| Author |
 Topic  |
|
panbiker
|
 Posted -
28/01/2008
:
17:33
|
According to this weeks BET, there is a proposal by Maple Grove Developments (Preston) to create a Supermarket and Car Parking for 275 cars on the current Carlson Filtration site at Butts. Apparently, plans are already underway to create a new food store and car park. The plans are at an early stage and rest on obtaining planning permission and a successful re-location of the Carlson Filtration operations.
You can read the article in the Barnoldswick and Earby Times (BET) and comment on the article here:
www.pendletoday.co.uk
The development company is holding an exhibition of the proposed plans on
Wednesday 30th Jan 2008 at the Rainhall Centre from 2.30pm to 7.30pm.
Good or bad idea, discuss..
Edited by - panbiker on 28/01/2008 17:45:05
Ian
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Pablo
New Member
13 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 04:20
Jobs may be created by the proposed new supermarket, but, will the supermarket employ the shopkeepers they put out of business. Two small town centre butchers would fall by the way side, our local bakers would end up cast aside and as for our greengrocers........
Totally against the idea.
Support local business not the multi-nationals i say.
Regards,
Paul
Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.......  |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 06:55
Not too sure about that Paul. The small butchers, greengrocers and bakers have survived so far because they are giving a better service cheaper than the supermarkets. I don't see that changing. It's not the foot customers that switch loyalties but the car owners. That's the key. I won't walk three times as far just to experience a new supermarket. I agree about the profits going out of the town, an old gripe of mine.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Ashlar
New Member
12 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 10:49
=====
The small butchers, greengrocers and bakers have survived so far because they are giving a better service cheaper than the supermarkets. I don't see that changing.
========
With the greatest respect I disagree there, you only have to look at other towns to see the evidence, I think maybe your a bit optimistic. The co-op isn't a threat coz its not very good but if you got a booths or tesco's with everything under one roof then people would be tempted to make just one car trip and do it all in one go, at least thats my guess.
|
Ashlar
New Member
12 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 17:14
Well I havent had chance to see the plans but somebody just rang me and said it looks like they're going to knock the Comic down and also Harrison Moss and put a roundabout in.
Over my dead body. |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 17:54
Sounds a bit extreme, I can't see anyone getting away with that.......
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
panbiker
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 20:24
I have just been to see the exhibition of the proposals at the Rainhall Centre. What I saw has reinforced my view that this is a totally bad idea and if there is any sense in the planning department it should fall at the first hurdle.
The plan is for a two storey building offering 2322 SqM for food and 464 SqM for non food items. The access to the site will be via the existing Butts access which will be widened at the top at the junction with Church Street to accommodate a new roundabout. To accomplish this, part of the Barlick (Commercial) pub will be knocked down along with the demolition and removal of the present Harris Moss Estate Agents shop and adjacent cottage. This would create room for the roundabout but entrance and exit to and from the new store would still be via the narrow Butts Lane or via Harper street (residential) and the other end of Butts past Briggs and Duxbury's.
The plan shows the service entrance to the site using the existing entrance off Monkroyd on the right past Paddock Laithe. This would mean service traffic would either have to approach over the Monkroyd residential estate or via Walmsgate and Calf Hall Road, again residential areas. The development is to the immediate rear of Walmsgate which is a designated conservation area.
The proposed store would be built adjacent to the end of Taylor Street the car parking facilities for customers, staff and service yard occupy the rest of the footprint and extend along the entire length of the rear of Calf Hall Road the rear of Walmsgate and the side of the Clinic.
In my view this is a totally inappropriate proposal on a number of points:
Impact on the existing character of the area.
Not in keeping with the surroundings.
Traffic safety issues through residential areas.
Impact of introducing a roundabout on Church Street.
Detrimental to existing traders in town.
If Carlson Filtration can be re-located, the site would lend itself much better to affordable housing, this would be far preferable to a multi retail sales outlet and would be totally in line with brown field redevelopment and the existing residential nature of the bordering areas.
