Co-op store given green light – despite noise, traffic and trade concerns

Bournemouth Echo: OPPOSITION: Graham Northeast and other Fairmile Road traders who are raising an objection to changing the disused pub OPPOSITION: Graham Northeast and other Fairmile Road traders who are raising an objection to changing the disused pub

FEELINGS were running high after councillors approved plans for a Co-op convenience store on the site of the former Fairmile pub in Christchurch.

Despite public opposition as well as objections from local traders and ward councillor Colin Bungey, members gave the contentious scheme for the disused pub their backing, 5-1.

They were asked to approve the internal changes only as change of use was already given under permitted development.

Concerns about traffic, disturbance to residents from deliveries and impact on local businesses could not be given as reasons for refusal as this was associated with change of use, said development management manager Giles Moir.

Christopher Gordon, spokesperson for West Christchurch Residents’ Association, raised concerns over early morning deliveries disturbing residents, the impact of the changed facade of the store on the local area and the access to the site.

Residents and traders led a campaign leading up to the meeting voicing concerns about the possibility of increased traffic congestion and the negative impact on the small businesses nearby.

Cllr Peter Hall asked if conditions could be put on the sale of newspapers and alcohol from Co-op as a way to protect the nearby independent traders.

But Mr Moir reminded him this was not a change of use application and no such conditions could be placed on the store.

Planning member and Jumpers ward councillor Fred Neale also spoke in defence of the campaigners, calling unsuccessfully for the proposal to be rejected.

Cllr Lisle Smith, who proposed approval, said: “I think it is a sad case that we can't defend this piece of land or the community.”

After the vote, one member of the public told councillors they should be “ashamed”.

“When all those businesses are shut, remember tonight,” she said.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:16am Sat 1 Feb 14

bosco1 says...

Well the other traders may well lose out on takings to the co op, but in general the co op prices are pretty high so its up to the local Traders to compete and lower prices in their shops customers will soon learn where its cheaper.!! If they dont they will close down.
Well the other traders may well lose out on takings to the co op, but in general the co op prices are pretty high so its up to the local Traders to compete and lower prices in their shops customers will soon learn where its cheaper.!! If they dont they will close down. bosco1
  • Score: 11

8:22am Sat 1 Feb 14

skydriver says...

Does this mean ASDA will not now be coming to town, let's hope not.
Or was it all talk?
Does this mean ASDA will not now be coming to town, let's hope not. Or was it all talk? skydriver
  • Score: -2

8:39am Sat 1 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

Co-Op....stuck in the 80's with limited choice and the prices are not that good.
Would have been better off with Tesco/Sainsbury
Co-Op....stuck in the 80's with limited choice and the prices are not that good. Would have been better off with Tesco/Sainsbury BIGTONE
  • Score: 6

8:45am Sat 1 Feb 14

Goldenballs says...

Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted
all ready a Co op in town
really can't understand Christchurch council
totally bonkers
Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted all ready a Co op in town really can't understand Christchurch council totally bonkers Goldenballs
  • Score: 15

8:54am Sat 1 Feb 14

billy bumble says...

Goldenballs wrote:
Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted
all ready a Co op in town
really can't understand Christchurch council
totally bonkers
It's a convenience store - not a full blown supermarket

Probably not a bad site - that part of town needs refreshing
[quote][p][bold]Goldenballs[/bold] wrote: Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted all ready a Co op in town really can't understand Christchurch council totally bonkers[/p][/quote]It's a convenience store - not a full blown supermarket Probably not a bad site - that part of town needs refreshing billy bumble
  • Score: 6

8:56am Sat 1 Feb 14

Lord Spring says...

Not a crossed arm to be seen , The message must have got through.
Not a crossed arm to be seen , The message must have got through. Lord Spring
  • Score: 8

9:02am Sat 1 Feb 14

skydriver says...

Goldenballs wrote:
Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted
all ready a Co op in town
really can't understand Christchurch council
totally bonkers
Your right Christchurch council are just that , bonkers.although I would not have been so mild mannered about them , time for a new lot with fresh ideas and ones that work with the people of Christchurch , and not against them.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenballs[/bold] wrote: Morris sons gets rejected by this is granted all ready a Co op in town really can't understand Christchurch council totally bonkers[/p][/quote]Your right Christchurch council are just that , bonkers.although I would not have been so mild mannered about them , time for a new lot with fresh ideas and ones that work with the people of Christchurch , and not against them. skydriver
  • Score: 10

9:20am Sat 1 Feb 14

High Treason says...

The Co-op are pricey and the staff at the one near me are pig ignorant. Now I avoid the place and find Aldi's better and cheaper.
The Co-op are pricey and the staff at the one near me are pig ignorant. Now I avoid the place and find Aldi's better and cheaper. High Treason
  • Score: 10

9:22am Sat 1 Feb 14

PIHP63 says...

The pubs close people do not use them and they are unviable, the locals then get used to there being nothing happening on the site, no noise, no traffic, no deliveries. They then become concerned when another user wants to utilise what is already a commercial building. This will provide jobs, service the local community and bring back into use a derelict building. What is the problem?
It could have been a day nursery or housing both a change of use but also traffic generators.
Proximity to a convenience store tends to enhance the attractiveness (and hence value) of the local area and also provides spin off for other businesses.
The pubs close people do not use them and they are unviable, the locals then get used to there being nothing happening on the site, no noise, no traffic, no deliveries. They then become concerned when another user wants to utilise what is already a commercial building. This will provide jobs, service the local community and bring back into use a derelict building. What is the problem? It could have been a day nursery or housing both a change of use but also traffic generators. Proximity to a convenience store tends to enhance the attractiveness (and hence value) of the local area and also provides spin off for other businesses. PIHP63
  • Score: 11

9:46am Sat 1 Feb 14

Keffect says...

If enough of us write to BBC Inside out for example maybe they will investigate our corrupt X/church councillors. Good investigative journalism is something the Echo sadly lacks.
If enough of us write to BBC Inside out for example maybe they will investigate our corrupt X/church councillors. Good investigative journalism is something the Echo sadly lacks. Keffect
  • Score: 11

10:12am Sat 1 Feb 14

twynham says...

For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission.
Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it.
Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government.
.
For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election?
.
No, I thought not.
For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission. Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it. Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government. . For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election? . No, I thought not. twynham
  • Score: 5

11:30am Sat 1 Feb 14

whataboutthat says...

"(limits on) alcohol from Co-op as a way to protect the nearby independent traders. "
No worries there the CO-OP is an expensive supermarket rarely does deals on anything other than sugary cakes and fatty foods the booze shop across the road is staffed by people who know the difference between a sauvignon and a sausage. Nuff said.
"(limits on) alcohol from Co-op as a way to protect the nearby independent traders. " No worries there the CO-OP is an expensive supermarket rarely does deals on anything other than sugary cakes and fatty foods the booze shop across the road is staffed by people who know the difference between a sauvignon and a sausage. Nuff said. whataboutthat
  • Score: 4

11:43am Sat 1 Feb 14

skydriver says...

twynham wrote:
For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission.
Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it.
Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government.
.
For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election?
.
No, I thought not.
This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you?
Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off.
On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco .
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission. Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it. Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government. . For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election? . No, I thought not.[/p][/quote]This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you? Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off. On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco . skydriver
  • Score: 2

12:22pm Sat 1 Feb 14

twynham says...

Absolutely not a Councillor, rather be on outside of the tent peeing in, get more done that way, Waterloo Bridge resurfacing as an example.
.
But have an interest and a certain knowledge of how Councils work, unlike many commentators on planning issues in these forums.
.
Above all, I care about the town I was born in, unlike (at times) the aforementioned Cllr!
.
Next.
Absolutely not a Councillor, rather be on outside of the tent peeing in, get more done that way, Waterloo Bridge resurfacing as an example. . But have an interest and a certain knowledge of how Councils work, unlike many commentators on planning issues in these forums. . Above all, I care about the town I was born in, unlike (at times) the aforementioned Cllr! . Next. twynham
  • Score: 9

12:34pm Sat 1 Feb 14

twynham says...

