Scottish Power Site Re-development 3 - supermarket + housing

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Sep 2010, 10:53

I was against the Superstore but mindful that along in Musselburgh they have substantial Tesco roughly the same distance from their High Street and in retail terms Musselburgh High Street is still strong. Rental values are at least twice what they are in Porty.

I am surprised the BL and PM place so much value on how PCC may vote. Why is that?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Sep 2010, 11:19

seanie wrote: But Portobello Community Council and very vocal people within it strongly oppose the application, principally on the grounds that the buildings are too high, density is too high, and it will generate traffic problems. They submit multiple objections and are assisted by our local Liberal Democrat Councillor who exercises his right to speak before the Planning Committee and delivers a 40 minute denunciation of the scheme.

On a split vote the committee rejects the application.

Welcome Jeemy.

The wheel now seems to have turned from no supermarket to a mixed development that will include the largest retail space in Portobello, which will be occupied by a supermarket chain. As Seanie says this is now the only offer on the table.

It is somewhat ironic that the vocal people Seanie refers to and the Liberal Democrat Councillor have been instrumental in creating this outcome, given that they were the people at the core of the anti-superstore campaign group; PCATS= Portobello Campaign Against The Superstore. The objections to the NWPDP, which was approved by the planners, have led to this.

PCATS have inadvertently converted to campaigning FOR a supermarket and in another twist of irony, based solely on our poll, they seem to have caught the mood of the community for a second time.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2010, 13:06

Porty wrote:I am surprised the BL and PM place so much value on how PCC may vote. Why is that?

Because that's what swayed the Planning Committee last time?

The planners recommended approval, and in fairly clear cut terms. They though the proposal was fine.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Sep 2010, 13:58

seanie wrote:Because that's what swayed the Planning Committee last time?

Really? Were the entire PCC against the plan and did their representation reflect the range of views expressed.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2010, 14:11

I'm not sure. I made some comments in support at PCC meetings, and made more than one personal representation to that effect, but of those who expressed a view the mood was clearly against the application. Whether that reflected everyone elses opinion I don't know.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 07 Sep 2010, 15:34

Let me clarify. We attended at PCC meetings many, many times in the lead up to the previous application. We took on board comments and made alterations to the design to suit. At the final meeting at which people were invited to come forward, view drawings and CGIs and discuss the proposals we were left with the very clear impression that the vast majority of the people in the room were happy with the proposals. That was followed by a lengthy letter of objection from PCC berating many aspects of the scheme. At committee Councillor Hawkins read a 40 minute statement which he confirmed was on behalf of PCC denigrating the proposal. The committee members will have assumed that a statement from PCC reflects the views of the wider community which it purports to represent.
I cannot risk the same thing happening again.
On a more general note if there are any questions that people want answered or points clarified then post them and I will respond.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2010, 15:49

There is a problem with how the PCC deals with such presentations. They decided some time ago to ask presentees to leave before the actual discussion took place. People felt more comfortable with that arrangement.

But firstly it means the presentees don't actually get their own impression of the issues people have and the balance of opinion.

And secondly they're not around to provide further clarification or correct any misunderstandings that arise.

At our last meeitng there were all kinds of questions that arose during our discussion that would of been invaluable to clarify there and then. But Phil had already left.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 07 Sep 2010, 16:51

seanie wrote:There is a problem with how the PCC deals with such presentations. They decided some time ago to ask presentees to leave before the actual discussion took place. People felt more comfortable with that arrangement.

But firstly it means the presentees don't actually get their own impression of the issues people have and the balance of opinion.

And secondly they're not around to provide further clarification or correct any misunderstandings that arise.

At our last meeitng there were all kinds of questions that arose during our discussion that would of been invaluable to clarify there and then. But Phil had already left.

Why not ask Phil to step outside for 10 minutes, draw up a list of points raised and ask him back in to answer them?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Sep 2010, 18:42

Welcome to the forum Phil. It's good that you are engaging with the community in this manner, if somewhat belatedly, and I trust that we have heard the last of 'the good guy', in which case I'm happy to drop it.

