Page 1 of 2

Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 2:45 pm
by bengeoresident
I had to drop off my daughter to Hatham leisure centre Saturday (easy to gain access but queued forever to get onto Old Cross when leaving), cars were actually queueing in the Sainsbury car park to get onto the road by Mcmullens brewery and get onto Old Cross. I wonder if when planning permission was granted for this store that the ensuing traffic issues were envisaged, do Herts council undertake retrospecive reviews of planning permission for large developments such as this?

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 3:07 pm
by Steve
bengeoresident wrote:I had to drop off my daughter to Hatham leisure centre Saturday (easy to gain access but queued forever to get onto Old Cross when leaving), cars were actually queueing in the Sainsbury car park to get onto the road by Mcmullens brewery and get onto Old Cross. I wonder if when planning permission was granted for this store that the ensuing traffic issues were envisaged, do Herts council undertake retrospecive reviews of planning permission for large developments such as this?

Planning permission for the Sainsbury's store was granted on appeal by The Planning Inspectorate after East Herts District Council refused planning permission. It is therefore unfair to blame the District Council for the traffic situation - this having been one of the reasons for refusing planning permission.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm
by SloopJohnB
Actually Steve this application was approved by EHDC although it must be said with serious misgivings about the traffic issue. I was at the Management Development Committee meeting at Castle Hall when this was voted through on a 7/8 split in quite a bizarre development. In fact some months later I am sure a councillor regretted their decision to approve it. The same night coachloads of residents arrived to support the opposition to a wind farm and the Hall was quite deserted for the Sainsburys vote.

The decision was later 'called in' by the Inspectorate owing I think to a concurrent application by Tesco; and a lot of time was spent once again arguing transport issues at a three day hearing at Wallfields (including a video from a lower Bengeo resident of the rat run). The decision was upheld on the grounds that Sainsburys would give more back in Section 106' s and other tangible ways which would outweigh the traffic problem. The approval runs to 9 pages of Section 106's.

The problem as witnessed by bengeoresident is that when footballers, swimmers and shoppers all meet there is often chaos; usually around Saturday and/or Sunday lunchtimes. The rest of the time traffic seems to flow quite easily.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 5:52 pm
by codek2
SloopJohnB is right - most of the times the traffic is fine, but sometimes (and effectively randomly, although indeed often caused by footballers) it does build up. Doesn't take long to clear though.

Have sainsburys actually come good on ANY of their section 106s? No idea what was in the original list. I suppose it includes stuff like the new footbridge? But really I can't see much they've done? Curious that it is 9 pages worth!

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 7:07 pm
by Steve
codek2 wrote:Have sainsburys actually come good on ANY of their section 106s? No idea what was in the original list. I suppose it includes stuff like the new footbridge? But really I can't see much they've done? Curious that it is 9 pages worth!

They paid for the "work of art" at the junction.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Sun 15 Mar, 2015 7:09 pm
by Steve
SloopJohnB wrote:Actually Steve this application was approved by EHDC although it must be said with serious misgivings about the traffic issue. I was at the Management Development Committee meeting at Castle Hall when this was voted through on a 7/8 split in quite a bizarre development. In fact some months later I am sure a councillor regretted their decision to approve it. The same night coachloads of residents arrived to support the opposition to a wind farm and the Hall was quite deserted for the Sainsburys vote.

The decision was later 'called in' by the Inspectorate owing I think to a concurrent application by Tesco; and a lot of time was spent once again arguing transport issues at a three day hearing at Wallfields (including a video from a lower Bengeo resident of the rat run). The decision was upheld on the grounds that Sainsburys would give more back in Section 106' s and other tangible ways which would outweigh the traffic problem. The approval runs to 9 pages of Section 106's.

I stand corrected, although at the end of the day it was The Planning Inspectorate that made the final decision, regardless of and overriding any decision that might have been made by EHDC.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Mon 16 Mar, 2015 12:12 pm
by SloopJohnB
Mrs B was under the impression that I retired some years ago so a lot of boxes containing files etc have since been moved to the dark corners of the house. However although 9 pages seems an awful lot most of it if I remember was to do with the river, linkage, paving, the river walk and bridge, signage and also as Steve says the sculpture by the car park entrance.

If I can find all this stuff I may look it up but I think one of the conditions was to pay for a safe crossing on Port Hill which made the front pages of the Mercury this week. This subject had come up time and time again at the Hertford Transport Forum and a few studies done by Highways but there was never any money in the budget. Enter Sainsburys stage left! I am open to be corrected on this.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Mon 16 Mar, 2015 1:53 pm
by leo densian
SloopJohnB wrote:I think one of the conditions was to pay for a safe crossing on Port Hill which made the front pages of the Mercury this week.


Will the budget stretch to a pair of curtains for the bloke that demands the right to fry his bacon and eggs with his tackle on show? :roll:

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Mon 16 Mar, 2015 5:58 pm
by arty
SloopJohnB wrote:Mrs B was under the impression that I retired some years ago so a lot of boxes containing files etc have since been moved to the dark corners of the house. However although 9 pages seems an awful lot most of it if I remember was to do with the river, linkage, paving, the river walk and bridge, signage and also as Steve says the sculpture by the car park entrance.

If I can find all this stuff I may look it up but I think one of the conditions was to pay for a safe crossing on Port Hill which made the front pages of the Mercury this week. This subject had come up time and time again at the Hertford Transport Forum and a few studies done by Highways but there was never any money in the budget. Enter Sainsburys stage left! I am open to be corrected on this.



Another 'part-time' traffic light at the Hartham Lane/ Cowbridge junction sequenced with the Old Cross ones is needed. Oh, and if the traffic light suppliers are doing a BOGOF this month, HCC Highways could buy a couple more for Nelson Street/ Wellington Street perhaps?

And as for the Mercury story...that was the best quote I've seen in a long time on the front page :D I nearly chocked on my sausage.

Re: Sainsbury's

Posted: Mon 16 Mar, 2015 7:30 pm
by Steve
Please NO MORE traffic lights (this could be a subject for another thread). Whenever there's a traffic problem the answer always seems to be traffic lights and the streets are just becoming choc full of unsightly street-furniture and traffic controls. I often wonder why they put in so many signal masts when they could cut down by using those continental style eye-level lights.

Rant over.

www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/columnists ... ights.html