Apparently the developers have looked at this option but prefer the supermarket option as there is more profit to be made with this proposal.
Edited by - panbiker on 30/01/2008 20:26:17
Ian |
Doc
Keeper of the Scrolls
2010 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 20:36
Putting housing on the site would be more beneficial to the town - More Houses = More People = More Business for existing shop keepers. But like you say Ian, theres not as much profit in it for the developers.
Some how, i don't think we have heard the last of this.
TTFN - Doc
Due to the current economic climate, the light at the end of the tunnel has now been switched off.
Click here to make a donation and help support this site and keep it advert free 
|
Anni
Regular Member
634 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 22:08
Sorry, can I just confirm this is the Butts at Barlick - those really old cottages and I think a "working man's club" close by?
I don't know whether my memory is playing tricks, but even knocking down some buildings at the top, the road isn't wide enough to take any heavy traffic. I don't think it can really take two-way comfortably can it?
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 22:10
That's the one, Anni.....
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 22:46
I also went to see the plans and I echo Panini's thoughts entirely.
In fact, the first thing that struck me was that affordable housing would be a much better solution all round. As Doc says, more people would help the existing local businesses, as well as raising money for the borough through council tax.
Carlson need to sell in order to raise money for new premises. Assuming that they can't get a grant to develop the existing site, (have they even asked?) that means flogging off the land they own.
I asked which supermarket these plans were for. The guy had to admit there wasn't one yet - these are simply proposals so that Carlson can approach one of the big boys when planning permission is granted.
I asked him whether the Comic was being demolished. He said No. It would seem he fibbed. He referred to a couple of old cottages which would be knocked down and rebuilt.
The plans show a pavement on both sides of Butts. Funny - there isn't room for them now so how will this be achieved, I wonder...?
He was adamant that by keeping people in the town they would use local shops more. How does that work? If you've bought all your meat, veg, clothes, pots and pans, etc and loaded them into your car, why would you then go off and potter round the local shops? The ordinary shops will have closed down and been replaced by daft ones like you get in Barrowford. These are usually short-lived because their goods are too expensive for ordinary folk.
I asked a councillor why housing hadn't been proposed, and whether they were for or against the plans. This councillor said the government would not allow housing on brownfield sites and that the borough was being forced to provide retail facilities within walking distance of the population, and he/she couldn't say whether they were for/against the plans in case they had to sit on the planning committee - they would have to be seen as totally impartial.
The above seems like a load of codswallop to me, and I can only assume I've misunderstood what he/she said. I invite him/her to set the record straight and I apologise if I got it wrong. I've avoided identifying said person because I'm not sure of my facts and if I am wrong, I don't want anyone to mistakenly associate the councillor with these statements
I couldn't resist sitting in on the Town Council meeting to see what was discussed. Big Do's and little Do's, they simply decided at this stage to find out what Barlickers want at the annual meeting in March, which I suppose is fair enough. Having said that, the Town Council wouldn't really have much say in the matter - it's a Pendle Borough issue.
E thought it quite amusing to watch the guy from the development company blushing furiously while I asked my questions. Either he was totally besotted with me (well, I do cut rather a dashing figure in my cagoule and several layers of jumpers) or he was being economical with the truth. I tend to think it was the latter. I do enjoy being terribly forthright sometimes - I didn't know him personally so I felt no need to be ultra polite.
In fact, my parting shot was - as I pointed at the plans - "That's rubbish, that is..." |
panbiker
|
Posted - 30/01/2008 : 23:50
The Town Council will not have the final say in the matter as you say Cally, it's down to the planning department at Pendle. However if the Town Councillors are doing their job right they should listen to public opinion and direct canvassing from members of the public and take that view forward to Pendle. After all, some members of the TC are also Borough Councillors and they are supposed to be serving us not burying their heads in the sand. Won't hurt to turn the pressure up at both levels if anyone thinks fit.
With regard to the comment from the councillor who said the Government won't allow housing development on brownfield sites. When are they going to knock down the executive houses that have just been built on the former Dermides site? Or even the new houses in Salterforth on the back lane where the garage and engineering shop used to be. Either the councillor does'nt know the rules or he/she is using it as an excuse to fob off the electorate.
As I understand it, current policy is to restrict housing redevelopment to brownfield wherever possible instead of gobbling up virgin greenbelt land in ribbon development. Of course some former industrial sites are highly polluted and would cost a fortune to clean up prior to building on. If the Butts site is suitable for building a food outlet on, what is wrong with houses, apart from the profit margin for the developer. The current plan is not for the benefit of the town, that's for sure.
I will wait to see which way our town and borough councillors jump on this and vote accordingly at the next opportunity.
Ian |
Another
Traycle Mine Overseer
6250 Posts
|
|
Posted - 31/01/2008 : 05:05
Council development policy flew out of the window as far as Booths in Barrowford was concerned. The original application was refused on the grounds that the location did not fit the policy of developing commercial outlets in Pendle such as supermarkets to areas of Nelson but in particular the North Valley development area in Colne. An eminently sensible policy.
But whilst the policy remains the councillors and oficers have ignored it and agreed the Barrowford location.
My understanding is that if they abide by the policy in the instance of the Butts proposal then it should be refused.........ha, ha.
As for housing development on brownfield sites(now I hate to say this and its totally out of character but....) look at what Blackburn have acheived in terms of developing reasonable housing on "inner city" former industrial sites. OK the developments are not everyone's cup of tea but they are using availble land and the houses seem to sell.
The opposite unfortuantely can be said of Burnley where they have allowed development in the Ightenhill Park area to create one of the biggest least easily accessible, green field robbing housing developments that I know of.
Nolic
" I'm a self made man who worships his creator"  |
HerbSG
|
Posted - 31/01/2008 : 05:12
As a past resident of the "Butts", albeit in the early 40's before we moved to King St., I thought I would throw in my tuppence. We lived at the bottom of the hill on the left in a smallish cottage, I remember a family of Parkers that lived in a cottage at the bottom that was between the entrance to the "fairgrounds" and the entrance to an industrial site. We always enjoyed the fairs that were held down there. The area would seem like an ideal location for development, BUT of what kind? To destroy the centrre of town to allow entrance to a traffic nightmare, which this would seem to be if this was to be the only access is ridiculous. Developers be damned, let the council show some guts, restrict the Butts to residential development, encourage the developers to locate in another area even if it means trading density rights etc., or more gutsy restrict the size of retail development in keeping with the nature of the town. However if a majority of folks want bigger stores let council direct development to the right area rather than have developers directing council to their choice. Cheers.
HERB
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 31/01/2008 : 09:02
This councillor said the government would not allow housing on brownfield sites and that the borough was being forced to provide retail facilities within walking distance of the population,
If the government won't allow housing on brownfield sites why are there applications for housing on the Coates Wharf site and opposite at the Hope Technology site? I reckon they're making it up as they go along. Surely the land at Long In would be a better location for a retail outlet if there really was a need for one.
The site at Butts is a nightmare for Carlesons I can't see how demolition, at the top of Butts, and a roundabout is going to make for easier access to a supermarket. Will the surrounding infrastructure cope with increased traffic?
Edited by - Big Kev on 31/01/2008 09:05:10
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 31/01/2008 : 09:48
I couldn't get to see the plans and thanks to those of you who did and posted. My own view is that I want this proposal to be nipped in the bud and thus force Carlsons and the Council into a rethink. Maple Grove Developments have a website and that is one obvious route for mail. The person at Pendle Planning who is dealing with this is Katherine Hughes and the address is Planning, Nelson Town Hall, Market Street, Nelson BB9 7LG. Email to planning@pendle.gov.uk addressed for her attention will reach her. I shall mail her initially but follow that up with a detailed comment. The written word carries more weight than an email. Emails can get lost but once a letter is received it is logged and has to go on the file. I shall also be sending a letter to BET.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Trouble at' Mill - Proposed Butts Supermarket
