 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge
|
I read in The Advertiser that Tesco have had the extension approved.Thanks for the second bridge and the makeover of the Transhipment warehouse.I reckon some palms have been greased along the way 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Location: Whaley Bridge
|
Bridge's don't make profits, especially when it comes to favourisation of companies in competition outside of Tesco which would have been the main purpose for the development plans afterall anyway.
But a expansion of the Store allows the continuing globalisation of Tesco to carry on, if they were objected the Tesco Elites would have simply refused to fund any projects towards the community. Effectively morally holding a gun towards the elected officials we've held in Power. This is giving those in Tesco unelected rights to say what can or can't happen in our community and its disgusting how this is being allowed to happen with the wool being covered across our eyes. But aslong as they keep lowering the prices for expense of community jobs they promised, who cares, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: whaley bridge
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Got a political leaflet through the door today which claims that United Utilities thwarted the bridge by demanding £1,000,000 for some land they own on the path of the bridge. I assume this is a bit of waste land on the south bank opposite Tescos. Now I dont know much about land value, but unless UU were relocating a whole water treatment plant to let the bridge throught that land can't be worth more than £10,000. Don't councils have Compulsory Purchase powers when it comes to building essential road schemes and the like? Is Doctor Evil working for United Utilities now? or is this just an exagerration to cover up the council caving in to Tesco's? Edited by user 18 February 2011 17:52:12(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Green_Gentleman wrote:
Bridge's don't make profits, especially when it comes to favourisation of companies in competition outside of Tesco which would have been the main purpose for the development plans afterall anyway.
But a expansion of the Store allows the continuing globalisation of Tesco to carry on, if they were objected the Tesco Elites would have simply refused to fund any projects towards the community. Effectively morally holding a gun towards the elected officials we've held in Power. This is giving those in Tesco unelected rights to say what can or can't happen in our community and its disgusting how this is being allowed to happen with the wool being covered across our eyes. But aslong as they keep lowering the prices for expense of community jobs they promised, who cares, right?
Quite difficult to pick your way through that one but I think I’ve got the gist.
You know people come on here with little or no knowledge of Planning and certainly no knowledge of Case Law which applies in lots of different circumstances to various applications and how they are eventually determined.
Before saying: “Bridges don’t make profits” I would suggest that they most certainly do. Well to some anyway and vast profits at that.
I would advise you to do a little research on the judgement in the Stokes v Cambridge 1961 which is still used on a regular basis by the Courts of this Land and is applied within new judgements.
Do a bit of research and then come back and tell me that bridges don’t make profits.
It will be, no doubt, as puzzling as coming to grips with the fact that the owners of the road known as Old Road, Whaley Bridge are entitled to limit access as they see fit.
R. S-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: whaley bridge
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Thank you for that Mr Stephenson-Smyth, I am now fully up to speed on all the case law on compusory purchase and land valuation!
My thought now is that United Utilities might have claimed their share of the increase in value to Tescos, or perhaps the development value of their land if they ever got a chance to do something with it.
So was it Tesco's that would benefit from the bridge as it was a planning requirement, or the people who live in Whaley Bridge and who would avoid competing with heavy traffic on Canal Street?
Would it make a difference if the highways agency were building the bridge rather than Tesco's or HPBC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
A very good evening to you, Mrs. Flannel,
Compulsory purchase and to some degree land valuation are not the issues here.
Mr Green Gentleman brought up the issue of ‘Bridges don’t make profits’.
I will, of course, give you a more comprehensive answer when the Green Gentleman has explained his statement to us.
R. S-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Location: Whaley Bridge
|
Yes I forgot about the infamous Skye Bridge which was built by a private contractor and so is still (I believe) the UKs only toll-bridge independent outside the state-owned bridges, not that I'm for one minute suggesting the planned bridge would have been a toll bridge. But if you look at the preparedness for the Skye Bridge you'd see that infastructure was purposely designed to fail so as to persuade the residents of the island to agree to the planning permission, they had no idea that funding was in-part towards the privatisation and were being led-on by both the council and company. Both of which it turned out were responsible for the ferry service routinely breaking-down and being unreliable so to favour the building of the toll bridge. When the bridge was eventually built residents found not only were the prices double what was initially promised, but they were increased further and no promise of residential fee's.
This is one example of how Privatisation ruined a local economy by false legislation with not only the approval of the council, but sabotage of reliant services the residents relied on in order to pass favouritism to pass the bridge in the first place. I fear we have also been taken for a ride in a similar way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 16/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: Hazel Grove
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Sorry, but which community jobs are being lost because of Tesco's?
I don't claim to be their biggest fan, but if anything, Tesco's have improved the immediate job prospects for the Whaley Bridge.public. Indeed I can name at least half a dozen staff members who have been employed since suffering redundancy elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge
|
I went over Skye Bridge about 5 years ago and there was no fee.I may be wrong but I think the residents of Skye waged war on the bridge and got the fees taken away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: whaley bridge
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Sorry RSS, but it is Mr Flannel. My post earlier was about the claim in a leaflet through my door which says the bridge was stopped by UU demanding £1M for some land they owned on the route, which is why I am talking about land valuation. If this is true it is United Utilities that have stopped the bridge being built, not Tesco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Location: Whaley Bridge
|
Sorry, but which community jobs are being lost because of Tesco's?
I don't claim to be their biggest fan, but if anything, Tesco's have improved the immediate job prospects for the Whaley Bridge.public. Indeed I can name at least half a dozen staff members who have been employed since suffering redundancy elsewhere.
And I wonder why they suffered redundancy elsewhere having to compete against the Marketing brand Tesco has to offer. Lets face facts, we all know temporary vacancies at Tesco is hardly a justified cause to say they are offering a valuable "service to the community." Especially considering the till operating staff will soon be out of a job in favor of the self-service tills coming soon. Not only will there be more stock to chose from in the future, but less people for Tesco to pay (more profits) as a result. In the meantime as you pointed out the same people who have been made redundant are now out of a job at Tesco and everywhere else, then what..
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 09/04/2009(UTC) Posts: 515 ![Man]( "Man") Location: "In a primitive area and on a steep hill" Was thanked: 6 time(s) in 4 post(s)
|
Tesco are successful because they meet the needs of their customers. They also have a team of highly trained and experienced professionals whose job it is to deal with planning issues. Most council planning committees will have to deal with Tesco once. The Tesco team deal with council planning committees all of the time. Guess who is going to win. Edited by user 19 February 2011 01:44:01(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Green_Gentleman wrote:
Yes I forgot about the infamous Skye Bridge which was built by a private contractor and so is still (I believe) the UKs only toll-bridge independent outside the state-owned bridges, not that I'm for one minute suggesting the planned bridge would have been a toll bridge. But if you look at the preparedness for the Skye Bridge you'd see that infastructure was purposely designed to fail so as to persuade the residents of the island to agree to the planning permission, they had no idea that funding was in-part towards the privatisation and were being led-on by both the council and company. Both of which it turned out were responsible for the ferry service routinely breaking-down and being unreliable so to favour the building of the toll bridge. When the bridge was eventually built residents found not only were the prices double what was initially promised, but they were increased further and no promise of residential fee's.
This is one example of how Privatisation ruined a local economy by false legislation with not only the approval of the council, but sabotage of reliant services the residents relied on in order to pass favouritism to pass the bridge in the first place. I fear we have also been taken for a ride in a similar way.
At no time have I mentioned a Toll Bridge.
Mr Flannel is getting there far more quickly than you. Praise be to him at least.
Why do you not answer the question I put to you?
You said: “Bridges don’t make profits”. I say they certainly can do and usually do so.
Take half an hour to read my reply to you and then come back with something half way sensible
R. S-S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 05/05/2009(UTC)
Posts: 314
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
I have just been reading through this thread and to me there seems to be a number of "red herrings".
What are we trying to achieve here?
Why do we want a second bridge a second? Is it to take heavy traffic away from Canal St. etc. If so who is to pay for it? Who will own it? Who gets the benefit?
george
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 16/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: Hazel Grove
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Nope.
Searched everywhere and still can't find an answer to my question.
The Self Service Tills are a speedy alternative rather than a threat to the existing staff.
I remember the local sandwich shop lobbying the Whaley public with a petition to prevent the Tesco construction. Ten years later, Whaley has three sandwich shops.
The Off Licence and Newsagents are still going strong, the chippy thrives and Whaley enjoys more Curry,Kebab and Pizza Houses than at any time before the emergence of the dreaded supermarket. The Co Op is still there and it's obviously more than mere coincidence that their service has improved considerably
The Banks and Estate Agents have suffered, but that's a national problem, rather than anything specifically related to Whaley Bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 18/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 261
Location: Whaley Bridge
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
Mr Shaw - you have made a number of very valid points. We have Tesco and it's not going away and by expanding they may stock more items or even re-instate the cafe which I know many people were fond of (having said that we now have the excellent Bella's).
It's going to happen as planning permission has been approved so let's keep our fingers crossed that it provides more jobs and offers a wider range of products
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge
|
I must say even though I started this thread,I find myself agreeing with Mr Shaw.My gripe wasn't with Tesco personally,just the fact that all the projects have gone pearshaped which is a real shame,they would have had such a positive effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 16/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: Hazel Grove
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge
|
Why do you disagree.The Transhipment warehouse project would have brought more people benefitting local trade.The bridge would stop the carnage on canal street everyday with huge artics trying to get down.How could you disagree with that,or are you just being a little minx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
