Topic ID 4683
I note that today is the start of the Public Enquiry into the potential Sainsburys in hartham lane... If only they have been walking with me to work yesterday to see the chaos a half size lorry trying to exit out from Hartham Lane towards Old Cross, the children walking to school who had to get off the pavement as he needed to mount that to get the cab round and miss the scaffholding on the building opposite the exit to Hartham Lane and the build up of traffic, anyone in their right mind can only imagine what will happen if this goes through.. Any updates from Forum members????
Reply ID 67150
The sweep paths of the lorries can be viewed here: http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/f/c/Swept_Paths_of_Lorries.pdf And all of the documentation pertaining to the inquiry can be viewed here: http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=9127#EHC
Reply ID 67152
quote:Section 7 of this document may be of interest to you: http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/4/2/HCC_Proof_-_Sainsburys.pdf
Originally posted by Drama Queen
I note that today is the start of the Public Enquiry into the potential Sainsburys in hartham lane... If only they have been walking with me to work yesterday to see the chaos a half size lorry trying to exit out from Hartham Lane towards Old Cross, the children walking to school who had to get off the pavement as he needed to mount that to get the cab round and miss the scaffholding on the building opposite the exit to Hartham Lane and the build up of traffic, anyone in their right mind can only imagine what will happen if this goes through.. Any updates from Forum members????
Reply ID 67154
Thank you EWoowar.. The sweep paths for the lorry in question coming out definitely fitted the ones of larger variety and it was half the size of a traditional Articulated supermarket vehicle that Sainsburys use... The school children had to move out of the path they were happily walking on and this in turn surely would discourage parents from allowing there secondary school age children to walk to Hertford schools from Bengeo if the lorries are going up to the pavement. Also if an emergency vehicle tried to get past at the same time.. forget it.... thanks for this its very enlightening....[:)]
Reply ID 67157
The enquiry is concentrating on three things - traffic, the impact on retail, and architectural and heritage merits. This morning was taken up by the legal representatives for East Herts, Herts County, Sainsburys and the Civic Society outlining their position. Witnesses will be called later for submission of evidence and cross examination. When I left this morning at midday the Civic Society were outlining their objection and being questioned by Sainsburys barrister. I think this will continue this pm. Tomorrow is the chance for members of public and community groups to outline their own issues before the enquiry settle down again to examine the case for and against as prepared by the main parties. If you haven't registered you might miss out on a chance tomorrow but I believe you can ask for your views to be heard if willing to appear at a given time to fit in with other issues. I found it totally absorbing - especially when its your own town they are talking about. Hope to attend some more. Just to add that the Inspector in Charge spent the last three days walking the Bengeo rat run and Old Cross so he does appear to be well up on local issues.
Reply ID 67158
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67159
quote:I wish I could time out of work to get along to it.
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
The enquiry is concentrating on three things - traffic, the impact on retail, and architectural and heritage merits. This morning was taken up by the legal representatives for East Herts, Herts County, Sainsburys and the Civic Society outlining their position. Witnesses will be called later for submission of evidence and cross examination. When I left this morning at midday the Civic Society were outlining their objection and being questioned by Sainsburys barrister. I think this will continue this pm. Tomorrow is the chance for members of public and community groups to outline their own issues before the enquiry settle down again to examine the case for and against as prepared by the main parties. If you haven't registered you might miss out on a chance tomorrow but I believe you can ask for your views to be heard if willing to appear at a given time to fit in with other issues. I found it totally absorbing - especially when its your own town they are talking about. Hope to attend some more. Just to add that the Inspector in Charge spent the last three days walking the Bengeo rat run and Old Cross so he does appear to be well up on local issues.
Reply ID 67160
quote:Interestingly the original TA report had lorry sweep paths that showed that for the larger vehicles accessing and exiting Hartham Lane they would have to go over the kerb. However when the application was resubmitted these sweep paths were altered.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67161
They could even use rear-steer trailers that have smaller sweep paths.Tesco in Ware is serviced by these trailers and the trailers are not used for any other stores
Reply ID 67162
quote:Theoretically they could use a wagon pulled by a team of mules. But what they could use and what they potentially do use are different things. The lorries that currently mount the kerb could be replaced by smaller vehicles but the fact is that they aren't.