P.S. skydriver.
I thought the point of these comments was to "sound off" as you put it.
.
Also the Fairmile was the first pub I drank in and my local for many decades.
.
And your qualifications to comment on my comments are what exactly ?
P.S. skydriver. I thought the point of these comments was to "sound off" as you put it. . Also the Fairmile was the first pub I drank in and my local for many decades. . And your qualifications to comment on my comments are what exactly ? twynham
  • Score: 4

12:58pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Turtlebay says...

Straight question for the cabinet.

How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?
Straight question for the cabinet. How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this? Turtlebay
  • Score: -5

1:09pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Bournemouthfan2 says...

skydriver wrote:
twynham wrote:
For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission.
Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it.
Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government.
.
For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election?
.
No, I thought not.
This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you?
Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off.
On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco .
Skydriver, this is nothing to do with 'councillor talk' or corruption as another has suggested.
As Twynham has correctly pointed out, there is no change of use required, therefore absolutely nothing to stop any business that can legally operate under the same use from taking on the premises and running another business from the site.

It sounds from the article that the councillors did not want to approve, but had not choice. If they had refused permission what would have happened? Co op would have gone straight to appeal and won it on the basis of no change of use, as they had been unfairly refused permission.

And before you ask, I am not on the council or have anything to do with them and like the majority of us, have absolutely no desire to see more and more Tesco/Sainsbury/Co op convenience stores springing up and putting independents out of business.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission. Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it. Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government. . For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election? . No, I thought not.[/p][/quote]This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you? Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off. On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco .[/p][/quote]Skydriver, this is nothing to do with 'councillor talk' or corruption as another has suggested. As Twynham has correctly pointed out, there is no change of use required, therefore absolutely nothing to stop any business that can legally operate under the same use from taking on the premises and running another business from the site. It sounds from the article that the councillors did not want to approve, but had not choice. If they had refused permission what would have happened? Co op would have gone straight to appeal and won it on the basis of no change of use, as they had been unfairly refused permission. And before you ask, I am not on the council or have anything to do with them and like the majority of us, have absolutely no desire to see more and more Tesco/Sainsbury/Co op convenience stores springing up and putting independents out of business. Bournemouthfan2
  • Score: 6

3:23pm Sat 1 Feb 14

elaine191261 says...

Keffect wrote:
If enough of us write to BBC Inside out for example maybe they will investigate our corrupt X/church councillors. Good investigative journalism is something the Echo sadly lacks.
Sounds like a good idea ,I smell a rat here and I think a lot of people do ,are the council so deaf and blind to know what the people are saying about them ,what do they have to say about ?
[quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: If enough of us write to BBC Inside out for example maybe they will investigate our corrupt X/church councillors. Good investigative journalism is something the Echo sadly lacks.[/p][/quote]Sounds like a good idea ,I smell a rat here and I think a lot of people do ,are the council so deaf and blind to know what the people are saying about them ,what do they have to say about ? elaine191261
  • Score: -2

7:33pm Sat 1 Feb 14

tim m says...

"And before you ask, I...have absolutely no desire to see more and more Tesco/Sainsbury/Co op convenience stores springing up and putting independents out of business."

That old chestnut? Tesco, Sainsbury, whoever do not put independents out of business. Shoppers wanting to save 50p desert the small shops and put them out of business.
"And before you ask, I...have absolutely no desire to see more and more Tesco/Sainsbury/Co op convenience stores springing up and putting independents out of business." That old chestnut? Tesco, Sainsbury, whoever do not put independents out of business. Shoppers wanting to save 50p desert the small shops and put them out of business. tim m
  • Score: 3

8:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Arthur Maureen says...

skydriver wrote:
twynham wrote:
For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission.
Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it.
Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government.
.
For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election?
.
No, I thought not.
This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you?
Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off.
On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco .
Sounds like quite a sensible comment actually, residents association / cllrs in West Christchurch get all excited with any change that occurs.. sad old nimbys.
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: For those who are unable to read the article, a change of use from A4 (pub) to A1 (shop) does not need planning permission. Planning can only decide on physical alterations to the building and if they fall within planning regs there's nothing they can do about it. Apathy has allowed this type of legislation to be taken back by Central Government. . For those accusing Councillors of corruption, rather than writing to a tv company, how about proving it in a court of law or putting yourselves forward for Council election? . No, I thought not.[/p][/quote]This sounds like councillor talk, so who are you? Sometime when it doesn't go your way you sound off. On the subject of court was it not Cllr Nottage who had to eat humble pie over the Druitt fiasco .[/p][/quote]Sounds like quite a sensible comment actually, residents association / cllrs in West Christchurch get all excited with any change that occurs.. sad old nimbys. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 1

10:25pm Sat 1 Feb 14

twynham says...

twynham wrote:
P.S. skydriver.
I thought the point of these comments was to "sound off" as you put it.
.
Also the Fairmile was the first pub I drank in and my local for many decades.
.
And your qualifications to comment on my comments are what exactly ?
Sorry, that should have read; the first pub my Father knew I drank in!
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: P.S. skydriver. I thought the point of these comments was to "sound off" as you put it. . Also the Fairmile was the first pub I drank in and my local for many decades. . And your qualifications to comment on my comments are what exactly ?[/p][/quote]Sorry, that should have read; the first pub my Father knew I drank in! twynham
  • Score: 1

12:42am Sun 2 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

Turtlebay wrote:
Straight question for the cabinet.

How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?
Another dim comment from someone who hasn't read the article or previous posts. They couldn't refuse permission because it wasn't a change of use.
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: Straight question for the cabinet. How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?[/p][/quote]Another dim comment from someone who hasn't read the article or previous posts. They couldn't refuse permission because it wasn't a change of use. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

7:44pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Arthur Maureen says...

tbpoole wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
Straight question for the cabinet.

How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?
Another dim comment from someone who hasn't read the article or previous posts. They couldn't refuse permission because it wasn't a change of use.
Another fine, moronic post from Turtlehead, surely this run of spite can't continue for long before she has a coronary?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: Straight question for the cabinet. How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?[/p][/quote]Another dim comment from someone who hasn't read the article or previous posts. They couldn't refuse permission because it wasn't a change of use.[/p][/quote]Another fine, moronic post from Turtlehead, surely this run of spite can't continue for long before she has a coronary? Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Sun 2 Feb 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Turtlebay wrote:
Straight question for the cabinet.

How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?
Straight question for Turtleshead. When are you meds due this evening?
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: Straight question for the cabinet. How much money did the Co op pay you in back handers to pass this?[/p][/quote]Straight question for Turtleshead. When are you meds due this evening? Arthur Maureen
  • Score: -1

9:44pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Mike of Christchuch says...

I too am very sad although not surprised that Christchurch Council gave the go ahead for this. This Council don't have a good record of acting in the interests of local people. A lot of people have expressed concern about the Coop opening to the detriment of local shops. The answer in simple all those who feel they wish to support local shops should boycott the Coop. I know I will. Good riddance to the Coop
I too am very sad although not surprised that Christchurch Council gave the go ahead for this. This Council don't have a good record of acting in the interests of local people. A lot of people have expressed concern about the Coop opening to the detriment of local shops. The answer in simple all those who feel they wish to support local shops should boycott the Coop. I know I will. Good riddance to the Coop Mike of Christchuch
  • Score: 2

11:09am Sun 9 Feb 14

mary.birchmore says...

why is,nt it going to be another pub? got the co op up on hight street. somebody was,nt thinking. i know i won,t bother with this new co op at all
why is,nt it going to be another pub? got the co op up on hight street. somebody was,nt thinking. i know i won,t bother with this new co op at all mary.birchmore
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree