’s claims on behalf of Sainsburys to their own figures. This contrasts with the approach of the previous report commissioned by the council which largely relied on WYG’s own figures alone.

    The result is GVA have concluded that the impact on Bedminster Town Centre is almost four times higher than that originally assessed for the earlier application.

    As for “hoodwinking” – Sainsburys recently told both objectors and planning officers that their consultants were “batting for us”. In other words, the consultants employed by Sainsburys, are there to make the case for the store – not to provide an unbiased view but to be optimistic. It is up to others to point out where they believe that bias has crept in.

    That is what public submissions to the planning committee are for, and I hope that if Rich thinks that the retail impact has been over-estimated, that he makes a submission himself.

  16. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 18, 2011 9:38 am

    “Raynes Roader
    Again I ask who is this professional independent retail expert?
    I have argued with no professional, no expert, certainly no independent and I believe only one retailer”

    Its not an individual – its a firm. the name is GVA Grimley.

    Please confirm that this answer is adequate.

    Now, repeating the question posed by BobS, but elaborating on it a bit more –

    “Rich
    Are you not embarrassed by your efforts to argue about local retail issues ,with professional retail consultants, GVA Grimley”

  17. harryT permalink
    February 18, 2011 9:45 am

    This debate really is a waste of time.

    The position of Rich and others is as follows:

    1. I want a stadium
    2. I therefore also want a HUGE MASSIVE supermarket to pay for the stadium
    3. err
    4. anything which suggests that either (1) or (2) might be harmful to anyone else must be wrong and biased
    5. that’s it

  18. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 18, 2011 9:58 am

    Rich, you’ve made a point of saying that Sainsburys have done nothing to undermine retailing in Sandy Park (despite being as close on foot as the new expanded relocated branch could be)

    Heres a link to the premises of the streets last butcher..

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32725667.html

    No doubt he still had enough customers – but not enough anymore.

    Now, if I was a shopper in this area, on foot. Where would I now HAVE to go for meat? Using your argument, you’d say I was voluntarily going to a supermarket.

    Have you tried to buy a paper at Good News Newsagents at 123 North Street? If you do, you’ll find its closed. The lovely lady who ran it, told me (despite your claims otherwise) that the new Tesco Express had “ruined” her business. Her shop is going to become living accomodation.
    The lady in question knew all the old uns’ in the flats beside her shop, and if they didn’t come in for their paper, she’d phone them and check they were okay. If they weren’t, she’d get help for them. Thats what being a member of a community is about.

    You can find her last objection to Sainsburys at the planning office no doubt, where she talked about Tesco Express “ruining” her livelihood, a notion that I know with all your years of experience as a builder, you have sought to pooh pooh.

    The lady is greatly missed by the more vulnerable & lonely residents of Gaywood House, and not just as source of newsprint.

    Who performs that function where YOU live Richard, no one anymore I suspect.

  19. Richard Lane permalink
    February 18, 2011 10:03 am

    Raynes Roader
    ou asked “Why are you arguing with a professional independent retail consultant? He has nothing to gain either way”.
    Since when has a company been a he? You got it wrong by implying that a person not a company such as GVA, was posting on here arguing with me.
    I answered the question when I said I had nothing to be embarrassed about. In plain English for you, I am not embarrassed.
    Tony
    thanks for the clarifying statement.
    We all know that the previous councillors were led by Simon Rayner into making that decision, after being persuaded by objectors to question figures that should have been answered by the Planning officers but weren’t.

    You say “As for “hoodwinking” – Sainsburys recently told both objectors and planning officers that their consultants were “batting for us”. In other words, the consultants employed by Sainsburys, are there to make the case for the store”. Somewhat similar to the recent independent traffic report for the objectors .

  20. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 18, 2011 11:37 am

    Rich says
    “We all know that the previous councillors were led by Simon Rayner into making that decision”

    No, the only thing we know is that the above is what you would like people to think so that you can avoid answering difficult questions like why are the same applicants with exactly the same size store now estimating that the retail impact will be twice what they said it would be just a few months earlier? Did they under-estimate then or are they over-estimating it now?

    It seems that the objectors were right to question the figures, and the committee members who voted against the application were right to listen to their arguments because, I repeat, just six months later and the applicants themselves say that the impact has doubled. This is the elephant in the room that you continue to ignore.

    GVA are not “batting” for either side, they have been commissioned by the council, and they say that the impact on Bedminster Town Centre is four times that claimed for the previous application. They also confirm that if the council consider that the impact is significant, then planning policy says they should refuse the application regardless of any other material planning considerations.

    We will see what the planning officers report says when it is made public.

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    February 18, 2011 12:10 pm

    Raynes Roader
    Why do attribute so many things I have not said to me? None of those things are true.
    I have not said anything of the sort about Sainsbury’s In Brislington. I was claiming the comparrisons between there and Ashton were not a fair reflection of reality. I would point out though that the difference between that store and the Ashton issue is, that a store already exists at Ashton where none previously did in Brislington, a major difference. Plus the existence at the time of another new store (Kwicksave) in Brislington village that would also have had an effect on local trade.

    I have never claimed that Tesco express did not ruin her business. I do agree that a shop of that nature would pose a threat to a neighbouring shop, as it has done near me. You are either mistaken or lying. Either prove these allegations or retract the statements.

    For the record, I do think that there will be an effect on the local traders, I do think there will be an increase in Traffic. What I don’t agree with is the extent that it is being claimed the effects will be.
    I have always said this, I have also said that, I believe the benefits to the wider community will outweigh any negative impacts.

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

    Tony
    No time to answer now but I will. There are no elephants.

  23. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 18, 2011 6:09 pm

    Richard,
    I was poring over all your comments on this & that forum, when by chance, the local Minister dropped in.
    After some discussion we have decided that our congregation will say prayers for you this Sunday, in the hope that it will bring you relief from your relentless torment.

    all the best & God bless you

  24. BobS permalink
    February 18, 2011 9:30 pm

    Harry

    You forgot, if all else fails…

    6. Start a petition to show how much you really want a stadium (and a HUGE supermarket) and get people from Leeds and Brighton to sign by the thousand.

  25. Still Waters permalink
    February 18, 2011 10:42 pm

    BobS:

    Too late – OTIB has already demanded a huge ‘pitch invasion’ of City supporters into the meeting – let’s hope no-one opposing Sainsbury sits amongst the ‘crew’ though, judging by recent past performance.

    Btw, regarding the petitions;

    sampling figures (by counting up local vs non-local signatures on randomly selected pages) show that 4.5% of the pro-stadium supporters are local, and 86% of the pro-green supporters are local.

    Although this is a very fast/loose count (can’t account for written), BCC will do a thorough version on the final submissions.

  26. Still Waters permalink
    February 18, 2011 10:54 pm

    RichyBabes said: “I have always said this, I have also said that, I believe the benefits to the wider community will outweigh any negative impacts.”

    What this equates to is:

    People within a 20 mile radius now get to save a few quid a week by driving the extra miles to a retail shed, fuelling up to drive home and getting a bit bothered by the congestion on Winterstoke.

    Bugger the local shops, they can sell up and convert to even more takeaways for the booming student expansion.

  27. Still Waters permalink
    February 18, 2011 11:05 pm

    Addendum: Let’s not forget, Messrs Pontin, et al, are pushing this entire project because it lowers opposition to further expansion.

    The ‘original’ owners of the lands (since circa 1947) have always pushed BCC – and other councils – to drop Green Belt development restrictions.

    There is now a Triad of Development Interests focussing on this.

    I’m amazed in some respects that City supporters aren’t even interested in who owns what, but are lead by the nose by people like Rich or OTIB committee members into believing some bull about everything that’s built will benefit the Club.

    Laughable.

    I hope they read this.

  28. Still Waters permalink
    February 18, 2011 11:10 pm

    Rich:

    There’s an elephant behind you.

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    February 19, 2011 5:05 pm

    Raynes Roader
    Thanks for your concerns about me. As you seem to be one of a congregation of dwindling numbers I would suggest you save your prayers for like minded people.

    When are you ever going to address any of the points I raised and retract the incorrect statements you have made about me?

    BobS
    If you want to know how to attract support from far and wide take a lead from the opponents to the stadium and supermarket. That is where the knowledge to gain more support has come from, after all the opposition was up and running well before any camaigns of support. Ask Stillwaters if he’s had any more signatures from the RSPB, or if there are any more clubs and organisations that can be represented by the same old people.
    Still waters
    What banners will you be taking to the meeting? But of course, you’re really only interested in stopping the stadium. Just like Ron Morton, your trying to stop one development in the hope of it affecting the other development.

    Sacredspring
    Said “Bugger the local shops, they can sell up and convert to even more takeaways for the booming student expansion”. Reality is starting to dawn on monstermouth.