Here is a hypothetical situation. What if the CC were to suggest that they were unable to support the latest proposals because they were still concerned about the effect that a supermarket of this size would have on existing High Street traders and offered instead some sort of compromise? Let's say a smaller convenience store and however more flats it would take to compensate. And in return? A guarantee that the CC, PCATS and PAS would fully support it.

I repeat, it's hypothetical, but could such a deal be struck?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2010, 20:22

That takes us back to the previous scheme already rejected.

The only way of resurrecting that is through appeal. That in itself is expensive, the council will defend its rejection, all the objections are a matter of record, and what are the chances of the principal actors switching from their previous opposition and "fully supporting" the scheme they so vehemently opposed?

The risk, coupled with the cost, is still significant even with a good case.

Post by **wangi** » 07 Sep 2010, 21:44

admin: 6 posts regarding Portobello Community Council have been split off to the Portobello Community Council thread to try and keep this one on-topic. Thanks.

And just what are the shopping habits of people here in Portobello? Share yours on the Your shopping habits thread.

L/

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 07 Sep 2010, 22:37

Thanks for your welcome, Bob. Not worked out yet how to use the quotes feature but this is in response to your hypothetical question.
My difficulty is that the committee rejected the previous application principally because of height and density. Any re-application has to address the reasons for refusal and be materially different. If I only make a half hearted attempt at that I risk the committee saying "we told you it was too high and too dense and you have ignored us".
On the retail side I have to incorporate something that creates value. That means I have to meet the requirements of the operators. A convenience store has little value. I can't say to Waitrose you can have let's say 2000sf. They will say sorry we only do X size of store in this location with this demographic profile. We want to be able to do home delivery. We need 6 spaces for home delivery vans. We need Y parking spaces for customers. Give us that and we will pay premium value. Otherwise go away.
So I am stuck between a rock and a hard place!
However bear in mind there will have to be a Retail Impact Assessment and it will judge the impact on existing retailers and on traffic. You will see that. You can comment on it. If it is adverse and the planners don't like it they will recommend refusal.
I personally don't buy the impact on the High Street argument. I suspect those who use the good shops in Portobello also already use a supermarket somewhere. Putting a Waitrose down the road will not stop them shopping in the good High Street shops. And an "anchor" like Waitrose will attract other quality retailers into Portobello. They might put the poorer shops out of business. But it will raise the overall quality of what is available. Surely that sort of competition is a good thing.
I don't want to be appearing to say "take it or leave it". But the previous refusal has severely limited the options. And I think the Waitrose is actually a positive contribution to Portobello.
On another issue I met Brian Cope of Portobello Music School today. What a fantastic operation he has created! There is huge potential for the Music School, Verden Studios and Out of the Blue Artists Studios to operate together in integrated space sharing performance space and cafe and opening out onto a piazza and the Community Garden. Very exciting!
Please just give me the chance to prove to you what can be achieved.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Sep 2010, 22:46

seanie wrote:That takes us back to the previous scheme already rejected.

No, I'm talking about a compromise between the two, a refinement, a 'third way' if you like. A retail outlet that isn't big enough to threaten the existing High Street traders and a compensatory number of extra flats to balance the books.

From a purely selfish point of view a Waitrose would be nice but I think it would be damaging to the existing traders and I don't want to lose my local butcher, fishmonger, deli etc.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 07 Sep 2010, 22:52

But because the reasons for refusal are general in nature, the only way to address them is comprehensively.

The Committee said too high. So the only absolutely safe way is to reduce heights across the board. Then the committee can't say "you've only reduced reduced half, that's not enough" . If the offical reasons for refusal are absolutely countered, then the only remaining issue is local opposition/the PCC.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 08 Sep 2010, 00:18

Will the Waitrose damage the business for Findlays and Williamsons? That is something I am not sure about. I checked out the fresh fish and butcher meat at Waitrose and our local specilaists look pretty decent in comparison.Would it bring business into Portobello, I am sure the answer would be yes.

But, if Waitrose were to find another site, say in Musselburgh, Portobello would be left only with the negative aspects. Lets face it, without the Waitrose we have a pretty poor High Street as it is and I would rarely walk past the shops we regularly use to go to Waitrose. There would however be another 550 residencies.

