Here is the text of a letter I have sent today to Pendle Planning Department. 

PROPOSED SUPERMARKET DEVELOPMENT AT BUTTS, BARNOLDSWICK

I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed redevelopment of the Carlson Filtration site in Butts, Barnoldswick on the following grounds.  

TRAFFIC

There will be a massive increase in traffic movement in the area, both heavy service vehicles and private cars.  All these movements will have to use already restricted streets in the centre of town or private residential roads and with the exception of the Harper Street/Butts route (residential) will have to use very narrow roads for access. 

SIZE

At over 30,000 square feet, the proposed building is totally out of scale with the surrounding area because this will not be a traditional building.  Add to this the car park and associated works which can only make matters worse. 

USE

Barnoldswick does not need another 30,000 square feet of retail space.  The town is not a natural or easy destination and any arguments that it will ‘bring people into the town’ are spurious.  A far better use for the site would be affordable town housing for which there is a ready demand in Barnoldswick because the town is well placed for commuters and has some character. 

EFFECT ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

In addition to the necessary purchase and demolition of properties to improve access, the imposition of a development of this size and type in the middle of a traditionally built town next to a conservation area would be completely out of scale and character.   

EFFECT ON TOWN CENTRE TRADE

This proposed development would damage the town’s greatest asset, that it is a compact traditional northern town with a relatively prosperous array of privately owned shops.  Any argument that the development would generate more traffic in the town and therefore benefit the small shops is quite obviously ridiculous.   

ECONOMIC EFFECT SUPERMARKET VERSUS HOUSING

If a proper cost/benefit exercise was to be done on the relative merits of a supermarket versus more housing, experience teaches that in terms of cash flows into and out of the town, a supermarket would take out far more than it put in.  Housing on the other hand, if well controlled, stimulates local tax revenues, increases spend in local shops and businesses and is an asset to the town and its built environment.  This does not take account of the hidden costs of greater traffic flows in the town centre and residential areas. 

CONCLUSION

The only good thing that could be said about this proposal is that it would stimulate the Cooperative store into greater competition but this is not a valid planning criterion.  Beware of arguments that it would create jobs.  Set against any such claims the reduction in jobs at existing outlets and private businesses as they fight for survival and the loss of jobs at Carlson’s.  Recognise that empty retail premises in the town centre are the start of urban decline.  This is a development too far and should not be allowed to even reach the planning stage.  The only factor which is driving it is profit for Carlson’s and the developers none of which will benefit the local economy. 

One last thought.  The Westfield site was developed for housing and is a tidy and useful addition to the town’s housing stock.  In terms of access it was a far better site for a supermarket than the Butts site but this was never considered.  The same reasoning on use of brownfield sites and impact on surroundings should be applied to the Butts site. 

SCG/31 January 2008 

 I also made a couple of calls.  Harris Moss were quite surprised to hear that anyone was thinking of demolishing their premises.....  Mr Goodier at the Cooperative Estates dept. was quite interested as well.....  More ways of killing a cat than chasing it to death.....


Stanley Challenger Graham




Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk