Morrisons supermarket scheme for Christchurch rejected - for third time

Morrisons supermarket scheme for Christchurch rejected - for third time

Morrisons supermarket scheme for Christchurch rejected - for third time

Morrisons supermarket scheme for Christchurch rejected - for third time

First published in News
Last updated
by

COUNCILLORS threw out plans for a Morrisons supermarket in Christchurch tonight – for the third time.

A three-hour long meeting at Christchurch Borough Council saw the detailed scheme for the supermarket on the site of Beagle Technology in Stony Lane rejected, despite being recommended for approval by officers.

Wrangling over how members could reject the scheme on planning grounds, continued for more than an hour as councillors expressed concerns about the impact on the town centre and local conservation area.

Flooding issues were also raised as well as the impact of increased traffic on Castle Street, Bridge Street and in Purewell.

It is likely the applicants will appeal.

Cllr Claire Bath, portfolio holder for the economy proposed the rejection of the scheme, which would have allowed Beagle to relocate to premises in Christchurch.

She raised doubts over a retail report commissioned by the council, put together by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, which said there will be 20 per cent of people visiting the store would then visit the town centre to spend money.

She said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre.

“I can’t see how we can base the future vitality and viability on evidence which is not robust enough.”

Many Beagle and Morrisons supporters spoke in favour of the scheme, with tensions rising throughout the meeting.

Representatives from supermarket schemes at Bailey Drive and Meteor Retail Park were also present, with Quantum, who have permission to build an Asda at Bailey Drive, speaking in opposition to the scheme.

The proposal to refuse was passed 7-2.

After the meeting, managing director of Beagle Technology Group, John Taylor would only say he was “very disappointed.”

A spokesperson for Simons Group, who is representing Morrisons said: “We are incredibly disappointed and disheartened, especially in light of the officer’s recommendation for approval and the phenomenal local support for our plans.

“We need to go back to the drawing board and discuss internally what our next steps are.

“We would like to thank everyone for support and will be in touch in due course.”

Julian Schaffer, managing director of Quantum said: “It was the right decision; the council have shown consistency because nothing had changed with the new application.

The important thing now is for everyone to work together for the good of the town.”

A decision on Meteor Retail Park was due to be rescheduled.

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:14pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Jackanackanory says...

Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!! Jackanackanory
  • Score: 35

10:25pm Thu 23 Jan 14

twynham says...

Many thanks to Councillors Dedman, Bungay, Smith, Mawbey, etc for putting Christchurch first.
Absolute shame on the rest of you.

As developers Simmons Group will no doubt appeal as it is they who have most to lose.
It's a battle of developers, not supermarkets.
.
But how many of us who have applied for planning permission for, for example, an extension and were refused three times would be allowed to appeal for a fourth application.
.
Also, I've worked out a very rough cost of appeal and over 2 years and it breaks down to about £3.50 per Council tax payer.
.
I'll bung in £7 for Beaglesupporter not to have 8 supermarkets within a 1.2 mile radius of Stony Lane.
Many thanks to Councillors Dedman, Bungay, Smith, Mawbey, etc for putting Christchurch first. Absolute shame on the rest of you. As developers Simmons Group will no doubt appeal as it is they who have most to lose. It's a battle of developers, not supermarkets. . But how many of us who have applied for planning permission for, for example, an extension and were refused three times would be allowed to appeal for a fourth application. . Also, I've worked out a very rough cost of appeal and over 2 years and it breaks down to about £3.50 per Council tax payer. . I'll bung in £7 for Beaglesupporter not to have 8 supermarkets within a 1.2 mile radius of Stony Lane. twynham
  • Score: -18

10:35pm Thu 23 Jan 14

twynham says...

Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
[quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand? twynham
  • Score: -12

10:35pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Old Colonial says...

She (Cllr Bath) said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre.
“I can’t see how we can base the future vitality and viability on evidence which is not robust enough.”

So you pay money for reports by professionals which you then choose to ignore. Arrogance or stupidity? Can the local tax payers who fund your hobby of playing at politics have their money back please?
She (Cllr Bath) said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre. “I can’t see how we can base the future vitality and viability on evidence which is not robust enough.” So you pay money for reports by professionals which you then choose to ignore. Arrogance or stupidity? Can the local tax payers who fund your hobby of playing at politics have their money back please? Old Colonial
  • Score: 37

10:49pm Thu 23 Jan 14

fedupofchristchurch says...

As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.
As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer. fedupofchristchurch
  • Score: 47

10:49pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Yankee1 says...

M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'.

It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to.

It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda.
M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'. It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to. It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda. Yankee1
  • Score: 14

10:59pm Thu 23 Jan 14

fedupofchristchurch says...

twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
So why is it okay for Quantum Homes to be able to build at Bailey Bridge? Simons Group have said that if they got permission to build the store that they have allocated a lot of money to improve Stony Lane and surrounding roads. Also with Churchill building retirement homes on the old garage site at Purewell it made sense for a supermarket to be built on the Beagle site that way residents could shop locally without having to get their cars out.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]So why is it okay for Quantum Homes to be able to build at Bailey Bridge? Simons Group have said that if they got permission to build the store that they have allocated a lot of money to improve Stony Lane and surrounding roads. Also with Churchill building retirement homes on the old garage site at Purewell it made sense for a supermarket to be built on the Beagle site that way residents could shop locally without having to get their cars out. fedupofchristchurch
  • Score: 20

11:01pm Thu 23 Jan 14

twynham says...

fedupofchristchurch?

.
When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved!
fedupofchristchurch? . When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved! twynham
  • Score: 10

11:28pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Jackanackanory says...

twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either.

The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there?

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either. The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't... Jackanackanory
  • Score: 14

11:31pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Jackanackanory says...

Jackanackanory wrote:
twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either.

The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there?

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...
70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!!
[quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either. The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...[/p][/quote]70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!! Jackanackanory
  • Score: 17

11:45pm Thu 23 Jan 14

voodoo 1 says...

twynham wrote:
fedupofchristchurch?


.
When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved!
Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!!
Do us all a favour!!!!
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: fedupofchristchurch? . When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved![/p][/quote]Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!! Do us all a favour!!!! voodoo 1
  • Score: -10

11:45pm Thu 23 Jan 14

twynham says...

Jackanackanory wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either.

The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there?

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...
70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!!
The cheapest car park in Christchurch is behind the Civic Centre, closer to town than Beagle.
Do you use that when you go shopping in Christchurch?
Bet you don't!
[quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either. The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...[/p][/quote]70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!![/p][/quote]The cheapest car park in Christchurch is behind the Civic Centre, closer to town than Beagle. Do you use that when you go shopping in Christchurch? Bet you don't! twynham
  • Score: 8

11:52pm Thu 23 Jan 14

twynham says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
fedupofchristchurch?



.
When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved!
Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!!
Do us all a favour!!!!
IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born.
And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour?
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: fedupofchristchurch? . When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved![/p][/quote]Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!! Do us all a favour!!!![/p][/quote]IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born. And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour? twynham
  • Score: 6

12:03am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

To draw a line under my side of this debate for this evening as I want to watch AFNeil (never thought I'd say that in print).
What most Morrisons, Beagle or Simmons Group supporters don't realise is that had Morrisons not signed up with Beagle & Simons Group before the Bailey Bridge/Quantum scheme was announced, they would be going to Barrack Road!
Or so I Believe!
To draw a line under my side of this debate for this evening as I want to watch AFNeil (never thought I'd say that in print). What most Morrisons, Beagle or Simmons Group supporters don't realise is that had Morrisons not signed up with Beagle & Simons Group before the Bailey Bridge/Quantum scheme was announced, they would be going to Barrack Road! Or so I Believe! twynham
  • Score: 11

12:07am Fri 24 Jan 14

voodoo 1 says...

twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
fedupofchristchurch?




.
When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved!
Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!!
Do us all a favour!!!!
IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born.
And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour?
Because your talking ****. Surely more supermarkets means more jobs and also more jobs at beagle and safe guarding jobs already there which means less people claiming benefits
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: fedupofchristchurch? . When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved![/p][/quote]Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!! Do us all a favour!!!![/p][/quote]IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born. And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour?[/p][/quote]Because your talking ****. Surely more supermarkets means more jobs and also more jobs at beagle and safe guarding jobs already there which means less people claiming benefits voodoo 1
  • Score: 5

12:46am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
fedupofchristchurch?





.
When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved!
Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!!
Do us all a favour!!!!
IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born.
And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour?
Because your talking ****. Surely more supermarkets means more jobs and also more jobs at beagle and safe guarding jobs already there which means less people claiming benefits
NO.
With a population of less than 50,000 supporting 8 supermarkets (each of which need a footfall of around 5,000 per day) those minimum wage jobs which benefits allow employers to pay will be lost elsewhere.
Beagle are losing £10,000 per employee and will probably move out of the area anyway.
If you think that is ****, so be it.
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: fedupofchristchurch? . When I've been fed up of where lived; I moved![/p][/quote]Well when the Morrison's gets the go ahead you know what you can do!!!!!! Do us all a favour!!!![/p][/quote]IF Simons group get their way, I'll still be here, it's where I was born. And whoever you are; why on earth should I do you a favour?[/p][/quote]Because your talking ****. Surely more supermarkets means more jobs and also more jobs at beagle and safe guarding jobs already there which means less people claiming benefits[/p][/quote]NO. With a population of less than 50,000 supporting 8 supermarkets (each of which need a footfall of around 5,000 per day) those minimum wage jobs which benefits allow employers to pay will be lost elsewhere. Beagle are losing £10,000 per employee and will probably move out of the area anyway. If you think that is ****, so be it. twynham
  • Score: 6

8:40am Fri 24 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

Obviously the council vote on what the council wants and not what the people want.
Obviously the council vote on what the council wants and not what the people want. Hessenford
  • Score: 15

8:47am Fri 24 Jan 14

leftpoole says...

I am not a Morrisons shopper, at least not yet. But the Council planning committee in Christchurch stinks! They pass plans for Sovereign Housing Association to build tiny house all over the place in Somerford. These houses are fuelling discontent and will surely blight the area with over population of the already full Estate. More plans are to be submitted for more houses and flats on the Somerford Hall site. This is a small corner on a roundabout. As a qualified Driving Instructor it is obvious to me that the development will cause danger to other residents both private and Housing Association. A dangerous precedent is being set. The committee for the Council is desperate for houses and unfortunately one bedroom flats because of disgusting Government dictate. The planning application for the proposal on Somerford Hall will be met by opposition not heard of before. I will be leading that opposition with full vigour.
Returning to the Morrisons debacle....the residents close by the Beagle site live in old properties on a MAIN BUS ROUTE with hundreds of busses passing by daily. The road is a filthy overcrowded road. The houses look as though they require demolishing. The residents are living in a dream world cut of from reality. Who on Earth wants to live where they do? The Stony Lane roundabouts proposed traffic light improvement shows the inept behaviour of 9 people who are being held over a barrel by Asda and the residents close to the Beagle site.
Christchurch Council you disgust me. You are a shame on Society and an embarrassment to human life itself. You will be punished at the elections and I hope the Morrisons appeal throws dirt in your faces. You are turning Christchurch and in particular the housing into ghettos. Why allow the development on the corner of Stony Lane into elderly persons dwellings if not for money? Why build 7 houses on the side of the pavement a short walk further along. Why shove dozens of houses into Somerford when patently there is not room?
Why? Because you are desperate! Desperate to please the Conservatives and Nick Clegg.
Why when you are building more and more houses in nooks and crannies pitting neighbour against neighbour, will you not be decent in the Morrisons application?
I will tell you why. You are inept and political rather than representative of the people of Christchurch.
I am not a Morrisons shopper, at least not yet. But the Council planning committee in Christchurch stinks! They pass plans for Sovereign Housing Association to build tiny house all over the place in Somerford. These houses are fuelling discontent and will surely blight the area with over population of the already full Estate. More plans are to be submitted for more houses and flats on the Somerford Hall site. This is a small corner on a roundabout. As a qualified Driving Instructor it is obvious to me that the development will cause danger to other residents both private and Housing Association. A dangerous precedent is being set. The committee for the Council is desperate for houses and unfortunately one bedroom flats because of disgusting Government dictate. The planning application for the proposal on Somerford Hall will be met by opposition not heard of before. I will be leading that opposition with full vigour. Returning to the Morrisons debacle....the residents close by the Beagle site live in old properties on a MAIN BUS ROUTE with hundreds of busses passing by daily. The road is a filthy overcrowded road. The houses look as though they require demolishing. The residents are living in a dream world cut of from reality. Who on Earth wants to live where they do? The Stony Lane roundabouts proposed traffic light improvement shows the inept behaviour of 9 people who are being held over a barrel by Asda and the residents close to the Beagle site. Christchurch Council you disgust me. You are a shame on Society and an embarrassment to human life itself. You will be punished at the elections and I hope the Morrisons appeal throws dirt in your faces. You are turning Christchurch and in particular the housing into ghettos. Why allow the development on the corner of Stony Lane into elderly persons dwellings if not for money? Why build 7 houses on the side of the pavement a short walk further along. Why shove dozens of houses into Somerford when patently there is not room? Why? Because you are desperate! Desperate to please the Conservatives and Nick Clegg. Why when you are building more and more houses in nooks and crannies pitting neighbour against neighbour, will you not be decent in the Morrisons application? I will tell you why. You are inept and political rather than representative of the people of Christchurch. leftpoole
  • Score: 23

8:56am Fri 24 Jan 14

TheDistrict says...

Ridiculous decision. One company wishing to move to increase production, therefore increasing employment, and another Morrisons wishing to come in and produce more employment. More employment, less on benefits, less money lost to the government, more revenue coming into the local council. Why do we have councillors who do not think of these things. For Cllr Bath, NIMBY springs to mind.
Ridiculous decision. One company wishing to move to increase production, therefore increasing employment, and another Morrisons wishing to come in and produce more employment. More employment, less on benefits, less money lost to the government, more revenue coming into the local council. Why do we have councillors who do not think of these things. For Cllr Bath, NIMBY springs to mind. TheDistrict
  • Score: 17

9:00am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

".the residents close by the Beagle site live in old properties on a MAIN BUS ROUTE with hundreds of busses passing by daily. The road is a filthy overcrowded road. The houses look as though they require demolishing. The residents are living in a dream world cut of from reality. Who on Earth wants to live where they do?"
.
I do!
'
And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole?
".the residents close by the Beagle site live in old properties on a MAIN BUS ROUTE with hundreds of busses passing by daily. The road is a filthy overcrowded road. The houses look as though they require demolishing. The residents are living in a dream world cut of from reality. Who on Earth wants to live where they do?" . I do! ' And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole? twynham
  • Score: 8

9:04am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

TheDistrict wrote:
Ridiculous decision. One company wishing to move to increase production, therefore increasing employment, and another Morrisons wishing to come in and produce more employment. More employment, less on benefits, less money lost to the government, more revenue coming into the local council. Why do we have councillors who do not think of these things. For Cllr Bath, NIMBY springs to mind.
If, and it's a big if, a loss making company such as Beagle were to stay in the area they would no doubt do the same as most aircraft companies do and employ contractors from outside the area.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: Ridiculous decision. One company wishing to move to increase production, therefore increasing employment, and another Morrisons wishing to come in and produce more employment. More employment, less on benefits, less money lost to the government, more revenue coming into the local council. Why do we have councillors who do not think of these things. For Cllr Bath, NIMBY springs to mind.[/p][/quote]If, and it's a big if, a loss making company such as Beagle were to stay in the area they would no doubt do the same as most aircraft companies do and employ contractors from outside the area. twynham
  • Score: 12

9:13am Fri 24 Jan 14

Dorset Outsider says...

Asda threatened to pull out, so if morrisons had been approved it wouldn't be both being built! Or at least that is if Asda carried out that bullying threat. Beagle is a local company which its own council has just disregarded at a time when the local area could do with that sort of industry. With the increase of housing in the Christchurch area, another supermarket or two would come in very handy especially when it creates hobs too. With regards to traffic complaints about stony lane, there are 5 access roads that converge on stony lane, whereas the Asda site has two. How can the council accept Asda on traffic grounds but reject the beagle site. Especially as it is on a large existing roundabout where two of the roads are dual lanes. Unlike the semi residential roads leading to the bailey bridge.
Asda threatened to pull out, so if morrisons had been approved it wouldn't be both being built! Or at least that is if Asda carried out that bullying threat. Beagle is a local company which its own council has just disregarded at a time when the local area could do with that sort of industry. With the increase of housing in the Christchurch area, another supermarket or two would come in very handy especially when it creates hobs too. With regards to traffic complaints about stony lane, there are 5 access roads that converge on stony lane, whereas the Asda site has two. How can the council accept Asda on traffic grounds but reject the beagle site. Especially as it is on a large existing roundabout where two of the roads are dual lanes. Unlike the semi residential roads leading to the bailey bridge. Dorset Outsider
  • Score: 18

9:15am Fri 24 Jan 14

The Liberal says...

It Asda be rejected ;)
It Asda be rejected ;) The Liberal
  • Score: 3

9:17am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

" there are 5 access roads that converge on stony lane"
.
Really?
.
Can't have enough hobs I always say!
" there are 5 access roads that converge on stony lane" . Really? . Can't have enough hobs I always say! twynham
  • Score: -3

9:27am Fri 24 Jan 14

skydriver says...

Yet another reason to get rid of these half wit councillors , I think they have lost the plot. Time for a complete change, young new blood that's what required. I'm not a betting man , although I would stake cash on the fact ASDA get the approval from the council, I have to ask myself , if there is something sinister here, although I will keep my real thoughts to myself.!!!!!
I think they have forgotten the fact we voted them in , we too can vote them out, next time round, and that day can't come fast enough. They say they work for the residence of Christchurch, , that I doubt. Yet another fiasco, last week it was the trees in Druitt gardens, one has to wonder what there next gaff will be.
I think it true to say they are a total waste of time, I have said it before ,is there some way we can get them out NOW.
Yet another reason to get rid of these half wit councillors , I think they have lost the plot. Time for a complete change, young new blood that's what required. I'm not a betting man , although I would stake cash on the fact ASDA get the approval from the council, I have to ask myself , if there is something sinister here, although I will keep my real thoughts to myself.!!!!! I think they have forgotten the fact we voted them in , we too can vote them out, next time round, and that day can't come fast enough. They say they work for the residence of Christchurch, , that I doubt. Yet another fiasco, last week it was the trees in Druitt gardens, one has to wonder what there next gaff will be. I think it true to say they are a total waste of time, I have said it before ,is there some way we can get them out NOW. skydriver
  • Score: 10

9:35am Fri 24 Jan 14

PokesdownMark says...

The downside of traffic mis-management. You funnel most traffic onto one main route. Then can't develop the town for fear of causing traffic problems.
The downside of traffic mis-management. You funnel most traffic onto one main route. Then can't develop the town for fear of causing traffic problems. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 6

9:43am Fri 24 Jan 14

voodoo 1 says...

Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!! voodoo 1
  • Score: 8

9:54am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT! twynham
  • Score: -1

9:54am Fri 24 Jan 14

Glashen says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network. Glashen
  • Score: 2

9:58am Fri 24 Jan 14

Christchurch_BH23 says...