Originally posted by dutch knight
They could even use rear-steer trailers that have smaller sweep paths.Tesco in Ware is serviced by these trailers and the trailers are not used for any other stores
Reply ID 67163
quote:They could use canal boats to and from the depot at rye house [:D]
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Theoretically they could use a wagon pulled by a team of mules. But what they could use and what they potentially do use are different things. The lorries that currently mount the kerb could be replaced by smaller vehicles but the fact is that they aren't.
Originally posted by dutch knight
They could even use rear-steer trailers that have smaller sweep paths.Tesco in Ware is serviced by these trailers and the trailers are not used for any other stores
Reply ID 67165
quote:Hmmmmm..............this may not be such a mad idea......
Originally posted by jjrquote:Theoretically they could use a wagon pulled by a team of mules. But what they could use and what they potentially do use are different things. The lorries that currently mount the kerb could be replaced by smaller vehicles but the fact is that they aren't. They could use canal boats to and from the depot at rye house [:D]
Originally posted by Ewoowar
[quote]Originally posted by dutch knight
They could even use rear-steer trailers that have smaller sweep paths.Tesco in Ware is serviced by these trailers and the trailers are not used for any other stores
Reply ID 67168
quote:Hmmmmm..............this may not be such a mad idea...... MAD ! I was being serious [:D] After all it would probably be quicker
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Theoretically they could use a wagon pulled by a team of mules. But what they could use and what they potentially do use are different things. The lorries that currently mount the kerb could be replaced by smaller vehicles but the fact is that they aren't. They could use canal boats to and from the depot at rye house [:D]
Originally posted by jjr
[quote]Originally posted by Ewoowar
[quote]Originally posted by dutch knight
They could even use rear-steer trailers that have smaller sweep paths.Tesco in Ware is serviced by these trailers and the trailers are not used for any other stores
Reply ID 67169
quote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67170
quote:This has been done to death, Shunt. Even Sainsbury's own TA document predicts an increase and the result of the Highways response from the council is a rebuttal pointing out flaws in the Sainsbury submission and predicting an even greater impact.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67171
It doesn't take even a poor scientist to realise that the access and exit points to the site are way beyond safety regulations. Port Hill, Cowbridge and Old Cross would not be able to cope with the traffic, articulated or not. If I was living in the those areas I would feel peeved about a 1900 to 0700 delivery slot. Hannah must be gutted at the thought.
Reply ID 67174
quote:It will have an impact, sure. I don't think anyone could deny that. In the immediate local area, that will certainly be increased traffic, the turn in and out being a particular problem because of increased frequency and interuption to flow between OX and Port Hill. I don't see it as negative overall though, or a danger to children, or impossible to turn a lorry in and out of the premises, or many of the other claims made. The logistical problems are real, but very specific. Tesco causes much the same, or worse, at Mill Lane, but the store was still built, despite failing to solve traffic management adequately to this day. Tesco doesn't increase traffic though, except nationally, by encouraging the shift to shopping by car. A new Sainsbury is unlikely to significantly add to what Tesco already has already established in any one town. Incidentally, I also approve of the barge transport idea and have discussed it in this household. It would be good publicity, fuel efficient and quash the lorry objections in one go. Assuming the barges could carry more than one trailer load, the half day journey would not be prohibitive as less operators would be required and it is not so long to effect perishables. There would be some investment required though as the boats would need to be custom built to fit Sainsbury's current materials handling methods.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:This has been done to death, Shunt. Even Sainsbury's own TA document predicts an increase and the result of the Highways response from the council is a rebuttal pointing out flaws in the Sainsbury submission and predicting an even greater impact.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67176
I don't think you can compare the traffic situation at Tesco to this as a new road was built then,and this actually improved traffic flow at the time.But 20 years later it has got as bad and worse.This is what has to be looked at,as the store and the surrounding roads will get busier and busier
Reply ID 67178
quote:What is the current method of handling material by the company?