  30. Richard Lane permalink
    February 19, 2011 5:40 pm

    Tony
    In response to your statement “No, the only thing we know is that the above is what you would like people to think so that you can avoid answering difficult questions like why are the same applicants with exactly the same size store now estimating that the retail impact will be twice what they said it would be just a few months earlier? Did they under-estimate then or are they over-estimating it now?”

    I have never avoided answering questions, you confuse me with other posters on here.

    Firstly, the new retail assesment of impact on North and East St is not twice that of the previous. £6.1m against £3.8m is not twice as much, it is a little over a third, but you do like to exagerate your figures when trying to prove a point.

    I think the new retail assessment includes up to date information from the SBRS on retail turnovers, where as the previous application used figures available from I believe 2007.
    The population forecasts have also been revised, which would have given a population increase in the locality of 4,000 higher than expected, so turnover would obviously be lower than previously expected.
    I think that Park Furnishers were not included in the first calculations but are now, which would include trade transfer from them and not before.
    These might be why the estimates are differing from the first ones.
    We mice are not scared of elephants.

    On another issue but still related, how on earth can a report be carried out on such a substantial subject as the transfer of trade from one retail area to another, covering millions of pounds in turnover in both comparable and conssumable goods. With two areas under deep scrutiny, plus the rest of the region, for the paltry sum of £2,500?
    I can only carry out a combination boiler change for a little less.
    These consultants can’t really earn as much as I’ve thought. The admin costs and paper alone should have cost near to that.

  31. Richard Lane permalink
    February 19, 2011 6:28 pm

    Sacredspring
    Sorry I seem to have credited you with a comment from Stillwaters (pondlife).
    Please accept my apology.

    StillWaters
    If you do your calculations properly regarding the petition numbers, you will find that there are only 144 signatures from the Bedminster and Southville wards. That’s less than one and a half percent. 1.5% of the population of some 23,000 people in the closest areas.
    You do like to exagerate things don’t you. I doubt that’s the number of people that have used the former tip in the last year.
    A higfh proportion of people have signed the petition from South Gloucestershire and North Somerset, considerably more than from within the city of Bristol. They are most probably voting to oppose greenbelt development, which could have an adverse effect on their property values and subsequent lifestyles, people that belong to the association known as SOGS.
    If only there were over a thousand people which used the former tip, like those that have signed the petition. You could nearly justify the possibility of considering it as a green.

  32. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 19, 2011 8:54 pm

    Rich, looking at the posting times of your comments. You’ve spent 2+ hours on here, when you could have been out enjoying yourself.

    I appreciate you’re doing all you can, all you possibly can, to get a stadium, and thats touching. But as you don’t put any value on our neighbourhood, environment & surroundings, we’ll just keep pointing out inconvenient truths.

    And what strikes me about you now, is that if the superstore does get approved, you’ll walk through our neighbourhood gloating that its what the objectors deserve, for objecting to it in the first place. Don’t you think?

  33. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 19, 2011 9:12 pm

    Richard

    Mathematics for beginners;

    Firstly, if a value of £3.8m increases by a third that produces an increase of £1.3m producing a final total of £5.1m not £6.2m

    An increase from £3.8m to £6.2m constitutes a 63% increase.

    In any case, retail impact is measured in relation to the proportion of trade that is diverted away from a specific location.

    In this case, the estimates for the previous Sainsburys application calculated that the retail impact would result in a diversion of 2% of turnover away from Bedminster town centre. Sainsburys own consultants (“batting for Sainsburys”) now estimate this to be 4.2%.

    4.2% is at least twice 2%.

    GVA (batting for nobody) have estimated that the retail impact on Bedminster town centre will lead to a 7% diversion of trade, and when other cumulative factors are taken into account, they estimate that the impact will be 8%, a figure four times higher than that originally estimated for the first Sainsburys application.

    Now, back to the original question. The impact of a store of exactly the same retail floorspace has now been estimated by the applicants own consultants as having an impact on local shops twice that of the previous same-size application just six months later. In your own words there has been an increase in the value of that retail impact from £3.8m to £6.1m which – disregarding your bad maths – is an increase of 63%.

    So the question which you still haven’t answered despite the fact that you insist you don’t avoid questions remains;

    ” why are the same applicants with exactly the same size store now estimating that the retail impact will be twice what they said it would be just a few months earlier? Did they under-estimate then or are they over-estimating it now?”

  34. Richard Lane permalink
    February 19, 2011 11:52 pm

    Tony Dyer

    Mathematics for beginners eh! I would like to point out in simple terms that the figure of £3,8m is nearly £4m which is nearly 2/3rds of £6.1m. Obviously if you take the lower figure and divide it into thirds, as you have done, it will be lower than dividing the larger figure. So in plain english £3.8m is nearer to two thirds of £6.1m than your claim of £6.1m being twice as much.
    I did not say it had increased by a third, merely that the difference was nearly a third.

    You claim: “An increase from £3.8m to £6.2m constitutes a 63% increase”. Yet also claim: “I repeat, just six months later and the applicants themselves say that the impact has doubled”. So which is it doubled or increased by 63%? My maths aren’t great but I can see when yours are totally wrong. Surely if the original figure was £3.8m, then doubled figure would be £7.6m.

    Given your failure to understand basic mathematics, I don’t find it difficult to notice that you also don’t understand my answer to your original question about the different figures in the retail impact reports. So try again.
    Firstly, the new retail assesment of impact on North and East St is not twice that of the previous. At £6.1m against £3.8m is not twice as much, it is a little over a third.
    I think the new retail assessment includes up to date information from the SBRS on retail turnovers, where as the previous application used figures available from I believe 2007.
    The population forecasts have also been revised, which would have given a population increase in the locality of 4,000 higher in the first report, so turnover would obviously be lower than previously expected, or forcast.
    I think that Park Furnishers were not included in the first calculations but are now, which would include trade transfer from them and not before.
    These might be the reason the estimates are differing from the first. They might not be the answers you wanted but they are mine and it’s quite understandable that figures might have changed over time.
    Isn’t it funny that a report that seems to aid your argument, is grasped by all and sundry in the opposing camps. Yet it fails to say there will be shop closures, it says it could not will result in closures. It also does not say that there will be a significant affect on the retail ares, a statement that is required to refuse a development such as this.

  35. Richard Lane permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:08 am

    Raynes Roader
    You know absolutely nothing about me, yet make assumptions on my character. I do not think as you claim.
    You make claims about what I’ve supposed to have said and never back this up with proof when challenged.
    If you really have digested my posts, you might remember about the family and friends I have living in the area, or that I have lived there. About the socialising I do there about the shopping I do there, the banking and business I carry out there.
    I want and believe the area will continue to thrive, purely because of it’s variety and location to a large walkable population.

    Ps, When are you ever going to address any of the points I raised and retract the incorrect statements you have made about me?

  36. Richard Lane permalink
    February 20, 2011 12:39 am

    Raynes Roader
    One final point before you retract your incorrecst statements about me. You say “I appreciate you’re doing all you can, all you possibly can, to get a stadium, and thats touching. But as you don’t put any value on our neighbourhood, environment & surroundings, we’ll just keep pointing out inconvenient truths”. When have you ever pointed out any truths? Some of the other posters have at least tried to be honest, you want to take the credit for them. I will always be honest.

  37. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 20, 2011 9:29 am

    “f you really have digested my posts, you might remember about the family and friends I have living in the area, or that I have lived there. About the socialising I do there about the shopping I do there, the banking and business I carry out there.
    I want and believe the area will continue to thrive, purely because of it’s variety and location to a large walkable population”

    It sounds cosy – but it doesn’t correspond that you have any concern for our district, other than getting your Megastore built. Its your resolute refusal to accept any fact presented to you that isn’t pointing your own way. Being unable to accept a report that was independently commisioned Thats been your giveaway. Thats where my respect went out the window.

    Actually, re reading your latest posting I can see that there is one fact that you do regurgitate.
    And thats re walkablilty, you’re saying how walkable the existing stores & facilities are to people. A good few posts ago, someone pointed out how “walkable” the new megastore will be from North Street, and you agreed – you even suggested some people might chose to go there instead.

    The kind of behaviour that gives your game away, is your steadfast refusal even to concede that more than “a few” might walk down there when if its moved.

    I don’t believe that you have so little life experience, or have travelled no further than Bedminster, to not know how these things work.
    Its almost insulting to my intelligence – and worse still that you back it up with sentimental guff about visiting the area, and so making you an expert on what right for everyone here.
    You chose to move away, and I would not presume to lecture you on whats good for Knowle. And god knows how difficult it is for the elderly to find a pint of milk within walking distance, in many parts of it.
    And yet you still want to see that happen here!

    That proves to me, how disengaged you are with your own neighbourhoods surroundings – and that your sole interest is about getting the superstore.( sorry, I meant STADIUM, to which I am not opposed)

    I’ve none of your massaged facts and figures to draw on, just experience of visiting other places & looking at other neighbourhoods the length & breadth of the UK.

    So no apologies from Raynes Road…

    “I will always be honest”

  38. Richard Lane permalink
    February 20, 2011 11:40 am

    Raynes Roader
    Once more you have attributed someone elses comments to me: “A good few posts ago, someone pointed out how “walkable” the new megastore will be from North Street, and you agreed – you even suggested some people might chose to go there instead”.

    How many more things are you going to get wrong?
    We’ve had the claim about independent retail experts, the wrong claim about Sainsbury’s in Brislington, so many other peoples posts attributed to me, the claim about Tesco express and the newsagents, claims about not accepting the report, claims about being on here for two hours, claims of not respecting the area, claims about my character, claims that I haven’t answered a question. All of these and more are wrong, you should ask for forgiveness.

  39. Ali permalink
    February 20, 2011 10:39 pm

    Just dropped in and yes, it’s still all edifying. I particularly enjoyed the laws of maths being rewritten.

    Rich, can I ask a genuine question about location? As I’ve said I haven’t followed all the blog stuff so closely this time but I believe it to be the case that one of your many accusations at Tony Dyer is that he shouldn’t get involved because he doesn’t live here – is that right? And if it is right does it follow that we should discard any support on either side from people not living here? And finally, what is “here” (within a couple of miles of the ground / the whole of Bristol / Bristol South)?

  40. Richard Lane permalink
    February 20, 2011 11:27 pm

    Ali
    I previously held the opinion that because someone was not a resident of Bristol and as such made no financial contribution to the city, they should have no say in the city’s democratic procedures.
    Tony along with many others, were very prominent in their objection to things happening in an area they did not contribute towards by way of rates/council tax.
    Once I was informed by Tony that he had in fact been told by council officers that it was ok to influence another authorities decision making and after reading of other people from outside the city having a say in the politics of the city, I have been forced to alter my stance.
    Therefore the door is open for people from outside the city of Bristol to influence it’s decision making process on both sides.

    In truth I still find it hard to believe, that someone that does not contribute finacially to the city can have an equal say in the decisions taken in that city.

    This whole debate is being fueled by people concerned about greenbelt developments. They believe that if the stadium development goes ahead, it could set precidents for other greenbelt developments, even though a development of that type has to prove a special case. The Ashton gate development is a key provider of funding for the stadium development, and therefore it’s more than a local issue, more like a regional if not national issue pushed by the opposition.

  41. Richard Lane permalink
    February 20, 2011 11:49 pm

    Ali
    I would say that a local issue is about people that use the local facilities. Where do you draw the line?
    We have a situation where Glenn Vowles from Knowle, is helping Tess Green in policy forming decisions for Southville and South Bristol. This is the same person that said I should basically keep my nose out of things happening in Southville because I didn’t live there.

    I would just like to point out that I have not made many accusations at Tony as you claim.
    I have though on occasion responded likewise to his arrogant put downs.
    My discussions with him were of a questioning nature from the outset and turned into slights on myself from him, whereon I responded likewise.
    I wish you would sometimes take an unbiassed view of proceedings before coming out with this sort of comment and read the provocative posts aimed at me. If you take time, you will see that Tony usually responds to a post of mine, directed to other people not him.

  42. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 21, 2011 8:03 am

    Richard, you are such a victim.

    “I will always be honest”

  43. Tony Dyer permalink
    February 21, 2011 8:22 am

    Rich,

    I am not going to get into a “he started it so there….” discussion with you. I suspect we each can take our our own share of the blame for the rude comments and you gave as good as you got.

    However, you are correct that the interchanges between us have too often degenerated into exchanges of insult and slurs and detract from any discussion of the issues themselves which in this case should be regarding the pros and cons of building a superstore at Ashton Gate.

    Whoever started it, I have now decided to refrain from any additional mud-slinging and petty insults.

    On that basis….

    The applicants own retail consultants estimated that the retail impact in pecentage terms on Bedminster Town Centre of the previous application would be 2%. They estimate that the impact of the current application on Bedminster Town Centre will be 4.2%. This is more than twice the impact.

    I have not said that £6.1m is twice as much s £3.8m – it was you that introduced the actual value of the trade lost to Bedminster as a result of the impact of the new store into this thread. However, this increase to £6.1m constitutes a 63% rise in the value of the trade loss from Bedminster Town Centre compared to the previous estimate – a substantial increase. Furthermore, the £6.1m figure fails to take into account the cumulative effects referred to elsewhere in the WYG retail assessment (Appendix P, Table 10a) and which planning policy state have to be included in any assessment of impact. When these are added GVA calculate that the trade diversion increases to £7.4m, a 95% increase in the value of the trade diverted from Bedminster Town Centre.

    You asked “So which is it doubled or increased by 63%?
    To which my answer is that the impact on Bedminster Town Centre in terms of the value of the trade loss due to the new store is estimated to increase by 63% according to Sainsburys own consultants, but by 95% when the figures in their appendix are transferred to the main report. The impact in terms of the percentage of existing trade lost to the new store is estimated to more than double according to Sainsburys own consultants.

    Bedminster Town Centre is of course only part of the catchment area affected by the new store. The impact of the previous application in trade value was estimated at £4.5m in added turnover. Sainsburys own consultants now estimate that this figure will be £9.7m. This is an increase of £5.2m which constitutes a 116% increase over the previous estimate – again more than twice the impact.

    The above figures are those produced by WYG “batting for Sainsburys”. GVA “batting for nobody” have estimated that the impact in terms of the % of trade diverted away from Bedminster Town Centre will, in fact, be 7%, increasing to 8% when the effects of other store changes are included. In monetary terms they calculate that the cumulative impact in value of trade diverted from Bedminster Town Centre will add up to almost £11m per annum.

    So, to return to your question above “So which is it doubled or increased by 63%?
    To which the answer according to the report produced by the council’s own independent retail consultants, who are not “batting” for either side, is that the impact on Bedminster Town Centre in terms of the value of the trade loss will be 182% higher, whilst the impact in terms of percentage of existing trade lost to the new store will be four times higher.

    Rich also says;
    “It [the GVA Report] also does not say that there will be a significant affect on the retail areas, a statement that is required to refuse a development such as this.”

    The GVA Report says that “on the basis of the retail policy matters covered by this advice, it is our view that the negative impacts of the proposal outweigh any positive benefits which may accrue”

    It also says that it is for the council as decision maker to judge whether the negative impacts outlined are “significant” – the report itself makes no judgement either way.

    If the council determines that the negative impacts are significant, then the report says the council should refuse the application regardless of any other material planning considerations. In other words, if the council concludes that a diversion of 8% of the trade away from Bedminster Town Centre, an action which the GVA report says will result in almost no growth in Bedminster Town Centre over at least a five year period, is significant then planning policy says it should refuse planning permission.

    If the council decides that the negative impacts in regard to retail policy are not significant, the council will then have to balance both the retail policy negatives plus all the other negatives against the counterbalancing benefits and then take a decision based on that.

    I am afraid that your claim that a statement on whether the impact is significant is required in the GVA report in order to refuse a development such as this is simply wrong.

    Based on the previous two applications, I suspect that the officer’s will produce their report this week, which will include a recommendation to either approve or refuse the current application. Whatever they recommend, however, it remains a recommendation, and it will be the planning committee members who make the final decision after taking on board representations from the general public and other interested parties.

  44. harryT permalink
    February 21, 2011 8:41 am

    Rich

    Tony Dyer was born and raised in Hartcliffe.

    He only lives in Chipping Sodbury for tax reasons.

  45. February 21, 2011 1:20 pm

    Right here’s some simple algebra:

    Massive new monster hypermarket +
    Tens of thousands of extra cars a day+
    Air pollution +
    High streets clobbered+
    Council million£££ land giveaway+
    No affordable housing –
    Lansdowns tax-free millions=
    Sustainable Community set back 30years.
    =Don’t want and don’t need.

  46. Raynes Roader permalink
    February 21, 2011 4:49 pm

    “Richard Lane PERMALINK
    February 20, 2011 11:49 pm
    Ali
    I would say that a local issue is about people that use the local facilities. Where do you draw the line?”

    OTIB Dollymarie re petition
    “Posted 15 February 2011 – 09:02 PM

    Hurrah!

    Come on people, theres a bit more work to be done. Thanks to all those who signed it last weekend, and thanks to the Leeds fans, most of whom I spoke to, were only too happy to help.”

    Posted 11 October 2010 – 05:42 PM

    I picked up 355 more signatures this afternoon which will have to be officially added to the total at some point. Most of which were from local businesses who had collected signatures around their offices. Massive thanks to all of them. AND ALSO SOME PEOPLE FROM TAUNTON WHO SENT IN SEVERAL PAGES TODAY AS WELL.

    “cocobeans” OTIB

    “I have been getting my students to sign e-petition at start of ICT lessons … great lesson plan !! ”

    “TomF

    Group: Void Posts: 10,689 Joined: 10-October 03 Posted 08 October 2010 – 12:00 PM

    I shall do a mailshot on thefootballforum.net at somepoint, it has nearly 26’000 members”

    Rich, you do set yourself up, don’t you.

    God Bless you.

  47. ali permalink
    February 21, 2011 7:25 pm

    I’m not too sure what rich meant by that bit, which came in his second reply, but he did actually say that he thought it was a regional issue, not a local one, in his first reply to me so I think that’s fair enough.

    I don’t know why I caused offence with my question rich but hats off to tony for trying to stop mudslinging and namecalling: I go along with that.

  48. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    February 21, 2011 7:38 pm

    “Is this the end of the stadium dream?” asks the EP, anticipating a further rejection of Sainsburys’ plans. Thats a very interesting question. I remember the placards “No Foodstore, No Stadium” but is it really so cut and dried? I also remember the claim that without ” Southlands” the stadium project would not be viable, but this is far more significant. Would it really be feasible to have made such a public statement and then carry on? Some claim it’s to do with housing on the Green Belt, but with such fortunes to be made then why worry about a couple of million in S106 payments or the difference in selling AG for housing which would have brought no protests. Which ever way it goes, I won’t be surprised!

  49. Still Waters permalink
    February 21, 2011 9:21 pm

    Paul:

    No, I suspect you’re quite right:

    the land will have value regardless of the scheme, but (and this is a “FACT” EP style – source is available), SL really has set a budget for his new playpit.

    If a supermarket was thrown out, I’m not sure a mixed retail/housing (the best option for the community) would be financially ‘viable’ as an Enabling Development.

    Shame that something useful to the locals would be thrown aside simply because it’s ‘not enough profit’ – the millionaire businessman still wants his pound of flesh, aka the Heart of the Community.

  50. Ali permalink
    February 21, 2011 9:30 pm

    Expanding on Paul’s point above:

    a/ If BCFC is unable to sell the stadium site to the supermarket for £20m then there is (or was) at least one offer on the table for around £10m and it would not be surprising if they could sell it for housing / mixed-use for upwards of this figure if they invited tenders*.

    b/ The council have given the car park land free to BCFC and it has been widely quoted that this land was worth £5m. I would treat that figure with a touch of caution but think that around £3m is a safe claim to make.

    c/ The waived s106 obligations for the stadium are worth at least a couple of million.

    Add that up and you’re on at least 15m and probably more: it’s really unclear why the supermarket is so absolutely critical when the gap is small compared to the total cost of the project. I think that the problem the club has is that they have painted themselves into a corner and will find it difficult to admit that the supermarket was never an essential part of the jigsaw for them, just a desirable one.

    *In passing, I’ve no idea why the supermarkets would be prepared to bid so much more than others and would be interested if anyone did know – surely if the largest other offer is £10m then they could bid 11 rather than 20?

  51. Still Waters permalink
    February 21, 2011 9:43 pm

    Mr Roader;

    The fact that BCFC are recruiting signatures from football supporters far and wide, regardless of whether they even know where Bristol is on a map lead us to create the alternate petition.

    Rich’s derogatory

    “If you do your calculations properly regarding the petition numbers, you will find that there are only 144 signatures from the Bedminster and Southville wards. That’s less than one and a half percent. 1.5% of the population of some 23,000 people in the closest areas.”

    ..holds no water (Pond Life either) when compared to the fact that 86% (random) of the pro-green petition are IN BRISTOL WARDS. That’s pretty local, according to Rich himself.

    And the effective (random sampling) of the pro-stadium still stands at 4.5% of BRISTOL WARDS.

    Rich, where do you want to draw the line? Leeds? Leicester? Scunny?

  52. Deano permalink
    February 21, 2011 10:57 pm

    Rich doesn’t know where to draw the line because he doesn’t care about anybody but himself. This is his latest post on OTIB;

    This is what the stop Sainsbury’s group are planning.

    Home

    Wed 2nd March – we need your support

    Stroll against Sainsbury’s
    Show your opposition to the proposed Sainsbury’s superstore

    •Or just turn up at the Council house at 5.30pm
    You do not have to stay for the meeting at 6pm if you don’t want but we promise you that like last time it will be a cliffhanger

    Bring placards and posters to show your support for local shops and opposition to more traffic.
    This is not a march – we will be using the pavements until we reach the Council House.

    Expect some other surprises.
    Last time we had George Ferguson, his daughter and Charlie Bolton heckling the councillors from alternating positions in the chamber. And Tony Dyer as an Independent (ha ha) business consultant specialising in the retail industry. He’d obviously taken his green hat off for this appearance.

    Why did you post this on OTIB Richard?

    Why did you post this on a forum where several people recently expressed the view that a rival football fan who was punched dozens of times and fell down some stone steps got what he deserved?

    Why did you post the details of the event including the place and time, where people are going to meet who are opposed to something that many City fans feel very strongly about?

    If anything happens at that event Richard, if anybody gets hurt, will you care?

  53. Richard Lane permalink
    February 21, 2011 10:58 pm

    Tony

    I hope we now remain civil.

    Your fourth paragraph refers to the previous and present applications. You asked why the impacts were different, I replied that I thought it was because the figures used in assessing the first projection were taken from the available information, which was the SBRS dated 2007. There were also other factors, like the inclusion of Park Furnishers turnover and the lower than first projected population figures. This along with a recession, will have lowered the actul figures they worked with for the existing retail centres in the original application.
    The new assessment uses the upto date information from the SBRS.
    You keep making comparisons to the previous application. Obviously these are irrelivant now, though I think you bring them up as a way of saying that you can’t trust the new figures because they are different from the first ones. Even though the core information appears to have changed.
    This comparison must also be likewise with any report, if it differs from a previous one, somewhat like the new GVA report.
    The figures are there for the council officers to decide and reccommend either way.

    Of course the councillors will then be called upon to assess the overall benefits against any negatives, so this is not just assessing the retail impacts alone.
    Let’s hope they take their position seriously this time and don’t shirk responsibility by abstaining.
    As I remember, one person (the chair) was concerned enough to question the officers on the retail impact and many other things. One councillor was concerned about the traffic increase, even though it’s a redirection of existing traffic and not an overall increase. One councillor was concerned about the width of pavements and whether a bomb could be planted under the building. One was interested in providing better busses and staff transport. And two councillors abstained, not really a lot of emphasis on the retail impacts. Will it be different this time?
    Rich

  54. Richard Lane permalink
    February 21, 2011 11:44 pm

    Ali
    I don’t think you caused offence, I get tired of people make judgements about me and giving me loaded questions. Yours seemed loaded and obviously Raynes Roader thinks so also.
    As for the value of Ashton Gate, it is I believe somewhere in the region of £4-5m for a housing development, including the car park which the club already own the lease, for 80 odd years.
    As to why they would be willing to pay so much. I think it is because no other site is available with a catchment area like there is, which already has large buildings creating a footprint big enough to cater for their rquirements.

    Raynes Roader
    I think you’ll find that I said, anyone that uses the local facilities can have a say. That would include anyone that travels to Bristol and uses the stadium and the local amenities as well.

    Still Waters
    Are you offended by a lttle tongue in cheek name? Richybabe ring a bell?
    As for your random sampling, try another page, less than 50 percent of the signatures for a green are in Bristol wards, if you bother to count them. Many as I’ve said are from south Glos and North Somerset, lot’s also have no area noted, which means they are not in Bristol. It seems you have only taken a random sample of people in favour of the green that actually said they were from Bristol and ommitted the others in your very flawed sample.

    Deano
    Why shouldn’t I put that notice on the site?
    It’s on the internet and anyone can access it. I’m not inciting anything or anyone, just informing people of the situation. You have a very low opinion of people, especially football supporters. How many posts are not about fighting? most of the posters in that debate were against that type of person you refer to. Many posts on the site are about charity events and fundraising, but you don’t want to spoil a stereotypical oppinion of football fans do you? Charlie Bolton and Tony Dyer are football fans, are they going to throw bottles at the meeting? How many objectors have been attacked or had their premises vandalised so far?
    Remember there have been posters displayed in windows, four planning meetings, one public meeting, a public march and a public debate about the green. Not one incident has occured against the objectors that I know of, or has been reported.

  55. bobS permalink
    February 22, 2011 8:46 am

    Actually Rich, one of your compadres put a brick through a window of one of the TVG supporters early Sunday morning.

    Its about the 6th event that has been reported to the police.

Comments are closed.