Old Colonial wrote:
She (Cllr Bath) said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre.
“I can’t see how we can base the future vitality and viability on evidence which is not robust enough.”

So you pay money for reports by professionals which you then choose to ignore. Arrogance or stupidity? Can the local tax payers who fund your hobby of playing at politics have their money back please?
The consultants admitted last night when asked by Cllr Smith that they hadn't actually asked the question as to how many people would walk into town after shopping at Morrisons, so Cllr Bath was correct in her statement. For me, we have to separate the issue of planning from Beagles desire to move out of the area. If their business plan is robust enough, then they should be able to find the necessary funding to move to the airport. They should work with the council to come up with a mutually acceptable scheme for the current site. How is their relationship with Morrisons any different to Asda's link with Quantum?
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: She (Cllr Bath) said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre. “I can’t see how we can base the future vitality and viability on evidence which is not robust enough.” So you pay money for reports by professionals which you then choose to ignore. Arrogance or stupidity? Can the local tax payers who fund your hobby of playing at politics have their money back please?[/p][/quote]The consultants admitted last night when asked by Cllr Smith that they hadn't actually asked the question as to how many people would walk into town after shopping at Morrisons, so Cllr Bath was correct in her statement. For me, we have to separate the issue of planning from Beagles desire to move out of the area. If their business plan is robust enough, then they should be able to find the necessary funding to move to the airport. They should work with the council to come up with a mutually acceptable scheme for the current site. How is their relationship with Morrisons any different to Asda's link with Quantum? Christchurch_BH23
  • Score: 4

10:03am Fri 24 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

Jackanackanory wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either.

The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there?

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...
70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!!
No, it would mean even more dead birds and cat crap on next-door's lawns!
[quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either. The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...[/p][/quote]70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!![/p][/quote]No, it would mean even more dead birds and cat crap on next-door's lawns! speedy231278
  • Score: -7

10:03am Fri 24 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

Jackanackanory wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
twynham wrote:
Jackanackanory wrote:
Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council!

I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis!

Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!!
It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS!
70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money.
.
Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years.
.
Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?
I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either.

The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there?

It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...
70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!!
No, it would mean even more dead birds and cat crap on next-door's lawns!
[quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackanackanory[/bold] wrote: Is it coincidence that the scheme was proposed for rejection by a councillor who lives rather close to the Beagle site and perhaps has a personal interest in the outcome of the decision? Especially as the reasons for rejection look a bit flimsy and probably won't withstand an appeal - and that's based on the comments reported by the echo on twitter of the legal advisor to the council! I'm not a Christchurch resident so it doesn't matter that much to me, but from an outsiders point of view (who works in Christchurch) it looks like a massive waste of taxpayers money based on council lots "feelings" rather than any legal basis! Will be interesting to see how this one plays out over the next couple of weeks!![/p][/quote]It's most of us who live near the site who are complaining & "have a personal interest in the outcome", we're RESIDENTS! 70,000 extra car journeys per week to Stony Lane and traffic lights on the "bypass" are legitimate grounds for complaint just so that a developer from Lincolnshire can make a bucket load of money. . Couple of weeks, no you are not a Christchurch resident, it's already been going on for a couple of years and probably destined for another couple of years. . Which part of NO do Simons Group and Beagle not understand?[/p][/quote]I can't see where the extra 70,000 cats make a difference - they will be shopping somewhere and if that's at Bailey Bridge, surely Barrack Road will have an extra 70,000 cars, a lot of which would travel through the Stony Lane roundabout and clog up the centre of town which is already congested enough! I can't imagine the residents on that side of Christchurch are over excited about that either. The one thing I would say is I would personally walk into Christchurch from the Beagle site and I'm sure others would too... How many people currently walk from Bailey Bridge to the town centre, and how many more will if a supermarket opens there? It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of traders in the town, especially as Asda sell all sorts of things beyond good whereas Morrisons don't...[/p][/quote]70,000 cars even!! 70,000 cats would be interesting...!![/p][/quote]No, it would mean even more dead birds and cat crap on next-door's lawns! speedy231278
  • Score: -3

10:04am Fri 24 Jan 14

voodoo 1 says...

twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!! voodoo 1
  • Score: 7

10:05am Fri 24 Jan 14

Dorset Outsider says...

Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
Look at flight refuelling in Wimborne, an out dated site with too many inefficiencies was costing them hugely. They built a modern premesis and streamlined the premesis, this has lead to rapid growth and expansion further. Just like if you have a 20 year old car that needs work every week then buy a new car under warranty. The car cost more, but should be more efficient and cheaper to operate.
[quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]Look at flight refuelling in Wimborne, an out dated site with too many inefficiencies was costing them hugely. They built a modern premesis and streamlined the premesis, this has lead to rapid growth and expansion further. Just like if you have a 20 year old car that needs work every week then buy a new car under warranty. The car cost more, but should be more efficient and cheaper to operate. Dorset Outsider
  • Score: 8

10:14am Fri 24 Jan 14

voodoo 1 says...

Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
[quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there voodoo 1
  • Score: 4

10:32am Fri 24 Jan 14

Kevin_123 says...

I am quite surprised the request for the supermarket has been rejected for the third time! Personally, I feel the supermarket would benefit the local area and as said I did and do back it. I am guessing there won't be a fourth time now?
I am quite surprised the request for the supermarket has been rejected for the third time! Personally, I feel the supermarket would benefit the local area and as said I did and do back it. I am guessing there won't be a fourth time now? Kevin_123
  • Score: 5

10:35am Fri 24 Jan 14

Glashen says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give. Glashen
  • Score: 6

10:42am Fri 24 Jan 14

Goldenballs says...

A scheme to bring jobs and choice for local people.
But that's not good enough
someone somewhere must be getting a back hander to refuse this scheme again
Very fishy if you ask me
A scheme to bring jobs and choice for local people. But that's not good enough someone somewhere must be getting a back hander to refuse this scheme again Very fishy if you ask me Goldenballs
  • Score: 8

11:01am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Goldenballs wrote:
A scheme to bring jobs and choice for local people.
But that's not good enough
someone somewhere must be getting a back hander to refuse this scheme again
Very fishy if you ask me
Never make comments or tweet anything you are not prepared to back up in a court of law!
[quote][p][bold]Goldenballs[/bold] wrote: A scheme to bring jobs and choice for local people. But that's not good enough someone somewhere must be getting a back hander to refuse this scheme again Very fishy if you ask me[/p][/quote]Never make comments or tweet anything you are not prepared to back up in a court of law! twynham
  • Score: 2

11:16am Fri 24 Jan 14

M Clarke says...

I wasn't surprised that the Council threw out this application because nothing Christchurch Council surprises me anymore. They commission a Report and then ignore the findings. They have Officers to advise them then go against their recommendations. What a waste of money,! The reasons for turning down this application which would have helped Beagle to develop and brought a new, different type of supermarket to the town appear very flimsy and I wonder if they will stand up to a legal challenge. Yet more expense but so what it's not their money it's ours. What a load of incompetents our councillors are! I wonder if they received a nice Christmas present from Asda??
I wasn't surprised that the Council threw out this application because nothing Christchurch Council surprises me anymore. They commission a Report and then ignore the findings. They have Officers to advise them then go against their recommendations. What a waste of money,! The reasons for turning down this application which would have helped Beagle to develop and brought a new, different type of supermarket to the town appear very flimsy and I wonder if they will stand up to a legal challenge. Yet more expense but so what it's not their money it's ours. What a load of incompetents our councillors are! I wonder if they received a nice Christmas present from Asda?? M Clarke
  • Score: 8

11:16am Fri 24 Jan 14

downmoor-ch63 says...

Yankee1 wrote:
M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'.

It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to.

It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda.
There is only one missing in your group of stores, and that is ALDI.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'. It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to. It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda.[/p][/quote]There is only one missing in your group of stores, and that is ALDI. downmoor-ch63
  • Score: 7

11:45am Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
No need to apologise!
If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.
[quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!![/p][/quote]No need to apologise! If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument. Steve G
  • Score: 2

11:54am Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Steve G wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
No need to apologise!
If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.
I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals.
.
Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!![/p][/quote]No need to apologise! If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.[/p][/quote]I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals. . Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions. twynham
  • Score: 3

11:59am Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
No need to apologise!
If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.
I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals.
.
Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.
Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors!
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!![/p][/quote]No need to apologise! If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.[/p][/quote]I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals. . Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.[/p][/quote]Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors! Steve G
  • Score: -3

12:02pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
No need to apologise!
If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.
I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals.
.
Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.
Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors!
Where have I insulted contributors?
.
Or by insult do you mean disagree?
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!![/p][/quote]No need to apologise! If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.[/p][/quote]I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals. . Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.[/p][/quote]Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors![/p][/quote]Where have I insulted contributors? . Or by insult do you mean disagree? twynham
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Fri 24 Jan 14

mikeymagic says...

Let's hope the same muppets who designed the CastlePoint road system are not in charge of any of these proposed developments. Christchurch is already gridlock for a good portion of the day and is getting increasingly worse year on year. Still, I highly doubt the councillors are sat in it every day.
Let's hope the same muppets who designed the CastlePoint road system are not in charge of any of these proposed developments. Christchurch is already gridlock for a good portion of the day and is getting increasingly worse year on year. Still, I highly doubt the councillors are sat in it every day. mikeymagic
  • Score: 7

12:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
twynham wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
No need to SHOUT!
sorry!!
No need to apologise!
If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.
I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals.
.
Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.
Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors!
Where have I insulted contributors?
.
Or by insult do you mean disagree?
I quote:-
"No need to SHOUT"
"Can't have enough hobs I always say!"
"And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole?"
"Because your talking ****."
None of these advance your argument one bit!
Now I'm leaving you and going back to the matter in hand.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]No need to SHOUT![/p][/quote]sorry!![/p][/quote]No need to apologise! If 'twynham' spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating everyone else's contributions we might get a more sensible argument.[/p][/quote]I've been discussing (& researching) the issues since the original proposals. . Nothing I can do if the facts disagree with opinions.[/p][/quote]Then concentrate on the issues - not insulting the contributors![/p][/quote]Where have I insulted contributors? . Or by insult do you mean disagree?[/p][/quote]I quote:- "No need to SHOUT" "Can't have enough hobs I always say!" "And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole?" "Because your talking ****." None of these advance your argument one bit! Now I'm leaving you and going back to the matter in hand. Steve G
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

There IS no need to SHOUT
.
And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole?
Was a response to being told my cottage should be pulled down.
.
Because your talking ****.
Was aimed at me.
.
Hobs was a joke re typos
.
Next
There IS no need to SHOUT . And where exactly do you live having left the nirvana of Poole? Was a response to being told my cottage should be pulled down. . Because your talking ****. Was aimed at me. . Hobs was a joke re typos . Next twynham
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Fri 24 Jan 14

BmthNewshound says...

So the US Giant Wal-Mart bought the planning committees support with their threat to pull out and take their £1m with them.
.
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.
.
Barrack Road is already a nightmare the traffic chaos the Asda will create is bound to have an impact on the town centre as that route in and out of Christchurch will become a no go area.
.
This decision once again shows how we need to completely rethink the way local councils are run. Decisions like this are too important to leave in the hands of a few geriatric and small minded councillors who don't care about the future as they won't be around to deal with the damage their decisions create.
So the US Giant Wal-Mart bought the planning committees support with their threat to pull out and take their £1m with them. . The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. . Barrack Road is already a nightmare the traffic chaos the Asda will create is bound to have an impact on the town centre as that route in and out of Christchurch will become a no go area. . This decision once again shows how we need to completely rethink the way local councils are run. Decisions like this are too important to leave in the hands of a few geriatric and small minded councillors who don't care about the future as they won't be around to deal with the damage their decisions create. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 6

12:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
[quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage! Steve G
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Dorset Rover says...

I was wondering how and from where Morrisons recruited all their supporters who were at the Council meeting last night. It would be interesting to know what percentage of them were local residents...
I was wondering how and from where Morrisons recruited all their supporters who were at the Council meeting last night. It would be interesting to know what percentage of them were local residents... Dorset Rover
  • Score: -4

12:38pm Fri 24 Jan 14

agp1337 says...

Yankee1 wrote:
M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'.

It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to.

It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda.
Don't forget the Co-op in Christchurch centre. That makes 6.
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: M&S - Waitrose - Sainsburys - Asda - Lidl - Two in town; three on the perimeter. Christchurch is hardly a 'food desert'. It looks like a nice range of stores. Pick the one you like, and shop there. Not sure where Morrisons on Stony Lane fits in the mix. It is neither in-town; nor is it easy to drive to. It would be useful if Asda ran a free bus shuttle from Christchurch town center to its site, as it does between Poole Bus Station and the Holes Bay Asda.[/p][/quote]Don't forget the Co-op in Christchurch centre. That makes 6. agp1337
  • Score: 5

12:43pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town! Steve G
  • Score: -1

12:45pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Barbaloo says...

Beagle ( or the developer who owns the site) are just being greedy. There are plenty of other possibilities for use of that site without inflicting another supermarket on Christchurch and compromising the town centre.
Beagle ( or the developer who owns the site) are just being greedy. There are plenty of other possibilities for use of that site without inflicting another supermarket on Christchurch and compromising the town centre. Barbaloo
  • Score: 8

12:51pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Itsnot me says...

I live in christchurch, and used to work at Beagle. I would rather Morrisons at stoney lane. Than Asda at Bailey bridge where traffic is a nightmare espically
with the school across the road. Also As Asda made any comment on the move to christchurch and the low cost Gym that was orignally mentioned who will that be run by. Or is that all talk. Yet again a decision by councillors looking after themselves. Echo time to do some investigative journilaism.
I live in christchurch, and used to work at Beagle. I would rather Morrisons at stoney lane. Than Asda at Bailey bridge where traffic is a nightmare espically with the school across the road. Also As Asda made any comment on the move to christchurch and the low cost Gym that was orignally mentioned who will that be run by. Or is that all talk. Yet again a decision by councillors looking after themselves. Echo time to do some investigative journilaism. Itsnot me
  • Score: -2

12:55pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Barbaloo says...

Beagle ( or the multi-millionaire developers who own the site) are just being greedy. There are plenty of other possibilities for use of the site without inflicting another supermarket on Christchurch.
Beagle ( or the multi-millionaire developers who own the site) are just being greedy. There are plenty of other possibilities for use of the site without inflicting another supermarket on Christchurch. Barbaloo
  • Score: 5

1:02pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Chris Res says...

Well done Christchurch councillors!
You have resisted huge moral pressure and you will not be pushed into risking the future of the town centre on evidence that you feel is less than convincing.

You have restored my faith in local government!

Retaining a viable Beagle engineering business in Christchurch is of concern to all Christchurch residents.
However we should not allow planning decisions to hinge on the future of one business.
Particularly if that one business is controlled by people who have built their businesses as property developers. (John Morgan and Jack Lovell.)

Beagle employees should not be used as an anvil in an attempt to beat out the maximum planning advantage and profit for the Beagle shareholders.

If the Beagle business can become profitable with investment, Morgan & Lovell are in a position to provide that investment directly with the resources they have. Beagle won’t even need to move!
(Perhaps Quantum could help with that investment.)

Morrisons is a fine supermarket and would be welcome to the town on one of the existing consented sites, but not on the Beagle site.
A supermarket on that site, which is half a mile from Saxon Square, will not attract linked trips to the extent that “consultants” predict.
All of us who do family shopping know that the logic is flawed and the sample is too small to allow the life or death risk to the town centre.
Well done Christchurch councillors! You have resisted huge moral pressure and you will not be pushed into risking the future of the town centre on evidence that you feel is less than convincing. You have restored my faith in local government! Retaining a viable Beagle engineering business in Christchurch is of concern to all Christchurch residents. However we should not allow planning decisions to hinge on the future of one business. Particularly if that one business is controlled by people who have built their businesses as property developers. (John Morgan and Jack Lovell.) Beagle employees should not be used as an anvil in an attempt to beat out the maximum planning advantage and profit for the Beagle shareholders. If the Beagle business can become profitable with investment, Morgan & Lovell are in a position to provide that investment directly with the resources they have. Beagle won’t even need to move! (Perhaps Quantum could help with that investment.) Morrisons is a fine supermarket and would be welcome to the town on one of the existing consented sites, but not on the Beagle site. A supermarket on that site, which is half a mile from Saxon Square, will not attract linked trips to the extent that “consultants” predict. All of us who do family shopping know that the logic is flawed and the sample is too small to allow the life or death risk to the town centre. Chris Res
  • Score: 6

1:02pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting! twynham
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

Dorset Rover wrote:
I was wondering how and from where Morrisons recruited all their supporters who were at the Council meeting last night. It would be interesting to know what percentage of them were local residents...
Can't give an accurate figure - but there were quite a number of faces I recognised amongst those supporting the application. Most of the rest appeared to be Beagle workers who must live reasonably close; close enough to use the supermarket.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Rover[/bold] wrote: I was wondering how and from where Morrisons recruited all their supporters who were at the Council meeting last night. It would be interesting to know what percentage of them were local residents...[/p][/quote]Can't give an accurate figure - but there were quite a number of faces I recognised amongst those supporting the application. Most of the rest appeared to be Beagle workers who must live reasonably close; close enough to use the supermarket. Steve G
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others. Steve G
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Fri 24 Jan 14

StuC80 says...

I think a few things are missing from this debate and from reading the comments a few people are missing the point.
From what I understood when this was first put forward for planning, Beagle want to move to the Airport. Why? Because they are an "Aerospace" company, which would make sense to all as you are only going to stand a chance of expanding if you have an accessible runway.
I think a few things are missing from this debate and from reading the comments a few people are missing the point. From what I understood when this was first put forward for planning, Beagle want to move to the Airport. Why? Because they are an "Aerospace" company, which would make sense to all as you are only going to stand a chance of expanding if you have an accessible runway. StuC80
  • Score: 1

2:08pm Fri 24 Jan 14

StuC80 says...

And to add:
I live just off Purewell and work on Stony Lane. As someone from the younger generation, with a young family, and someone who cares about the future of Christchurch, I really feel this is a huge mistake.

Jobs? The amount of work a large supermarket will bring to the area will surely help a lot of people out. There is a huge % of unemployment in Christchurch, because we don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the population.

With Beagle being able to expand, the jobs created will surely help those that were lost when Cobham announced job cuts a while back, and a lot of other highly skilled man and women who are out of work.

The Barrack road site is more of a flood risk than Stony Lane/Bridge street. We use the proposed Asda site as storage and the water levels were inches from flooding the site only a few weeks ago. The Beagle site was no where near flooding due to it being a lot higher than the rivers/fields that surround it.
I also choose not to shop in over priced supermarkets such as Waitrose and M&S, because quite frankly, they are over priced to attract the rich. Co-op is a bit of a joke and is too small to call a supermarket.
I choose to shop out of town because the shops that offer the best value/choice do not exist in Christchurch, but Morrisons would offer what is missing.
If even 5% of the shoppers to Morrisons took a walk into the high street, the traders would notice an increase in custom. The high street hardly appeals, unless you fancy a bite to eat or a coffee. Without the chain stores, New Look, Oswald Bailey, Argos etc. What else is there to attract the "normal everyday shopper" to the high street? Yes there are some lovely clothes stores for the more mature shopper, and a great amount of hair salons etc, but what else?
Sainsburys don't seem to care, or else they would be leading the "say no to beagle" brigade.

The congestion would hardly impact the area to the point of Purewell/Bridge Street being able to cope, as most shoppers coming into the area will have to come in via the main routes. I’m sure the people coming in Via Mudeford/Somerford may choose to use Purewell, but they are likely to be people who already use that route to get to the high street?
Stony lane is like a ghost town, you go into any of the stores there and you will hardly struggle to be served or helped, as no one uses them. We all need the additional business through the door in these difficult times and the addition of Morrisons would do exactly that.

As for using the site for housing, I would also support that, as long as it wasn’t sold to developers wanting to make stupid bloody town houses like the ones going up in Purewell as I type! Nothing but shoe boxes made to look nice. The flood defences would need to be improve, and they would have to be priced reasonably, so not to price people like myself and first time buyers etc. out of the area, as currently there is insufficient housing to keep people here, unless they want to buy an over priced ex-council house!
And to add: I live just off Purewell and work on Stony Lane. As someone from the younger generation, with a young family, and someone who cares about the future of Christchurch, I really feel this is a huge mistake. Jobs? The amount of work a large supermarket will bring to the area will surely help a lot of people out. There is a huge % of unemployment in Christchurch, because we don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the population. With Beagle being able to expand, the jobs created will surely help those that were lost when Cobham announced job cuts a while back, and a lot of other highly skilled man and women who are out of work. The Barrack road site is more of a flood risk than Stony Lane/Bridge street. We use the proposed Asda site as storage and the water levels were inches from flooding the site only a few weeks ago. The Beagle site was no where near flooding due to it being a lot higher than the rivers/fields that surround it. I also choose not to shop in over priced supermarkets such as Waitrose and M&S, because quite frankly, they are over priced to attract the rich. Co-op is a bit of a joke and is too small to call a supermarket. I choose to shop out of town because the shops that offer the best value/choice do not exist in Christchurch, but Morrisons would offer what is missing. If even 5% of the shoppers to Morrisons took a walk into the high street, the traders would notice an increase in custom. The high street hardly appeals, unless you fancy a bite to eat or a coffee. Without the chain stores, New Look, Oswald Bailey, Argos etc. What else is there to attract the "normal everyday shopper" to the high street? Yes there are some lovely clothes stores for the more mature shopper, and a great amount of hair salons etc, but what else? Sainsburys don't seem to care, or else they would be leading the "say no to beagle" brigade. The congestion would hardly impact the area to the point of Purewell/Bridge Street being able to cope, as most shoppers coming into the area will have to come in via the main routes. I’m sure the people coming in Via Mudeford/Somerford may choose to use Purewell, but they are likely to be people who already use that route to get to the high street? Stony lane is like a ghost town, you go into any of the stores there and you will hardly struggle to be served or helped, as no one uses them. We all need the additional business through the door in these difficult times and the addition of Morrisons would do exactly that. As for using the site for housing, I would also support that, as long as it wasn’t sold to developers wanting to make stupid bloody town houses like the ones going up in Purewell as I type! Nothing but shoe boxes made to look nice. The flood defences would need to be improve, and they would have to be priced reasonably, so not to price people like myself and first time buyers etc. out of the area, as currently there is insufficient housing to keep people here, unless they want to buy an over priced ex-council house! StuC80
  • Score: 7

2:14pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately. twynham
  • Score: 5

2:22pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Beatnik fly says...

This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision.

However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses.
It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses .
This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision. However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses. It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses . Beatnik fly
  • Score: 5

2:26pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Glashen says...

A few things to note,
-
1) Supermarkets tend to like being sited near busy roundabouts there are many local examples of this rule being applied locally and many of those happened on appeal.
-
2) What has happened in the past is that when supermarkets are built more jump on the bandwagon often through appeals the end result is more retail space than was planned and is sustainable, this ultimately damages the traditional high street.
-
3) The Stony lane site is probably the best site, if it gets planning permission, so for the supermarket and the land owners if they win their gamble they win big, that is why the decision which we will live with for many years is an important one for the town and should be decided on what is best for Christchurch and then upheld on appeal.
A few things to note, - 1) Supermarkets tend to like being sited near busy roundabouts there are many local examples of this rule being applied locally and many of those happened on appeal. - 2) What has happened in the past is that when supermarkets are built more jump on the bandwagon often through appeals the end result is more retail space than was planned and is sustainable, this ultimately damages the traditional high street. - 3) The Stony lane site is probably the best site, if it gets planning permission, so for the supermarket and the land owners if they win their gamble they win big, that is why the decision which we will live with for many years is an important one for the town and should be decided on what is best for Christchurch and then upheld on appeal. Glashen
  • Score: 1

2:27pm Fri 24 Jan 14

StuC80 says...

Beatnik fly wrote:
This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision.

However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses.
It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses .
"the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses."
Is that so they could remain empty along with the numerous amount of units already vacant in the surrounding areas?
[quote][p][bold]Beatnik fly[/bold] wrote: This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision. However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses. It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses .[/p][/quote]"the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses." Is that so they could remain empty along with the numerous amount of units already vacant in the surrounding areas? StuC80
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

I quote from the minutes of the minutes of the Planning Committee in 23rd Oct 2012 during the discussion re all three supermarket applications.
"Councillor Mrs Dedman stated that the Beagle application would be totally different to what the town centre offered and would encourage shoppers to walk to the town centre."
So how come she seconded the refusal last night.
Interestingly at that meeting the officers were also overruled and Asda was given outline planning permission.
I quote from the minutes of the minutes of the Planning Committee in 23rd Oct 2012 during the discussion re all three supermarket applications. "Councillor Mrs Dedman stated that the Beagle application would be totally different to what the town centre offered and would encourage shoppers to walk to the town centre." So how come she seconded the refusal last night. Interestingly at that meeting the officers were also overruled and Asda was given outline planning permission. Steve G
  • Score: 3

2:49pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Beatnik fly says...

Can you put a location on all these small units which are empty you refer to? My point was that other uses for the site should be suggested, which would not have such an adverse effect on the town center, I would be very happy to see low cost starter homes, with perhaps a nursery provision and/or a youth center. Anything which would benefit the local community and not rip the heart out of the town center. Your comments as to how you would use the site would enhance this debate.
Can you put a location on all these small units which are empty you refer to? My point was that other uses for the site should be suggested, which would not have such an adverse effect on the town center, I would be very happy to see low cost starter homes, with perhaps a nursery provision and/or a youth center. Anything which would benefit the local community and not rip the heart out of the town center. Your comments as to how you would use the site would enhance this debate. Beatnik fly
  • Score: 3

3:06pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind. Steve G
  • Score: -2

3:16pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

Beatnik fly wrote:
This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision.

However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses.
It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses .
Yes it would be lovely to have more small businesses in units on the site but there are many others close by on the old airfield that are more attractive. Only by charging very low rents would they be filled.
And would the number of workers outweigh those lost through Beagle moving away to the honeypot development areas in Portsmouth and Southampton?
[quote][p][bold]Beatnik fly[/bold] wrote: This reapplication has nothing to do with Christchurch, it's more about the very lucrative development possibilities of the site. Would the proceeds of the sale of the site benefit beagle and therefore protect jobs, or into the hands of the developers pushing this through? Beagle is not a profitable business , and there are a few locals who have financial interests in the business . They will be less than pleased at the outcome of last nights decision. However, the councillors were able to see through the lightweight , unquantifiable out of date evidence submitted by NPL , and with a lot of common sense voted against the council officers and ensuring the viability of Christchurch town center and it's local businesses. It was interesting to hear that no other use for this site has been proposed by the developers, well I think they should now put another hat on and start brainstorming.. Although not so lucrative for the developers, the existing buildings could be split into small industrial units, therefore benefitting LOCAL businesses .[/p][/quote]Yes it would be lovely to have more small businesses in units on the site but there are many others close by on the old airfield that are more attractive. Only by charging very low rents would they be filled. And would the number of workers outweigh those lost through Beagle moving away to the honeypot development areas in Portsmouth and Southampton? Steve G
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com

Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies. twynham
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Fri 24 Jan 14

jazzy jenkins says...

Were they turned down because Asda threatened to pull out ..I ask myself..!!
Were they turned down because Asda threatened to pull out ..I ask myself..!! jazzy jenkins
  • Score: 3

4:10pm Fri 24 Jan 14

family1 says...

I really want morrisons to be approved i live in area it is needed.
I really want morrisons to be approved i live in area it is needed. family1
  • Score: 3

5:17pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Jackanackanory says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com


Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
Those figures are irrelevant, and you need to look at the parent group of the company, and the subsidiaries of the company, rather than just a component of the business. The 'Company' as a whole is profitable from their accounts, and just because one part of the business shows a loss, doesn't mean it is being offset elsewhere...

They make a lot of high tech product now and are supplying some very large companies in areas beyond just aerospace. Their reputation is good, but they need more modern production which won't happen on that site.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.[/p][/quote]Those figures are irrelevant, and you need to look at the parent group of the company, and the subsidiaries of the company, rather than just a component of the business. The 'Company' as a whole is profitable from their accounts, and just because one part of the business shows a loss, doesn't mean it is being offset elsewhere... They make a lot of high tech product now and are supplying some very large companies in areas beyond just aerospace. Their reputation is good, but they need more modern production which won't happen on that site. Jackanackanory
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com


Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
Link to Twynham re Beagle (Not quoting as the item is getting too large to manage)
Thanks for the info about their company house records. Things don't look good but if you scratch below the surface.....
Interesting that their holding company has a net worth of c. £5.5 million and only one other (drinks) subsidiary which is very small. (Makes me wonder where the product from the £6.5 million turnover is going. There's some clever accounting going on perhaps.)
Makes me think that they want to revamp the company and sell it on if they are allowed to expand.
- but if they can't, they will break it up and get what they can. Not good for Christchurch - we'll be left with a another derelict site and no work.
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.[/p][/quote]Link to Twynham re Beagle (Not quoting as the item is getting too large to manage) Thanks for the info about their company house records. Things don't look good but if you scratch below the surface..... Interesting that their holding company has a net worth of c. £5.5 million and only one other (drinks) subsidiary which is very small. (Makes me wonder where the product from the £6.5 million turnover is going. There's some clever accounting going on perhaps.) Makes me think that they want to revamp the company and sell it on if they are allowed to expand. - but if they can't, they will break it up and get what they can. Not good for Christchurch - we'll be left with a another derelict site and no work. Steve G
  • Score: -4

5:59pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

StuC80 wrote:
And to add:
I live just off Purewell and work on Stony Lane. As someone from the younger generation, with a young family, and someone who cares about the future of Christchurch, I really feel this is a huge mistake.

Jobs? The amount of work a large supermarket will bring to the area will surely help a lot of people out. There is a huge % of unemployment in Christchurch, because we don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the population.

With Beagle being able to expand, the jobs created will surely help those that were lost when Cobham announced job cuts a while back, and a lot of other highly skilled man and women who are out of work.

The Barrack road site is more of a flood risk than Stony Lane/Bridge street. We use the proposed Asda site as storage and the water levels were inches from flooding the site only a few weeks ago. The Beagle site was no where near flooding due to it being a lot higher than the rivers/fields that surround it.
I also choose not to shop in over priced supermarkets such as Waitrose and M&S, because quite frankly, they are over priced to attract the rich. Co-op is a bit of a joke and is too small to call a supermarket.
I choose to shop out of town because the shops that offer the best value/choice do not exist in Christchurch, but Morrisons would offer what is missing.
If even 5% of the shoppers to Morrisons took a walk into the high street, the traders would notice an increase in custom. The high street hardly appeals, unless you fancy a bite to eat or a coffee. Without the chain stores, New Look, Oswald Bailey, Argos etc. What else is there to attract the "normal everyday shopper" to the high street? Yes there are some lovely clothes stores for the more mature shopper, and a great amount of hair salons etc, but what else?
Sainsburys don't seem to care, or else they would be leading the "say no to beagle" brigade.

The congestion would hardly impact the area to the point of Purewell/Bridge Street being able to cope, as most shoppers coming into the area will have to come in via the main routes. I’m sure the people coming in Via Mudeford/Somerford may choose to use Purewell, but they are likely to be people who already use that route to get to the high street?
Stony lane is like a ghost town, you go into any of the stores there and you will hardly struggle to be served or helped, as no one uses them. We all need the additional business through the door in these difficult times and the addition of Morrisons would do exactly that.

As for using the site for housing, I would also support that, as long as it wasn’t sold to developers wanting to make stupid bloody town houses like the ones going up in Purewell as I type! Nothing but shoe boxes made to look nice. The flood defences would need to be improve, and they would have to be priced reasonably, so not to price people like myself and first time buyers etc. out of the area, as currently there is insufficient housing to keep people here, unless they want to buy an over priced ex-council house!
Well said! I notice no one has tried to refute your arguments as you are in a strong position to know what it means to live and work in the area.
[quote][p][bold]StuC80[/bold] wrote: And to add: I live just off Purewell and work on Stony Lane. As someone from the younger generation, with a young family, and someone who cares about the future of Christchurch, I really feel this is a huge mistake. Jobs? The amount of work a large supermarket will bring to the area will surely help a lot of people out. There is a huge % of unemployment in Christchurch, because we don’t have the infrastructure to cope with the population. With Beagle being able to expand, the jobs created will surely help those that were lost when Cobham announced job cuts a while back, and a lot of other highly skilled man and women who are out of work. The Barrack road site is more of a flood risk than Stony Lane/Bridge street. We use the proposed Asda site as storage and the water levels were inches from flooding the site only a few weeks ago. The Beagle site was no where near flooding due to it being a lot higher than the rivers/fields that surround it. I also choose not to shop in over priced supermarkets such as Waitrose and M&S, because quite frankly, they are over priced to attract the rich. Co-op is a bit of a joke and is too small to call a supermarket. I choose to shop out of town because the shops that offer the best value/choice do not exist in Christchurch, but Morrisons would offer what is missing. If even 5% of the shoppers to Morrisons took a walk into the high street, the traders would notice an increase in custom. The high street hardly appeals, unless you fancy a bite to eat or a coffee. Without the chain stores, New Look, Oswald Bailey, Argos etc. What else is there to attract the "normal everyday shopper" to the high street? Yes there are some lovely clothes stores for the more mature shopper, and a great amount of hair salons etc, but what else? Sainsburys don't seem to care, or else they would be leading the "say no to beagle" brigade. The congestion would hardly impact the area to the point of Purewell/Bridge Street being able to cope, as most shoppers coming into the area will have to come in via the main routes. I’m sure the people coming in Via Mudeford/Somerford may choose to use Purewell, but they are likely to be people who already use that route to get to the high street? Stony lane is like a ghost town, you go into any of the stores there and you will hardly struggle to be served or helped, as no one uses them. We all need the additional business through the door in these difficult times and the addition of Morrisons would do exactly that. As for using the site for housing, I would also support that, as long as it wasn’t sold to developers wanting to make stupid bloody town houses like the ones going up in Purewell as I type! Nothing but shoe boxes made to look nice. The flood defences would need to be improve, and they would have to be priced reasonably, so not to price people like myself and first time buyers etc. out of the area, as currently there is insufficient housing to keep people here, unless they want to buy an over priced ex-council house![/p][/quote]Well said! I notice no one has tried to refute your arguments as you are in a strong position to know what it means to live and work in the area. Steve G
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Fri 24 Jan 14

BeagleMD says...

twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com


Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme

Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed.

The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year

Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10

The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold.

At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not!
We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site

Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe.

I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families.

I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing.

John Taylor
Managing Director
[quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.[/p][/quote]Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed. The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10 The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold. At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not! We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe. I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families. I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing. John Taylor Managing Director BeagleMD
  • Score: 3

6:13pm Fri 24 Jan 14

northerner moved south says...

Hope Morrisons have the sense to swap shops with the Coop in New Milton, giving them a few quid of course, and then my few visits to Christchurch will be reduced still further, It will also bring extra footfall to New Milton making the town centre more vibrant. Then a convenience store in Christchurch or Highcliffe would be all they would need to cover the area as far as Lymington.
Sorry Beagle but the council dont like your company.
regards to all.
Hope Morrisons have the sense to swap shops with the Coop in New Milton, giving them a few quid of course, and then my few visits to Christchurch will be reduced still further, It will also bring extra footfall to New Milton making the town centre more vibrant. Then a convenience store in Christchurch or Highcliffe would be all they would need to cover the area as far as Lymington. Sorry Beagle but the council dont like your company. regards to all. northerner moved south
  • Score: -4

6:19pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Burtongreenandpleasantland says...

fedupofchristchurch wrote:
As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.
what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green.
[quote][p][bold]fedupofchristchurch[/bold] wrote: As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.[/p][/quote]what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green. Burtongreenandpleasantland
  • Score: 7

6:45pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Burtongreenandpleasantland says...

BeagleMD wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com



Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme

Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed.

The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year

Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10

The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold.

At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not!
We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site

Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe.

I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families.

I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing.

John Taylor
Managing Director
John, very pleased to hear the business has been turned around.

A good property agent would get you almost as much money for a residential development, alowing you to achieve your ambitions.
Christchurch would benefit from desperately needed housing, and the town DOESN'T get another supermarket it doesn't need.
The shoppers that do remain in the High Street won't be encouraged to shop out of town, and Green fields are kept Green.
Beagle gets what Beagle wants, Christchurch gets what it desperately needs. What's the problem ?
[quote][p][bold]BeagleMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.[/p][/quote]Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed. The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10 The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold. At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not! We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe. I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families. I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing. John Taylor Managing Director[/p][/quote]John, very pleased to hear the business has been turned around. A good property agent would get you almost as much money for a residential development, alowing you to achieve your ambitions. Christchurch would benefit from desperately needed housing, and the town DOESN'T get another supermarket it doesn't need. The shoppers that do remain in the High Street won't be encouraged to shop out of town, and Green fields are kept Green. Beagle gets what Beagle wants, Christchurch gets what it desperately needs. What's the problem ? Burtongreenandpleasantland
  • Score: 3

8:20pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Beatnik fly says...

Burtongreenandpleasa
ntland
wrote:
BeagleMD wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
twynham wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Steve G wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Glashen wrote:
voodoo 1 wrote:
Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!!
If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.
They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there
Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use.
-
It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.
If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based.
The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage!
BmthNewshound says...
The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate.

I hadn't thought of that!
That's an even easier option for Beagle!
I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town!
And you call me insulting!
Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument.
I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you.
We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately.
I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.
As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is.
.
It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket.
.
Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff.
.
The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat.
.
The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious.
.
Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets.
.
The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point.
.
And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately.
.
But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.
Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point!
However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons.
-The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury.
-Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years".
-Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out.
-Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit.
(Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!)
As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.
Data re Beagle as requested.
EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265

Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013
minus £1,558,000
Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013
minus £4,441,00
Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013
minus £6,999,000
98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013
minus £10,682.40
Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013
Plus £351,000

All figures from www.redflagalert.com




Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.
Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme

Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed.

The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year

Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10

The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold.

At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not!
We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site

Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe.

I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families.

I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing.

John Taylor
Managing Director
John, very pleased to hear the business has been turned around.

A good property agent would get you almost as much money for a residential development, alowing you to achieve your ambitions.
Christchurch would benefit from desperately needed housing, and the town DOESN'T get another supermarket it doesn't need.
The shoppers that do remain in the High Street won't be encouraged to shop out of town, and Green fields are kept Green.
Beagle gets what Beagle wants, Christchurch gets what it desperately needs. What's the problem ?
I am in total agreement with you in the respect of alternative uses for the site, and housing would be the obvious. I opened a debate earlier on in the discussions asking for alternative uses, but as yet I am waiting.. The problem with housing is the flooding, but i am sure if it were put out for an architect tender, someone would come up with an ingenious solution.
This site is unsuitable in so many ways for a supermarket, and I thank the MD of Beagle for his comments. However, I feel that his comments regarding the sensitivity surrounding his employees, weighs equally with the residents of Christchurch whose town would be devasted if this ever went ahead. It would be interesting to know if he lives in Christchurch, and just how many employees live in Christchurch.?
[quote][p][bold]Burtongreenandpleasa ntland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeagleMD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twynham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Glashen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]voodoo 1[/bold] wrote: Beagle would have to relocate in christchurch. How will you feel "twynham" when beagle closes and the site is left derelict and vandals have got in there just round the corner from your house because they obviously can't keep losing as much money as much money as you say they are, you will have some thing else to moan about GET A LIFE!!!!!![/p][/quote]If Beagle is uneconomic it will in all probability still be uneconomic in a new site, using a planning generated premium to support a business is at best a short term solution. This decision should not be whether you prefer Morrison's to Asda or the fate of Beagle it should be what is right for the Beagle factory site, which to me is an ideal site for additional housing, I realise there may be planning issues especially with regard to flooding but surely these could be overcome by good planning rather than agree to another supermarket which will inevitably saturate the road network.[/p][/quote]They would use some of the money to invest in new equipment some of the machines there belong in a museum. Also it doesn't look good showing customers of multi million pound businesses round a site that looks like a s**t hole with all the work shops under water where the roof leaks, would you send your work there[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable to want to invest in the business and as I said in my original post I think finding the right use for this site is important I just don't think a supermarket is the right use. - It is a common argument to pressure the planners with talk of jobs but apparently completely wrong to point out that investment in the environment, houses and other jobs such as Quantum propose is jeapordised. This suggests double standards to me. If Beagle's future plans to move are sustainable then getting a market price for the site with its existing use and seeking investment from the usual routes should suffice, they should not need the planning windfall that granting Morrison's permission would give.[/p][/quote]If Beagle lose this buyer for the site, with their commitment to staying in Christchurch and a secure supermarket design, then their parent company is in a position to close the site down, with a total loss of jobs and move the facility anywhere - probably to Italy where they are based. The Quantum developer obviously got planning permission without such guarantees and Asda can threaten to withdraw at this late stage![/p][/quote]BmthNewshound says... The planning committee has shown itself to be very small minded by effectively giving notice to Beagle to quit the town. With Southampton and Portsmouth getting their city deal money to attract investment and Portsmouth receiving additional support following the BAE closure announcement Beagle would be well advised to look along the coast and relocate. I hadn't thought of that! That's an even easier option for Beagle! I suppose the only positive aspect is that some of the workforce could at least follow - leaving Christchurch an even more geriatric town![/p][/quote]And you call me insulting![/p][/quote]Still at it! Slagging off the contributor - not making the argument. I'm one of the intelligent but geriatric residents who weighed up the arguments over the period of the application and came to a different conclusion from you. We all live in a democracy and so should have the courtesy to listen to the arguments of others and respond appropriately. I look forward to your next discussion point but I may be too busy discussing with others.[/p][/quote]As I have stated ad nauseam over the last couple of years my argument is. . It is a totally inappropriate site for a supermarket. . Beagle are a failing business who would be under no obligation to stay in Christchurch let alone employ local staff. . The owners of the site and the developers are trying to blackmail planning with the loss of jobs threat. . The assertion of the developers that 20% of shoppers will walk into Christchurch is in the very least, spurious. . Christchurch (and the surrounding area) is more than adequately provisioned with supermarkets. . The increase in traffic is unacceptable in an area which the developers own traffic survey admits is already close to saturation point. . And yes, this is a democratic forum therefore if I disagree with anyone's point of view I have and always will criticise that point of view appropriately. . But if someone makes a personal attack on me rather than my arguments I will also respond appropriately.[/p][/quote]Well done Twynham! I may have got under your skin but at least you are now discussing the point! However, I still feel the weight of the considered argument is for the supermarket and until someone comes up with appropriate estimates based on valid data to refute the NLP report I continue to support Morrisons. -The supermarket site is just off the only major road through Christchurch and is more accessible for the hinterland than Asda. Currently hinterland shopping traffic wanting supermarkets will go to Asda/Castlepoint and will clog up the Fountains roundabout etc. Only some will stop off at Sainsbury. -Beagles are not failing - they want to expand. The parent company will decide the best way to do it and that may be to the detriment of the Christchurch working population. The promise to stay local is quoted in CBC minutes as "for 15 years". -Re: 20% link trade. The survey showed 10% from Sainsbury's - so it's not far out. -Yes the traffic is a problem. Morrisons are prepared to contribute a million towards Dorset County Highways plans to modify the Stoney Lane roundabout which will help a bit. (Slightly off subject:- Roll on a Christchurch Bypass and better access to Christchurch's 'Bournemouth' Airport!) As I have already said, I need data rather than opinion to change my mind.[/p][/quote]Data re Beagle as requested. EXTRACTS FROM ASSESSMENT OF BEAGLE TECHNOLOGY GROUP COMPANY REG NO 00968265 Profit & Loss. July 2011 – January 2013 minus £1,558,000 Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year. Jan 31 2013 minus £4,441,00 Profit & Loss Account Reserve. Jan 31 2013 minus £6,999,000 98 Employees Profit per Employee. Jan 31 2013 minus £10,682.40 Director Remuneration. Jan 31 2013 Plus £351,000 All figures from www.redflagalert.com Red Flag Alert is a business database containing over 6 million records on businesses in the UK, from sole traders through to limited and quoted companies.[/p][/quote]Firstly may I thank the majority of readers for their support whilst we are disappointed by last nights result it is only one stage of a longer process and we remain committed to Christchurch and delivering our scheme Whilst I normally would not comment in an open forum I feel I must address some of the information that is being portrayed. The financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year Beagle has a long heritage as an employer in Christchurch supplying legacy aircraft components on to planes such as Tornado, Jaguer, Harrier and VC10 The period mentioned above was very challenging as it followed the governments strategic defence review in October 2010 when the Harrier GR9 was retired early from service. The Harrier support contract counted for half of sales that Beagle sold. At that time it would have been easy for us to give up but we did not! We rolled up our sleeves and looked at the options we had which included the possibility of developing a supermarket on the Stony Lane site Today I'm pleased to say and proud of the Beagle employees who have in short time turned the business around. We now supply various markets including Aerospace, Marine and Defence. We now supply composite and metal components to many customers across the globe. I respect the right for all to have there views heard all I ask is that some sensitivity is shown to employees of Beagle and their families. I am more than happy to clarify any questions you may have, please ring me on 01202-482296. Or pop in to our reception and ask for me I'm happy to show you around and the great things we are now doing. John Taylor Managing Director[/p][/quote]John, very pleased to hear the business has been turned around. A good property agent would get you almost as much money for a residential development, alowing you to achieve your ambitions. Christchurch would benefit from desperately needed housing, and the town DOESN'T get another supermarket it doesn't need. The shoppers that do remain in the High Street won't be encouraged to shop out of town, and Green fields are kept Green. Beagle gets what Beagle wants, Christchurch gets what it desperately needs. What's the problem ?[/p][/quote]I am in total agreement with you in the respect of alternative uses for the site, and housing would be the obvious. I opened a debate earlier on in the discussions asking for alternative uses, but as yet I am waiting.. The problem with housing is the flooding, but i am sure if it were put out for an architect tender, someone would come up with an ingenious solution. This site is unsuitable in so many ways for a supermarket, and I thank the MD of Beagle for his comments. However, I feel that his comments regarding the sensitivity surrounding his employees, weighs equally with the residents of Christchurch whose town would be devasted if this ever went ahead. It would be interesting to know if he lives in Christchurch, and just how many employees live in Christchurch.? Beatnik fly
  • Score: 5

9:15pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Steve G says...

Burtongreenandpleasa
ntland
wrote:
fedupofchristchurch wrote:
As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.
what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green.
But, in the course of the planning meeting, it was said that the land was not suitable for housing. The recent flooding was extreme but not sure anyone can convince CBC planning committee that housing could be put there after the recent inundation of the site.
[quote][p][bold]Burtongreenandpleasa ntland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupofchristchurch[/bold] wrote: As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.[/p][/quote]what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green.[/p][/quote]But, in the course of the planning meeting, it was said that the land was not suitable for housing. The recent flooding was extreme but not sure anyone can convince CBC planning committee that housing could be put there after the recent inundation of the site. Steve G
  • Score: -1

10:12pm Fri 24 Jan 14

twynham says...

May I give John Taylor a few words of advice?
The aircraft industry in this area (and elsewhere) has always been volatile.
My Father worked for De-Havilland, Airworks, Vickers, British Aerospace and more in the 50/60s and would not allow me to work in the trade because there was no guarantee he would be able to pay his mortgage month to month.
Little has changed other than the fact in those days the majority of employees were local whereas now most are contractors from within and without the area.
How many of Cobham’s employees are local or even from the UK?
I appreciate “the financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year” but this was never made clear when the Planning Committee were being blackmailed on the jobs front.
It took me ages to find this information on the web.
As far as “it is only one stage of a longer process” this was the third failed application; which part of No We Do Not Want Any More Supermarkets In Christchurch do you not understand?
And you are correct, you should not run a business using social media as Izy and the rest of the really nice guys at Simons Group have found out.
There are an awful lot of us out here who can read between the lines of any developer’s proposals and love our town enough not to want it denigrated further by another unnecessary supermarket development by a company in Lincolnshire, one of the driest counties in the country, who have no idea and care even less about the impact their schemes have on the local populace.
May I give John Taylor a few words of advice? The aircraft industry in this area (and elsewhere) has always been volatile. My Father worked for De-Havilland, Airworks, Vickers, British Aerospace and more in the 50/60s and would not allow me to work in the trade because there was no guarantee he would be able to pay his mortgage month to month. Little has changed other than the fact in those days the majority of employees were local whereas now most are contractors from within and without the area. How many of Cobham’s employees are local or even from the UK? I appreciate “the financial performance of Beagle is public knowledge as we are legally required to file our accounts at companies house each year” but this was never made clear when the Planning Committee were being blackmailed on the jobs front. It took me ages to find this information on the web. As far as “it is only one stage of a longer process” this was the third failed application; which part of No We Do Not Want Any More Supermarkets In Christchurch do you not understand? And you are correct, you should not run a business using social media as Izy and the rest of the really nice guys at Simons Group have found out. There are an awful lot of us out here who can read between the lines of any developer’s proposals and love our town enough not to want it denigrated further by another unnecessary supermarket development by a company in Lincolnshire, one of the driest counties in the country, who have no idea and care even less about the impact their schemes have on the local populace. twynham
  • Score: 5

10:32am Sat 25 Jan 14

Burtongreenandpleasantland says...

Steve G wrote:
Burtongreenandpleasa

ntland
wrote:
fedupofchristchurch wrote:
As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.
what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green.
But, in the course of the planning meeting, it was said that the land was not suitable for housing. The recent flooding was extreme but not sure anyone can convince CBC planning committee that housing could be put there after the recent inundation of the site.
They overcame the risk of flooding at Tucktonia and they could overcome the flood risk at the Beagle site.
The real reason why Beagle and the developer wanted a supermarket is because that achieves 10%-15% more money than housing.
Had the vote gone in the developers favor Beagle would have gained a little bit more cash, the town would have gained a 6th supermarket it didn't need, and Christchurch residents would have lost the opportunity for desperately needed housing.
There is plenty of opportunity to build on brown field land before we need to start building on green fields. Well done Councillors for not loosing the opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]Steve G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burtongreenandpleasa ntland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupofchristchurch[/bold] wrote: As a resident of Christchurch, I am bitterly disappointed that the Council have yet again refused planning for the Morrisons store. What objectors seem to be missing is that Beagle Technology cannot expand their business unless they move to another site and one assumes that they need to sell their current site to be able to move to another bigger site, therefore by refusing Simons Group, the Council in their infinite wisdom are denying a local company from expanding and employing more people. One also has to wonder if planning was refused because of Quantum's threat to withdraw from Bailey Bridge, shame the Council didn't call their bluff. As for increased traffic on Stony Lane, Bridge Street, Purewell etc, what about the extra traffic that the Bailey Bridge Development will create, Barrack Road and Fairmile are horrendous at the best of times without the added traffic that Quantum's development would bring, sorry but to use additional traffic in the Stony Lane area is just another feeble excuse by Councillors who are being bull dozed by a developer who's scared of competition - shame on you all, I for one hope that Simons Group go ahead with their appeal and next time perhaps the Councillors will have the courage to stand up to bully boys like Julian Schaffer.[/p][/quote]what Councillors may have spotted, that fedupofchristchurch seems to have missed, is that Beagle could still sell their site for housing, allowing them to expand their business. So instead of a 6th supermarket we don't need, Christchurch would get desperately needed housing. Plus it would keep some of the green fields green.[/p][/quote]But, in the course of the planning meeting, it was said that the land was not suitable for housing. The recent flooding was extreme but not sure anyone can convince CBC planning committee that housing could be put there after the recent inundation of the site.[/p][/quote]They overcame the risk of flooding at Tucktonia and they could overcome the flood risk at the Beagle site. The real reason why Beagle and the developer wanted a supermarket is because that achieves 10%-15% more money than housing. Had the vote gone in the developers favor Beagle would have gained a little bit more cash, the town would have gained a 6th supermarket it didn't need, and Christchurch residents would have lost the opportunity for desperately needed housing. There is plenty of opportunity to build on brown field land before we need to start building on green fields. Well done Councillors for not loosing the opportunity. Burtongreenandpleasantland
  • Score: 3

1:25pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Keffect says...

"Cllr Claire Bath, portfolio holder for the economy proposed the rejection of the scheme, which would have allowed Beagle to relocate to premises in Christchurch.

She raised doubts over a retail report commissioned by the council, put together by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, which said there will be 20 per cent of people visiting the store would then visit the town centre to spend money.

She said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre."
I only use the high street when I need the bank, all we have are coffee shops, hairdressers & charity shops, you really do need to wake up & smell the roses Claire Bath
"Cllr Claire Bath, portfolio holder for the economy proposed the rejection of the scheme, which would have allowed Beagle to relocate to premises in Christchurch. She raised doubts over a retail report commissioned by the council, put together by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, which said there will be 20 per cent of people visiting the store would then visit the town centre to spend money. She said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre." I only use the high street when I need the bank, all we have are coffee shops, hairdressers & charity shops, you really do need to wake up & smell the roses Claire Bath Keffect
  • Score: -5

10:10am Mon 27 Jan 14

uberbloke says...

I would have thought the Cllr Bath should have excused herself from the discussion... I mean she lives in the big white house in just down from the Starre Inne just over the road from the proposed site.. and she opposes it; what a surprise... and her being portfolio holder too....

ho hum, twas ever thus....
I would have thought the Cllr Bath should have excused herself from the discussion... I mean she lives in the big white house in just down from the Starre Inne just over the road from the proposed site.. and she opposes it; what a surprise... and her being portfolio holder too.... ho hum, twas ever thus.... uberbloke
  • Score: 3

4:54pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Beatnik fly says...

Keffect wrote:
"Cllr Claire Bath, portfolio holder for the economy proposed the rejection of the scheme, which would have allowed Beagle to relocate to premises in Christchurch.

She raised doubts over a retail report commissioned by the council, put together by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, which said there will be 20 per cent of people visiting the store would then visit the town centre to spend money.

She said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre."
I only use the high street when I need the bank, all we have are coffee shops, hairdressers & charity shops, you really do need to wake up & smell the roses Claire Bath
The represented sample taken by this company was 700, from as far afield as Poole and Southampton.. hardly a statistical representation of the local people of Christchurch. The councillors represent local people and in their view, the basis from which the presumption of 20% people using the supermarket would make a trip into Christchurch was flawed on the the above reason alone. The length of the walk they said was 500mts, this was from the Bridge St entrace to the walkway to the supermarket, and nobody had the distance from there to the supermarket door. Also, the traffic calculation along the A35 were 2 years out of date.. I think Cllr Bath did smell the roses, and her decision was based wholly on flawed evidence of the application.
[quote][p][bold]Keffect[/bold] wrote: "Cllr Claire Bath, portfolio holder for the economy proposed the rejection of the scheme, which would have allowed Beagle to relocate to premises in Christchurch. She raised doubts over a retail report commissioned by the council, put together by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, which said there will be 20 per cent of people visiting the store would then visit the town centre to spend money. She said there was “no convincing evidence to show or support that 20 per cent of people visiting the store will make a trip to the town centre." I only use the high street when I need the bank, all we have are coffee shops, hairdressers & charity shops, you really do need to wake up & smell the roses Claire Bath[/p][/quote]The represented sample taken by this company was 700, from as far afield as Poole and Southampton.. hardly a statistical representation of the local people of Christchurch. The councillors represent local people and in their view, the basis from which the presumption of 20% people using the supermarket would make a trip into Christchurch was flawed on the the above reason alone. The length of the walk they said was 500mts, this was from the Bridge St entrace to the walkway to the supermarket, and nobody had the distance from there to the supermarket door. Also, the traffic calculation along the A35 were 2 years out of date.. I think Cllr Bath did smell the roses, and her decision was based wholly on flawed evidence of the application. Beatnik fly
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Beatnik fly says...

uberbloke wrote:
I would have thought the Cllr Bath should have excused herself from the discussion... I mean she lives in the big white house in just down from the Starre Inne just over the road from the proposed site.. and she opposes it; what a surprise... and her being portfolio holder too....

ho hum, twas ever thus....
I believe we should give the councillors a little more credit than Nimbyism for their decision.. a 7-2 vote hardly implicates views from people who live near the site.
[quote][p][bold]uberbloke[/bold] wrote: I would have thought the Cllr Bath should have excused herself from the discussion... I mean she lives in the big white house in just down from the Starre Inne just over the road from the proposed site.. and she opposes it; what a surprise... and her being portfolio holder too.... ho hum, twas ever thus....[/p][/quote]I believe we should give the councillors a little more credit than Nimbyism for their decision.. a 7-2 vote hardly implicates views from people who live near the site. Beatnik fly
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Sun 9 Feb 14

lcorbin says...

The ones how voted aganst Morrisons should resine for costing cristchurch 300 _400 jobs and the cost when the council loose the appeal and add it on to the council tax nice fat sweetner from asda there will be three within 4 miles of each other whos going to have the last laugh then ASDA
The ones how voted aganst Morrisons should resine for costing cristchurch 300 _400 jobs and the cost when the council loose the appeal and add it on to the council tax nice fat sweetner from asda there will be three within 4 miles of each other whos going to have the last laugh then ASDA lcorbin
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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