Originally posted by shuntquote:It will have an impact, sure. I don't think anyone could deny that. In the immediate local area, that will certainly be increased traffic, the turn in and out being a particular problem because of increased frequency and interuption to flow between OX and Port Hill. I don't see it as negative overall though, or a danger to children, or impossible to turn a lorry in and out of the premises, or many of the other claims made. The logistical problems are real, but very specific. Tesco causes much the same, or worse, at Mill Lane, but the store was still built, despite failing to solve traffic management adequately to this day. Tesco doesn't increase traffic though, except nationally, by encouraging the shift to shopping by car. A new Sainsbury is unlikely to significantly add to what Tesco already has already established in any one town. Incidentally, I also approve of the barge transport idea and have discussed it in this household. It would be good publicity, fuel efficient and quash the lorry objections in one go. Assuming the barges could carry more than one trailer load, the half day journey would not be prohibitive as less operators would be required and it is not so long to effect perishables. There would be some investment required though as the boats would need to be custom built to fit Sainsbury's current materials handling methods.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:This has been done to death, Shunt. Even Sainsbury's own TA document predicts an increase and the result of the Highways response from the council is a rebuttal pointing out flaws in the Sainsbury submission and predicting an even greater impact.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67179
Raymond Brown and myself came up with the idea of getting Sainsburys goods in by barge back in August 2007 (August 17th 2007). It was, as much of Raymond's stories were, a bit tongue in cheek and done to keep interest in the river alive as at that time British Waterways were seriously considering a £600,000 grant to dredge the river up to Castle Hall. Then the Govt cut funds to DEFRA and we had blockades to raise awareness. I don't think Sainsburys will be selling much fresh food if it came by barge. And you'd have to widen the river at that point at the expense of that development on Folly Island. And turn the supermarket design on its axis. But, a damn good idea though.
Reply ID 67180
quote:It matters not. On a national scale, making the system fit easily available vehicles makes sense, but for a one-off within a large network, it's easier and cheaper to make the vehicle fit what it needs to carry. There is a fly in the ointment which effects the whole plan though. Canal barges are best suited to heavy, compact goods. Supermarket stock tends to be the opposite. Each consignment would have to be physically larger than a truck by a significant amount to make the service fast enough to compete. I don't know, but I suspect that the maximum length and beam that the Lea can handle is not enough.
Originally posted by James007quote:What is the current method of handling material by the company?
Originally posted by shuntquote:It will have an impact, sure. I don't think anyone could deny that. In the immediate local area, that will certainly be increased traffic, the turn in and out being a particular problem because of increased frequency and interuption to flow between OX and Port Hill. I don't see it as negative overall though, or a danger to children, or impossible to turn a lorry in and out of the premises, or many of the other claims made. The logistical problems are real, but very specific. Tesco causes much the same, or worse, at Mill Lane, but the store was still built, despite failing to solve traffic management adequately to this day. Tesco doesn't increase traffic though, except nationally, by encouraging the shift to shopping by car. A new Sainsbury is unlikely to significantly add to what Tesco already has already established in any one town. Incidentally, I also approve of the barge transport idea and have discussed it in this household. It would be good publicity, fuel efficient and quash the lorry objections in one go. Assuming the barges could carry more than one trailer load, the half day journey would not be prohibitive as less operators would be required and it is not so long to effect perishables. There would be some investment required though as the boats would need to be custom built to fit Sainsbury's current materials handling methods.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:This has been done to death, Shunt. Even Sainsbury's own TA document predicts an increase and the result of the Highways response from the council is a rebuttal pointing out flaws in the Sainsbury submission and predicting an even greater impact.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67191
I was just having a snigger at the artist's impression of the new store on the Mercury website. (Perhaps someone cleverer than me could provide the link or copy the picture?) There are definitely dead people lying on the lawn outside the store! Road kill perhaps??? [:D] (No offence intended)
Reply ID 67192
One of them looks like a sniper taking aim, I hope that's not just my impression and an insight to my personality [;)] A few of them do look like road kill, and a potentially drunk chav, probably having just come out of the Sugar Hut[:D] I hope this enquiry comes to the same sensible conclusion as the advisors came to before being overruled by the council (as is my understanding).
Reply ID 67196
I think one of the local primary schools had an art competition to see who could draw the best picture of a supermarket.
Reply ID 67197
oh, now i feel bad.[V] Chav, sniper and road kill aside its actually a pretty good picture. The store itself looks pretty good, i just dont think Hertford can cope with it traffic wise.
Reply ID 67198
quote:Agreed. The traffic management is the issue. Otherwise, what's not to like?
Originally posted by Prime
oh, now i feel bad.[V] Chav, sniper and road kill aside its actually a pretty good picture. The store itself looks pretty good, i just dont think Hertford can cope with it traffic wise.