What we have got to remember though is, the Superstore is dead. The first BL plan is dead unless appealed. The next plan has to be significantly different or there is no point in going along with it.

The Waitrose has had nothing like the negative response a Superstore had. That must be recognised. Phil has flung the cat among the pigeons.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Sep 2010, 11:28

Phil I feel for you, it must be very frustrating. Like it or not, you are saying "take or leave it". However, it seems you have explored all of the options open to you, in a reasonable manner and you are equally bound by a "take or leave it" situtaion.

It really does appear to be stalemate. You are depending on PCC not to vehemently oppose the latest scheme but their main mouthpiece is Councillor Hawkins, who as you say, spoke for 40 minutes against the last proposal on their behalf. If he continues to represent them it seems beyond the realms of credibility he will do a volte face on a supermarket.

If the PCC were split regarding the last proposal, at least one member has stated here that they were for, it is surprising they chose Councillor Hawkins to do a presentation, given his association with the PCATS group.

What date was thiis particular sub-commitee meeting?

The PCC will presumably have to come to a decsion in their next meeting, what outcome can you work with and have you had representation from them since the Augist meeting?

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 08 Sep 2010, 19:01

Hi Porty. I have no problem with Councillor Hawkins being the mouthpiece of PCC. He is elected as a Councillor to represent the views of his constituents. If, on balance, their views are that the current proposal should be supported in principle I am sure he will reflect that. He knows that his own views are secondary to the views of his constituents.
Let me look out the date of the PCC and will post later.
What I need from the PCC is a decision on behalf of the community that they represent whether or not the current proposal is acceptable, in principle and subject to detailed design, the Traffic Impact Assessment, the Air Quality Assessment and the Retail Impact Assessment. Ideally as soon as possible so that I can report that to my funders.
I and the design team met with the planners today to update them and get their feedback. Subject to the items above they are happy with what we are proposing.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 08 Sep 2010, 20:19

Hello Phil,

Can you advise what the results of the questionaire at the exhibition were and perhaps how many people took the trouble to look at the plans and comment?

I would be interested in how that outcome correlates with the community council views. It might also assist the CC in arriving at their decision if they knew the stats from the survey.

It would also be useful to know how your proposals were received by the ECC Design Review Panel, whether you are any further forward in negotiations with Scottish Power and how things sit at the moment with the residents on Bailliefield - all things I talked to you about at the exhibition you will perhaps recall.

One of my concerns is that the more exciting architectural elements of the scheme have been watered down to such an extent that they have now become mundane in streetscape terms.

Difficulty also is that a consent for the site establishes numbers and floorspace and gives no certainty as to who will develop or occupy the site - Phil and his team's best intentions may be long forgotten when A N Other and co purchase the site who knows when...

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 08 Sep 2010, 21:11

Puerto bella wrote:Hello Phil,

Can you advise what the results of the questionaire at the exhibition were and perhaps how many people took the trouble to look at the plans and comment?

I would be interested in how that outcome correlates with the community council views. It might also assist the CC in arriving at their decision if they knew the stats from the survey.

It would also be useful to know how your proposals were received by the ECC Design Review Panel, whether you are any further forward in negotiations with Scottish Power and how things sit at the moment with the residents on Bailliefield - all things I talked to you about at the exhibition you will perhaps recall.

One of my concerns is that the more exciting architectural elements of the scheme have been watered down to such an extent that they have now become mundane in streetscape terms.

Difficulty also is that a consent for the site establishes numbers and floorspace and gives no certainty as to who will develop or occupy the site - Phil and his team's best intentions may be long forgotten when A N Other and co purchase the site who knows when...

I presented the basic results from the questionnaire at the recent PCC meeting. Once I have worked out how to do it I will post them here. Around 100 people passed through on the day and around 80 completed the questionnaire.

Our proposals were well received by the ECC Design Review Panel. In particular there was positive comment about density creating community and about the vennels.

Scottish Power - we are planning the existing proposal in a way that future proofs the ability to access and develop this important corner. But we need to see an increase in land value to make any development and replacement of the sub-station work. Our current proposals will assist in that. But until that time I cannot make that particular equation work unfortunately.

Baileyfield residents - our discussions are by their very nature sensitive and confidential and not something which either we or they would want to put in the public domain. We are following the principles of the Development brief which calls for a masterpaln which, over time, can achieve a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site while continuing to respect existing cottages in the short to medium term.

Architecture - at this stage we are focussing on the basic building layouts, heights and uses. Detailed design of elevations and roofscape follows and will be consulted upon. I have no intention of building anything mundane!

I think it is a strong positive that our consent will establish numbers, uses, heights, etc. If anyone in the future wants to change any of that they will have to go back into planning all over again. In any event the intention is to develop out at least the first phases of the development and we have our funders' backing in principle for that.

Subject of course to getting a viable planning consent......

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 08 Sep 2010, 21:29

Many thanks for the update, interesting.

Nobody sets out to build mediocre or mundane but somehow design by committee ends up taking out the best bits of a scheme in my view.

Thought for the day: Did Robert Lorimer, James Craig, Patrick Geddes have to do public consultation to the extent of that set out in the new procedures .....we have a lot to thank them for in this great city.

I can hear them now - 'public consultation - surely a busy bodies charter'?.......A topic for a dissertation for any planning or architectural students out there.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Sep 2010, 11:02

Bob Jefferson wrote:
seanie wrote:That takes us back to the previous scheme already rejected.
No, I'm talking about a compromise between the two, a refinement, a 'third way' if you like. A retail outlet that isn't big enough to threaten the existing High Street traders and a compensatory number of extra flats to balance the books.
.

That's exactly what is being proposed. If you accept what Seanie says: a Superstore was not rejected on the grounds that it would threaten high street traders. On what basis do you think an 18,000sq ft Supermarket will?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Sep 2010, 12:23

philip myerscough wrote:Hi Porty. I have no problem with Councillor Hawkins being the mouthpiece of PCC. He is elected as a Councillor to represent the views of his constituents. If, on balance, their views are that the current proposal should be supported in principle I am sure he will reflect that. He knows that his own views are secondary to the views of his constituents.
.

If I were you i would be keen to know if the Councillor was delegated to speak on behalf of PCC. They may not have asked him to represent them and even if they did; there is more than a fair chance he put forwrad his own views and not those of the entire Community Council. You should establish was the Councillor asked by PCC to speak on their behalf? If so, it should be in their minutes. If you provide the date of the PSC meeting where he made the representation, the relevant PCC minutes will provide the answer.

Seems to me that PCC are part of a critical path for your Development. Therefore it is equally critical their position is represented fully and truthfully. You say you attend PCC meetings, it seems to you that what you present goes down well. Next thing you know there is heavily critical correspondence and a Councillor denigrating the proposal on their behalf. There is a lot of money at stake here and the Councillor is in a position to hold sway. If one or more members of PCC supported your previous application, he is duty bound to mention this to the PSC when speaking on their behalf.

It is admirable you believe the Councillor will put his own views second but there is recent evidence that suggests otherwise; namely the Bellfield lane application that you may not be familiar with. The application was granted.

PCC voted 8 to 7 against, there was 15 objections from the community, including the Councillor on a personal basis, and an extraordinary 47 statements of support from the community. Given the support outweighed objections by a factor of 3 to 1. It is hard to find justification for the Councillor turning up at a PSC meeting to represent and denigrate the application on behalf of his constituents. Which he did. He apparently failed to mention the much higher level of support from his constituents. There is no record of him being asked to speak on behalf of PCC either.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 09 Sep 2010, 18:00

Porty wrote:
If the PCC were split regarding the last proposal, at least one member has stated here that they were for, it is surprising they chose Councillor Hawkins to do a presentation, given his association with the PCATS group.

What date was thiis particular sub-commitee meeting?

It was the meeting of Sept 09. See link to minutes.

http://www.porty.org.uk/council/index.p ... &year=2009

If you scroll down to the section headed "planning" you will see the actions arising. Councillor Hawkins undertook to address the DSC as ward councillor. In fact he read a lengthy statement on behalf of PCC regularly prompted with little hand written notes from Diana Cairns rushing down frequently from the public gallery. It was pure theatre but not of the best kind.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 09 Sep 2010, 20:38

Wonder what they will do this time. Many of the hip young and trendy of Porty are salivating over the thought of a Waitrose. Some of the Porty on-line seem to have sampled their wares and perhaps even shop on-line!!!

Perhaps though its ok to pop into POSH W on the way home from work through Morningside or Comely Bank, they may not fancy one in their own back yard.

Anyone for a POSH W own Thai Green Curry.

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 09 Sep 2010, 20:51

I have heard a rumour that certain people are doing the shop at Waitrose and slipping the bags into Porty Shoppers. This is an evil and feindish practice that must be stopped immediatley.

How dare they nosh into the Waitrose Free Range Foot Long Pork Sausage when I am stuck with the Scotmid Skinless.

I want a referendum and I want one now.
I want a foot long sausage and I want one now.
If I don't get a sausage I think I'll go insane.
So lets have a referendum Porty lets play the game.

philip myerscough · Post by **philip myerscough** » 09 Sep 2010, 21:13

allaboardtheskylark wrote: So lets have a referendum Porty lets play the game.

I think you already have your referendum. it's on the Supermarket on the old Scottish Power Site Poll thread

admin: link added

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2010, 21:33

Porty wrote:If you accept what Seanie says: a Superstore was not rejected on the grounds that it would threaten high street traders. On what basis do you think an 18,000sq ft Supermarket will?

Whatever the grounds for rejection, I don't think many people believe that a superstore would not have threatened High Street traders. And I believe that a supermarket of the size proposed would also have a negative effect. Local people only have so much to spend and if they are spending it in Waitrose, then they don't have it to spend in the High Street. And I don't buy into the idea that there will be a spin-off effect. That's not how supermarkets work. People arrive by car, buy their stuff and head home. And if a retail impact assessment says different, then check who is paying for it.

How many other communities still have a high street butcher, a fishmonger, a deli and a range of other independent businesses? Ask those traders how they feel about having a supermarket up the road.

Let's not get rail-roaded into supporting something that we later come to regret. Whatever is being said, there is always room for negotiation and compromise. A smaller store, a few more flats. An agreed solution that has majority support.

Post by **wangi** » 09 Sep 2010, 21:59

Bob, and what for the many people who live in Portobello and already (the dirty buggers) jump in the car to shop elsewhere? You might find Scotmid acceptable, but for many it's a last resort. In some of those cases a small supermarket they'd use in Portobello would lead to them probably shopping in Portobello more.

And wasn't it the local traders in Haddington that didn't want the town centre Tesco to close/move due to the knock-on trading it brought them?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 09 Sep 2010, 22:09

wangi wrote:And wasn't it the local traders in Haddington that didn't want the town centre Tesco to close/move due to the knock-on trading it brought them?

Yes, but on the other hand the Haddington Tesco is located in much the way the Portobello Scotmid is - behind the main street - whereas any store at the SP site will be away from the High Street so the situation is not properly comparable perhaps?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Sep 2010, 22:26

The people who currently do their 'big shop' in Asda, Morrisons, Tesco etc will continue to do so. Me, I find that Kellog's cornflakes are exactly the same wherever you buy them and I'm not going to drive elsewhere to save 2p. I know how that works. You waste an hour and a half and end up with a whole load of stuff you hadn't intended to buy. I walk to Scotmid, I meet people I know and I'm not tempted to over-buy because they don't do foodie stuff and, in any case, I then have to carry it home.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Sep 2010, 22:39

The evidence at the inquiry was that Portobello is more of a top-up shopping destination and that there was a significant outflow of expenditure (ASDA, Morrisons, Tesco, Sainsbury’s etc.) The reporter concluded that it was these out-of-town retailers who bear the main impact of the superstore. The reporter also concluded that the independent retailers in Portobello tended to serve more of a “niche” market; most people already did their main shopping at superstores, augmented by trips to the independent retailers, and that was unlikely to change much. The reporter did conclude that the Superstore would have an effect on the High Street, and that it might affect some retailers, but that overall the High Street wouldn’t be damaged.

Now with a smaller retail unit as proposed, that analysis needs to be re-done. It’s not the same set of circumstances and the effects will be different. But I’d be very surprised if Retail Impact Assessment threw up any significant problems, not least because you have to put the additional shoppers generated by the residential development into the mix. I doubt that 1,000 additional residents just off the High Street won't actually do any shopping on the High Street.

And when you say;

And if a retail impact assessment says different, then check who is paying for it.

That's a very common and understandable reaction.

But that also means there's little likelihood of additional information changing anybody's opinion. Retail Impact Assessmnets, Traffic Impact Assessments, Environmental Impact Assessments; there all pretty pointless. Because if the conform to people's views they accept them, and if they don't, they don't.

The last scheme didn't have such a retail element. As far as the planners were concerned it conformed with the planning regulations and the NWPDB. It was recommended for approval.

It received 69 representations.

60 objections.

7 comments.

2 supporting.

If you'd prefer a proposal without the retail, and are willing to accept higher rise and higher density as a result, I'm afraid you've missed the boat.

Puerto bella · Post by **Puerto bella** » 09 Sep 2010, 22:42

Re: Wangi's valid point - it was a nail in the coffin of Dalkeith's town centre when the small size Tesco moved to Hardengreen in the late 90's. The site lay vacant for a time and then Lidl and Peacocks moved in and things picked up a wee bit. It was by no means as straightforward as that though.

Driving, yes the sin of it, along the High Street tonight I was struck at the number of empty, to let shops on the section from Mike's Tackle along to the police station; is there really any hope for the High St? Are there not just far too many small floorplate shop units with limited viable alternative uses?

Re: Impact Studies an old saying comes to mind - he who pays the piper.....

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Sep 2010, 22:44

Puerto bella wrote:Re: Impact Studies an old saying comes to mind - he who pays the piper.....

As I was saying...

allaboardtheskylark · Post by **allaboardtheskylark** » 10 Sep 2010, 00:41

How well is the High Street doing these, not very well ! In fact I'd go so far as to say, with the exception of a few outlets, very poorly.

As for saving 2p on corn flakes, is it really only 2p. If you don't shop at chavzda or others how much more would it cost to buy ALL supplies from Portobello over a year. Rather a lot. The total amount is not insignificant and is probably not relevant to the discussion anyway. People shop at the other stores for a reason and that reason will not change with POSH W.

The real question is will POSH W take customers away from High Street shops. What do they sell that can be bought already and who will change their shopping habits to buy it from POSH W.

Another question to be asked is, will passing trade be taken from Portobello? I doubt it because you can hardly park anyway. Will it bring trade to Portobello High Street. I don't know, but I do know some were complaining about the orgasmic market taking trade from the High Street, the opposite was true.

There are a lot of questions to be asked and to get an answer perhaps CEC should pay for a survey to get a neutral answer. The whole thing is to subjective to be answered here and the results are difficult to quantify.

There are a lot of variables in this equation but the ultimate threat of BL walking away is the one certainty that cannot be argued with. We cannot risk losing BL to get a faceless agent who will run the site so badly people will sicken and take anything going just to see the end of it.

Seanie, surely the developer has to make a considerable change to the densities / heights to make such a material change as to make a new application worthwhile?

As for having a slightly smaller store, given the fact there has to be such a material change, does that not dictate the size of the store. With a smaller store do we not move into TESCO Metro range and would that be deemed acceptable. Anyway has that one not already been rejected? Did the PCC not say nothing bigger than a corner shop?

Looks to me like the debate is moving in ever decreasing circles and ultimately a clever and acceptable solution would have to be arranged with BL and the PCC. It would also have to be materially different.

So, I think you may just be stuck with this or ten years of fly tipping followed by a Superstore.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Sep 2010, 08:18

I just don't see it as a 'take it or leave it' situation. BL know that they need the support of the CC and aren't prepared to submit an application until they have it. So who's in the driving seat? What should be happening now is that as many members of the CC as possible should be meeting with BL for as long as it takes to thrash out a solution that everyone, or at least the majority, is prepared to support. Otherwise, what will have changed between now and the next CC meeting? People's views will be futher entrenched, there will be two distinct camps and no agreement. I could be wrong but I doubt whether the current plan has majority support among CC members.

So what's the wost-case scenario? We are left with a gap-site for a few more years until someone comes up with an acceptable plan, which won't be a superstore - that idea is dead as a dodo and won't be coming back.