The owners of the Red Cat in Greasby have sought planning permision for a new building in its car park.

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/planning/D...t.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=86934

There's a letter being sent to residents from a resident saying it's going to be a Sainsburys store. Looking at the plan, there are intentions for two new retail shops but it doesn't specify what they'll be.

Plan of build:

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/planning/Docs/DMZfiles/6057_2.pdf

I don't live there and I'm relatively indifferent about the proposal. Having said that, I don't see how a Sainsburys could benefit Greasby when there is a Co-op store of a similar size literally across the road.

Strange that - you don't have to be the owner of land to get planning permission, you don't even need permission or agreement from the owner - I wonder why Sainsbury's themselves didn't apply, or the development company that will do the building.

Alex?

Simple; because the land is worth a hell of a lot more with PP for the store than it is without. The owners may well be acting as the developer themselves.

However, I agree, it's strange given the Co-op opposite and the Sainsbury's 2 minutes down the road.

Stores such as Sainsbury's also pay a intro fee on things like this, it could be that the owners are speculatively applying for PP with a view to taking it to Sainsbury's. It'd be an attractive proposition for them with PP granted.

There's plenty of angles but to be quite honest, none of them seem to make much sense. It's also common practice for one of the big players to take space like this simply so other can't i.e. Tesco.

Finally, once leases are agreed with the parties, and if the owner/developer doesn't want to keep it as an income generating investment it will be sold.

Sorry, also worth noting is the use classes they have applied for, A1 covers shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, post offices etc. A2 is financial or professional services such as banks, estate agencies or bookies etc and A3 covers restaurants. As they're not applying for A4 or A5 then they can't use it as a pub or for food to be taken away.

My bet is that is a mini supermarket went into the larger retail unit then the smaller one would be a post office or similar.

There's not much speculative development going on at the moment due to risk so I imagine they have already secured pre-lets. I'll do some digging.

thankyou

Had a little mooch, the people applying for the PP and planning the development are Greene King Brewing and Retailing, so they are a national company who have teams of asset managers who sit in an office looking at ways of maximising return on their investments/assets.

They'll just be looking for a way to either bring in some cash or generate extra income. At present the car park is generating them nothing but its arguable that it brings them more trade. My guess is it probably doesn't and that with less parking, people won't stop going.

I can confirm that Unit 1 has been pre-let to Sainsbury's on the proviso that PP is obtained and the principal idea for the development has been listed as "to provide a top-up food shopping function to complement the existing retail centre and to provide and to provide enhanced consumer choice over and above that provided by the existing Somerfield Store".

Somerfield won't like it!

They're insisting that the proposed store will act as PART of the local centre and not in competition to it and they're recognising that the biggest impact will be to their Upton Store and not Somerfield (yeah, right!!).

All very boring stuff for you I'm sure but hope it helps a bit!

There will be a public meeting about it in Greasby community centre on Tuesday 31 May at 7.30.

How many supermarkets, or "Express" stores do we need FFS

Glad to see theor business is still booming at this time if they can afford to just buy the land. Maybe their profits should be taxed more adn we could get a break else where.

I guess food, unlike beer, cigerettes etc is something we all need, so despite the choice, we all have to go somewhere to buy it, so they will all get business of somesort

WBC has a default reply of yes to any development in the area. I'm not sure why they're allowing so many mini supermarkets within a short space of each other.

How many more supermarkets will they build before it reaches saturation point?. Will it get to a point where the customer base is spread so thinly between them all that they start to lose money?. It is getting a bit sill now.

My mum was moaning about this new Sainsburys because she wont be able to abuse the pubs car park when she visits the library.

EVERYONE IS FREE TO USE THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER.

29 Shaw Street,
Hoylake, Wirral,
CH47 2BW
0151 632 2047

14 May 2011

TO:
Wirral Borough Council / Applicant / Agent / Greasby Library
Hoylake Civic Society / Merseyside Archaeology / c.c. File / c.c. Open

Wirral Planning Application APP/11/00508
Development at Red Cat Car Park, Greasby

I am writing as a former resident of Greasby, as historian of Greasby, and at the request of several residents of Greasby, to request that the above application be refused in its entirety, for the reasons given below.

DASS – Design Access & Sustainability Statement, submitted by applicant
PSA – Planning Statement, submitted by applicant
PPS – Planning Policy Statement(s), from central Government
UDP – Unitary Development Plan, from local Council

BACKGROUND

SITE / BUILDING – notes from visits 10 and 14 May 2011

Figures 2 and 3 and the aerial photograph are all out-of-date, in as far as there is a new Children’s Centre adjoining the Library, on the south side, and this does not appear in the above illustrations, nor can I find any mention of it in the text.
I am therefore enclosing a copy of Figure 3, amended to show this building –
not to scale – simply estimated by counting bricks. *If you get this by email, the map will NOT be enclosed – I only have it hard-copy – ring me if needed.

The car park is surrounded by low brick walls on north and south and other parts of the site. These are mentioned in the DASS para 2.2, but, for some reason,
this does not mention that they are all in an extremely poor, probably unsafe condition. The ancient boundary on the west side (behind the public house) is actually crumbling and eroding, and I would therefore not be surprised, if this application were to be passed, that a further application would, in time,
be submitted for complete rebuilding of the walls.

The site was formerly the garden area of the New Inn, replaced in 1962/63 by the present public house. It is also actually adjacent to one of the Listed Buildings in the original village centre, Manor Farm, parts of which date from 1678; such a sensitive location would require, at minimum, a Watching Brief by professional archaeologists, and possibly a full archaeological excavation.

The library has also been affected several times by flooding on the west side, adjacent to the proposed site, and this they feel is due to a fault with the draining of the site. Whether the proposed development will change this situation in any way is not known, but it should be noted before any work takes place.

OBJECTIONS / PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

UDP Policy SH01 / PSA para 4.8 “In considering proposals for new retail development, the Local Planning Authority [in this case W.B.C.] will seek to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of key town centres, traditional suburban centres and other shopping provision in the Borough…”
I fail to see how a new Sainsbury’s or indeed any other brand of supermarket could do this. This particular parade of shops, one of several throughout Greasby, has 100% occupancy and includes a modern Co-op.
People only have a limited amount of money to spend.


UDP policy SH4 / PSA para 4.9 “…the proposals should not cause nuisance to neighbouring uses or lead to loss of amenity…”
This development would lead to loss of light, increased pollution from exhaust fumes and additional noise to both the Library, who are planning for a reading garden in the small grassed area on their west side, and also to the adjoining children’s centre, who are using their equivalent area as a play area for small children.
and

UDP policy HS15 / PSA para 4.10 again states that “such development must…not cause nuisance to neighbouring uses”, reinforcing the above.

UDP policy HS15 / PSA para 4.10 also further states that [it must] “….make adequate provision for off-street car parking”.
This is directly contradicted by DASS para 5.1 which states that the total number of parking spaces would be reduced from 109 serving the public house to a total of 63 to serve both the public house and the new development.
According to my dictionary, the word ‘glib’ has several meanings, one of which is ‘not very weighty or sincere’; why anyone would consider that halving the car parking provision whilst at the same time doubling the number of businesses on the site could be felt to be “adequate” beats me.

PSA para 5.13 “The proposed development will have a positive impact upon the regeneration of the local centre…”
This is merely an opinion, not a planning policy.

UDP Policy EC17.1 considers “The impact on existing [my italics] and committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal.”
However the relevant part of the application, PSA para 5.26, rather disingenuously reads in its entirety “It is considered that there would be no adverse impact on public and private sector investment plans, strategies or proposals within nearby shopping centres in the Greasby area”. Please note the omission of the word ‘existing’ – such as the library and childrens centre already mentioned above.






PSA paras 5.30 – 5.34 inclusive discuss the measurements of the retail units, the gist of the argument being that they not as large as they could be. What it does not mention is that, for example, Sainsbury’s in Hoylake have recently decreased the size of their shop, so that they can take advantage of the laws governing opening hours and therefore open for longer hours seven days a week.
I am left wondering if this omission was deliberate or not.


PPS1 / PSA para 4.4 states that “Design which ….fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted”.
and

PPS1 para 36 goes even further and states that “…developments should….optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development….”

This application spectacularly fails to grasp the opportunity available.



THE WAY FORWARD? – A PERSONAL NOTE

After much thought I have personally come to the conclusion that the proposal is fundamentally very wrong for the site and indeed falls a long way short on what could be achieved there. It would have been much better, and indeed could still be much better, if the present application was withdrawn.

Serious consideration with proper public consultation could then be given
to the complete demolition of the public house and a total reappraisal made
of the overall space including all boundaries and neighbours.



Yours sincerely,




Jim O’Neil

Thanks Jim! Nice one. I've just heard that the public meeting is actually 7pm, not 7.30, by the way.

It should give a bit of competition to "The other place" across the road, and there is nothing wrong with a bit of competition these days!

Welcome to Wikiwirral Jim.

Please could someone do a precis of what happens at the public meeting and post it on here? Thanks!

In a nutshell - Public meeting was calmly and considerately chaired by John Smith, Chair of the community Association, and very well attended - estimate at least 250 people present, mostly well-mannered, despite difficulties of making comments heard in such a gathering. Main speakers had access to microphones. Over 4300 signatures gathered on petitions to date. Given that Greasby's population in the 2001 census was just under 10,000, and some of those would be children, the petitions show very strong local opposition to the plans.

It was made clear that emotive comments would cut no ice with planning committee and arguments against would need to be objectively put, addressing points in the planning application, and dealing with issues such as detrimental effect on existing traders and village community, shop occupancy, additional traffic congestion, inconsiderate orientation of store on plans, etc.

Two young architects floated an idea for more sympathetic development that could perhaps be considered in future, which would not harm existing features of village, but complement it; there was a certain amount of interest in their suggestions.

Written comments have to be with Mrs Day, planning officer, on Thursday, but letters handed in to Lewis's or Ellie's on Wednesday will be delivered by hand and certain to get there in time.

Provided the petition has not been getting signed by non-locals, who will not be affected by the proposal (thus inflating the number of genuine objectors), as happens with most petitions of this nature.

But we know if it opens it will get well used. Had the same in Heswall with Tesco and Aldi stores - everyone was against them, but proved to be very popular when they opened. So much so that both were further extended substantially.

Sadly petitions mean nothing, footfall is the only winner, if people don't use the place then it will become uneconomic to the store owner and it will close, end of, if not it becomes another store and the rot that all town centres and small shopping centres suffer,local stores close and the to let signs go up.

As far as I'm aware the petition was only available in local shops, so would be signed by users of what the village offers. There's always the chance that some people, in the mistaken belief that it might help, signed it more than once, of course!

Read an article in the Wirral Globe today, flawed as usual.

Grrr - still haven't had my local papers - must be last on the round!

Has there been any updates on this??

I did notice today that the Red Cat has a sign up on a blackboard in the car park now, stating it's for customers of the Cat only - maybe the brewery's taken the huff at the level of objections! (500 registered so far, only 7 in favour) Someone said the planning meeting had been put back until July.

There's a Facebook group on this - on which someone has reported that they spoke to the planning dept and were informed that the planning application has been withdrown! I so hope that's right - what a victory for the local community and traders if it is.

I assume everyone has heard and/or read the Hoylake News today? The application has been withdrawn. I have alerted the archaeologists.
Jim

Am still a little suspicious that they might re-draw it to address some of the residents concerns - but I hope not!

Surely you want them to address the resident's concerns.

I posted this yesterday, Thurs 7/7/11 but today it has vanished from this thread so am reposting from memory:

This application has been withdrawn - no details known - may not be end of story.

I have alerted archaeologists.

I hope this post does not vanish.
Jim

Thnig is, there's no way they can address all of them. They could alter the physical positioning of the development to make it more sympathetic to the layout of the village, but they couldn't do anything about the main problems - the threat to local businesses, additional traffic etc. The only way they could address those concerns is by quietly going away!

Just a brief update to this thread. Building commenced a few weeks ago

What a flippin' eyesore it is, too.