Reply ID 67199
quote:The TA submitted by Sainsbury predicts queue increases for Cowbridge, St Andrew Street, etc, etc.......The Highways team at the council states that these are underestimates.......I think it must be accepted that there will be an increase in traffic.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Agreed. The traffic management is the issue. Otherwise, what's not to like?
Originally posted by Prime
oh, now i feel bad.[V] Chav, sniper and road kill aside its actually a pretty good picture. The store itself looks pretty good, i just dont think Hertford can cope with it traffic wise.
Reply ID 67201
quote:There will be no sudden increase in cars in Hertford (unless pedestrians intend to celebrate the opening with a driving test), but an extra traffic control, which, like the one at Mill Road and Ware Road Tesco site, will delay through traffic and is likely to result in queueing. It is a tough one to solve, but not an increase except in a very local sense. What will happen is that some of the current traffic which is currently already everywhere else in Hertford will be moved to Cowbridge. Partially offsetting that is that many shopping journeys will be shortened. I'm not underestimating the problem of the Hartham Lane turn, but to state that Sainsbury will cause an increase in traffic is an emotive over-simplification.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:The TA submitted by Sainsbury predicts queue increases for Cowbridge, St Andrew Street, etc, etc.......The Highways team at the council states that these are underestimates.......I think it must be accepted that there will be an increase in traffic.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Agreed. The traffic management is the issue. Otherwise, what's not to like?
Originally posted by Prime
oh, now i feel bad.[V] Chav, sniper and road kill aside its actually a pretty good picture. The store itself looks pretty good, i just dont think Hertford can cope with it traffic wise.
Reply ID 67208
How can you say they're won't be extra traffic? Of course there will be, people will travel to the "new" store from other areas. My folks go to the Brookfield Farm Tesco, Hoddesdon Sainsburys and Tesco at the Hatfield Tunnel, so you will get more traffic. The roads, the houses around Hartham Lane and the general smog and fumes will be unbearable. Its a nice supermarket, just wrong location and don't forget the town wanted them in the current slot Tescos have in town and Sainsburys turned us down !!!!
Reply ID 67209
quote:You haven't answered the question Shunt. What is the current method of handling material by Sainsbury? [:)]
Originally posted by shuntquote:It matters not. On a national scale, making the system fit easily available vehicles makes sense, but for a one-off within a large network, it's easier and cheaper to make the vehicle fit what it needs to carry. There is a fly in the ointment which effects the whole plan though. Canal barges are best suited to heavy, compact goods. Supermarket stock tends to be the opposite. Each consignment would have to be physically larger than a truck by a significant amount to make the service fast enough to compete. I don't know, but I suspect that the maximum length and beam that the Lea can handle is not enough.
Originally posted by James007quote:What is the current method of handling material by the company?
Originally posted by shuntquote:It will have an impact, sure. I don't think anyone could deny that. In the immediate local area, that will certainly be increased traffic, the turn in and out being a particular problem because of increased frequency and interuption to flow between OX and Port Hill. I don't see it as negative overall though, or a danger to children, or impossible to turn a lorry in and out of the premises, or many of the other claims made. The logistical problems are real, but very specific. Tesco causes much the same, or worse, at Mill Lane, but the store was still built, despite failing to solve traffic management adequately to this day. Tesco doesn't increase traffic though, except nationally, by encouraging the shift to shopping by car. A new Sainsbury is unlikely to significantly add to what Tesco already has already established in any one town. Incidentally, I also approve of the barge transport idea and have discussed it in this household. It would be good publicity, fuel efficient and quash the lorry objections in one go. Assuming the barges could carry more than one trailer load, the half day journey would not be prohibitive as less operators would be required and it is not so long to effect perishables. There would be some investment required though as the boats would need to be custom built to fit Sainsbury's current materials handling methods.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:This has been done to death, Shunt. Even Sainsbury's own TA document predicts an increase and the result of the Highways response from the council is a rebuttal pointing out flaws in the Sainsbury submission and predicting an even greater impact.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I agree. Articulated lorries are articulated to reduce their sweep path, compared to a rigid, but are not always bigger. McMullen was operating full size articulated tankers from here for years and current businesses still do. Would we want to limit the entire neigbourhood and threaten other Hertford businesses? As for volume of other traffic, it should remain much the same at peak times (a queue) and only increase very locally at other times of the day, within a few hundred yards. Overall, Hertford traffic should be slightly decreased.
Originally posted by dutch knight
I think the volume of traffic will be more of an issue than the delivery lorries.The deliveries will be between 19:00 and 07:00 and they do not have to be on a 13 metre artic. Sainsbury can deliver on smaller trailers or on rigid lorries.For a store this size there shouldn't be more than about 8 to 10 deliveries a day.
Reply ID 67210
quote:From memory, and having seen Sainsbury's presentation last year, the store would not be anything like as big as the three you mention. I doubt, therefore, that it would become much of an attraction for outsiders.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
How can you say they're won't be extra traffic? Of course there will be, people will travel to the "new" store from other areas. My folks go to the Brookfield Farm Tesco, Hoddesdon Sainsburys and Tesco at the Hatfield Tunnel, so you will get more traffic. The roads, the houses around Hartham Lane and the general smog and fumes will be unbearable. Its a nice supermarket, just wrong location and don't forget the town wanted them in the current slot Tescos have in town and Sainsburys turned us down !!!!
Reply ID 67211
quote:Do they go to all these places without driving on any Hertford roads? Presumably they have to leave Hertford and return to it by some route. All the journeys mentioned are significantly longer. It's likely a significant number of drivers will use their nearest supermarket, be it Tesco or Sainsbury. Less journeys across Hertford, less mileage in total.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
How can you say they're won't be extra traffic? Of course there will be, people will travel to the "new" store from other areas. My folks go to the Brookfield Farm Tesco, Hoddesdon Sainsburys and Tesco at the Hatfield Tunnel, so you will get more traffic. The roads, the houses around Hartham Lane and the general smog and fumes will be unbearable. Its a nice supermarket, just wrong location and don't forget the town wanted them in the current slot Tescos have in town and Sainsburys turned us down !!!!
Reply ID 67212
quote:Shunt was careful in his choice of words: "There will be no sudden increase in cars in Hertford" This of course entirely misses the point that the increased focus of traffic at specific pinch points would have a more detrimental effect on the general balance of traffic flow in the town. Everyone acknowledges this, including Sainsbury's. Quite why Shunt constantly repeats his apparently lone view over and over and at great length is a mystery to me.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
How can you say they're won't be extra traffic? Of course there will be, people will travel to the "new" store from other areas. My folks go to the Brookfield Farm Tesco, Hoddesdon Sainsburys and Tesco at the Hatfield Tunnel, so you will get more traffic. The roads, the houses around Hartham Lane and the general smog and fumes will be unbearable. Its a nice supermarket, just wrong location and don't forget the town wanted them in the current slot Tescos have in town and Sainsburys turned us down !!!!
Reply ID 67213
without a doubt there will be a massive increase in traffic, not just from people travelling across town but from the surrounding areas travelling in....traffic will be jammed up from parliament square to port hill and further a field. Tesco works because you don't have the maze of tiny roads and you come almost directly off the A414. A supermarket should not be approved for this site. crazy idea but relocate the mill road/dicker mill industrial estate to the proposed site and build a supermarket at the end of mill road. Then have shops and restaurants along the river.
Reply ID 67216
quote:Yes, of course, Mill Road never gets congested does it
Originally posted by teddylad
...but relocate the mill road/dicker mill industrial estate to the proposed site and build a supermarket at the end of mill road. Then have shops and restaurants along the river.
Reply ID 67217
quote:Plainly, anyone not actually involved could say in detail. I did answer that it is not relevent and explained why it's not. Why do you care? Do you intend to design docking machinery, systems, proceedures, costings and put it forward as a plan?[:D] If you don't, neither of us need to know for the purpose of this discussion.[;)]
Originally posted by James007 You haven't answered the question Shunt. What is the current method of handling material by Sainsbury? [:)]
Reply ID 67221
One of the points I raised in my reply to the planning application, which has only slightly been alluded to here, was those of us who walk into town on the Walton Motors side of Cowbridge to do our shopping will find it more difficult to get to the Wash if there is no traffic control at Hartham Lane. (If the Sainsbury's at St Albans opposite where I work is an example cars are almost none stop going to Sainsbury's) Or is it a cunning plan to make sure that pedestrians heading to town have to go via Sainsbury's [:)]?
Reply ID 67222
quote:It is a bit pedantic, granted, but a matter of phrasing. "Increase" is not the same as a "concentration". There are already several pinch points and this will certainly create another, but that is also not "increase". Traffic flow throughout a town are notoriously difficult to calculate which is why major developments are often held up by such calculations. The only certainty is that at the moment there appears to be no solution to the junction of Hartham Lane that will not have a detrimental effect in the immediate area. That does not mean that current pinch points throughout Hertford will remain unchanged. With fewer trips across and through the town likely (spread of load between current Tesco location and the proposed Sainsbury) some may even improve. The bottom line is, Mac's old site is not going to be donated to the community for parkland and any other use creates the same problem or worse. A solution to the Hartham Lane problem will be needed sooner or later, with or without Sainsbury to help fund it.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Shunt was careful in his choice of words: "There will be no sudden increase in cars in Hertford" This of course entirely misses the point that the increased focus of traffic at specific pinch points would have a more detrimental effect on the general balance of traffic flow in the town. Everyone acknowledges this, including Sainsbury's. Quite why Shunt constantly repeats his apparently lone view over and over and at great length is a mystery to me.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
How can you say they're won't be extra traffic? Of course there will be, people will travel to the "new" store from other areas. My folks go to the Brookfield Farm Tesco, Hoddesdon Sainsburys and Tesco at the Hatfield Tunnel, so you will get more traffic. The roads, the houses around Hartham Lane and the general smog and fumes will be unbearable. Its a nice supermarket, just wrong location and don't forget the town wanted them in the current slot Tescos have in town and Sainsburys turned us down !!!!
Reply ID 67224
quote:Assuming you are coming into Hertford from elsewhere and via the A414, presumably? Most Tesco customers are from within Hertford and don't live directly on the A414, but use Port Hill, North Road, St Andrew St, Fore St............and so on, even if they later join the queues created by the traffic lights at Mill Road to get to Tesco. Much of that traffic already passes the proposed Sainsbury on the way and would terminate there. I would say it's swings and roundabouts, but in this case, more a case of traffic lights and roundabouts.[:)]
Originally posted by teddylad
Tesco works because you don't have the maze of tiny roads and you come almost directly off the A414.
Reply ID 67316
I am new to this debate. I'm just about to move back to Bengeo, having left 35 years ago, when Mc Mullens was a solid part of the town. I am very distressed, because the approval of a Sainsbury store will ruin this lovely part of the town. It will wreck the area, both in terms of aesthetics and traffic. It's not an appropriate development for this lovely old county town. Dump the eyesore in some out-of-town spot, not in the heart of this lovely community. I wish I'd have been resident here over the last few years, to add my weight to the opposition. edit - Am I too late? Is it a fait accompli?
Reply ID 67321
So we can't have a supermarket because it will be an eysore? The derelict Brewery buildings are a bit of an eyesore too. Sainsbury's can't win - if they build out of town they will get lambasted for making people drive to an out of town Supermarket and increasing traffic. If they build in the town centre near to public transport links and dare I say within walking distance many dwellings in Hertford, they get those residents moaning about increased traffic in the town. Or perhaps the idea is protectionism for local shops that can't compete on price against the economies of scale that supermarkets have. I see Tesco got rejected for exactly that reason.
Reply ID 67323
quote:Sainsbury's plan is to use the former McMullens building, not to demolish it and build an eyesore (unlike Tesco with the old hospital, but that's another topic line). The old brewery buildings are redundant and the area requires making use of, otherwise a segment of our town centre will become derelict, which will be an eyesore. The only fundable proposition for this area has been Sainsbury's store application (refer to Sloop's informed and in-depth comments elsewhere); the debate here is more a question of whether it is a desirable proposition given an expected increase or shift (probably both in my view) in traffic quantity to that area of town. IMHO the architectural plans are attractive. There will be more consumer choice. The development will connect with the town centre. There will be an increase in traffic as a result of delivery vehicles and customers seeking the Sainsbury "difference", and there will be a shift in traffic movement towards the area as consumer choice selects Sainsbury over Tesco, Waitrose or M&S. This will impact on those living close to, or who pass by the development. However, the alternative of allowing a town centre landmark to become derelict or become another part of "disappearing Hertford" is much worse - to name a few we have already lost the hospital (Tesco), school (old police station), not to mention the impact of Gascoyne Way.
Originally posted by homeless
I am new to this debate. I'm just about to move back to Bengeo, having left 35 years ago, when Mc Mullens was a solid part of the town. I am very distressed, because the approval of a Sainsbury store will ruin this lovely part of the town. It will wreck the area, both in terms of aesthetics and traffic. It's not an appropriate development for this lovely old county town. Dump the eyesore in some out-of-town spot, not in the heart of this lovely community. I wish I'd have been resident here over the last few years, to add my weight to the opposition. edit - Am I too late? Is it a fait accompli?
Reply ID 67325
quote:Nicely put. I have to say I'm not a fan of supermarkets in general (because they encourage car based shopping and waste), but I can think of nothing on this site (including nothing[:D]) which would be less detrimental to Hertford's future.
Originally posted by Woodyquote:Sainsbury's plan is to use the former McMullens building, not to demolish it and build an eyesore (unlike Tesco with the old hospital, but that's another topic line). The old brewery buildings are redundant and the area requires making use of, otherwise a segment of our town centre will become derelict, which will be an eyesore. The only fundable proposition for this area has been Sainsbury's store application (refer to Sloop's informed and in-depth comments elsewhere); the debate here is more a question of whether it is a desirable proposition given an expected increase or shift (probably both in my view) in traffic quantity to that area of town. IMHO the architectural plans are attractive. There will be more consumer choice. The development will connect with the town centre. There will be an increase in traffic as a result of delivery vehicles and customers seeking the Sainsbury "difference", and there will be a shift in traffic movement towards the area as consumer choice selects Sainsbury over Tesco, Waitrose or M&S. This will impact on those living close to, or who pass by the development. However, the alternative of allowing a town centre landmark to become derelict or become another part of "disappearing Hertford" is much worse - to name a few we have already lost the hospital (Tesco), school (old police station), not to mention the impact of Gascoyne Way.
Originally posted by homeless
I am new to this debate. I'm just about to move back to Bengeo, having left 35 years ago, when Mc Mullens was a solid part of the town. I am very distressed, because the approval of a Sainsbury store will ruin this lovely part of the town. It will wreck the area, both in terms of aesthetics and traffic. It's not an appropriate development for this lovely old county town. Dump the eyesore in some out-of-town spot, not in the heart of this lovely community. I wish I'd have been resident here over the last few years, to add my weight to the opposition. edit - Am I too late? Is it a fait accompli?
Reply ID 67331
quote:It's just a shame that the traffic problem is such a big issue. I had to laugh when the application was approved and then they appealed to hertford residents to submit ideas to avoid the inevitable traffic problems. It was like saying, "Okay, you can have this supermarket. Oh, by the way it comes with a huge traffic problem but that's okay because we want you, Mr and Mrs Hertford resident to fix that for us".
Originally posted by shuntquote:Nicely put. I have to say I'm not a fan of supermarkets in general (because they encourage car based shopping and waste), but I can think of nothing on this site (including nothing[:D]) which would be less detrimental to Hertford's future.
Originally posted by Woodyquote:Sainsbury's plan is to use the former McMullens building, not to demolish it and build an eyesore (unlike Tesco with the old hospital, but that's another topic line). The old brewery buildings are redundant and the area requires making use of, otherwise a segment of our town centre will become derelict, which will be an eyesore. The only fundable proposition for this area has been Sainsbury's store application (refer to Sloop's informed and in-depth comments elsewhere); the debate here is more a question of whether it is a desirable proposition given an expected increase or shift (probably both in my view) in traffic quantity to that area of town. IMHO the architectural plans are attractive. There will be more consumer choice. The development will connect with the town centre. There will be an increase in traffic as a result of delivery vehicles and customers seeking the Sainsbury "difference", and there will be a shift in traffic movement towards the area as consumer choice selects Sainsbury over Tesco, Waitrose or M&S. This will impact on those living close to, or who pass by the development. However, the alternative of allowing a town centre landmark to become derelict or become another part of "disappearing Hertford" is much worse - to name a few we have already lost the hospital (Tesco), school (old police station), not to mention the impact of Gascoyne Way.
Originally posted by homeless
I am new to this debate. I'm just about to move back to Bengeo, having left 35 years ago, when Mc Mullens was a solid part of the town. I am very distressed, because the approval of a Sainsbury store will ruin this lovely part of the town. It will wreck the area, both in terms of aesthetics and traffic. It's not an appropriate development for this lovely old county town. Dump the eyesore in some out-of-town spot, not in the heart of this lovely community. I wish I'd have been resident here over the last few years, to add my weight to the opposition. edit - Am I too late? Is it a fait accompli?
Reply ID 67335
I don't think the number of delivery vehicles is going to be a huge problem - the main traffic going to Sainsburys will be the shoppers in their cars.
Reply ID 67337
quote:But Tesco in Ware is off "tiny roads", there doesn't really seem to be a traffic problem there. And isn't Cowbridge a B road and the Wash an A-Road hardly minor routes. If the traffic is bad getting to Hertford Sainsburys then surely this would be enough to discourage people from using it and seek alternative supermarkets.
Originally posted by teddylad
Tesco works because you don't have the maze of tiny roads and you come almost directly off the A414.
Reply ID 67338
I think the delivery vehicles and customer/staff traffic will be a HUGE problem! I cannot believe Mr Jez P you think it won't be. Come on even Sainsbury's know its a problem they've asked us to sort it out for them!!!!! Its scandalous. I like Sainsbury's just this is not the site for them to be in.. The road structure does and will not take their delivery vehicles, customers and staff access points and have we all forgotten the other businesses in Hartham lane who have larger vehicles delivering to them too??? They have to be able to conduct their business too...
Reply ID 67339
quote:To a certain extent the traffic handling is a co-incidental obstacle to the main challenge;- what to do with a derelict and large industrial site, in a location which has seen a huge increase in car usage since last fully operational. The problem is caused by other traffic having filled the void while the site has been dormant. It is in Hertford's interests to find a way to use the site and Sainsbury's to get customers to it's store. Neither can be seen in isolation and if Hertford can't find a way to solve it's current traffic problem to allow a major site to be used again (by whoever) that is Hertford's loss. It'll be a dark day when we say, "Sorry we can't do business because we daren't delay cars". There are possibilities, but all require massive investment. The barge transport idea is one. I have also long thought the goods line between East and North stations should be restored and run as an unmanned passenger shuttle (passes all three supermarkets, the town centre and several of Hertford's main populations). Some expensive and unpopular CPOs and bridge restorations would be required now though. In the absence of such vast public investment capital, maybe we just have to accept that the town is going to clog up and maybe some will have to walk because it becomes quicker. Who knows, it might even change how companies like Tesco and Sainsbury think about how to get customers to and from their stores and force the rest of us consider our own car use.
It's just a shame that the traffic problem is such a big issue. I had to laugh when the application was approved and then they appealed to hertford residents to submit ideas to avoid the inevitable traffic problems. It was like saying, "Okay, you can have this supermarket. Oh, by the way it comes with a huge traffic problem but that's okay because we want you, Mr and Mrs Hertford resident to fix that for us".
Reply ID 67340
quote:The Tesco application has not yet been decided. In fact the period for comments to be submitted is still open (until 2nd October). I suspect you are referring to the somewhat misleading headline in the Mercury last week "Council No To Tesco", which was a report on the Town Council's submission to EHDC on the plans.
Originally posted by jez_p
I see Tesco got rejected for exactly that reason.
Reply ID 67352
quote:The classification of the roads (A or B) is neither here nor there. If you know Hertford you know those roads and junctions and know what the issues are. The A414 is a major trunk road linking the A1 and A10 yet there always issues at peak times where it goes down to one lane.
Originally posted by jez_pquote:But Tesco in Ware is off "tiny roads", there doesn't really seem to be a traffic problem there. And isn't Cowbridge a B road and the Wash an A-Road hardly minor routes. If the traffic is bad getting to Hertford Sainsburys then surely this would be enough to discourage people from using it and seek alternative supermarkets.
Originally posted by teddylad
Tesco works because you don't have the maze of tiny roads and you come almost directly off the A414.
Reply ID 67355
quote:It's not coincidental. It's a major issue. The infrastructure is insufficient to support a supermarket. The idea of just building the thing and then sorting the problems it causes later is madness. Sainsbury do not care about any adverse impact to the town or the people who live and work in it. They don't care if the traffic snarls up and people are inconvenienced. Just because the property is lying unused it doesn't mean you allow it to be developed for a purpose that has an adverse impact. It's better to have the place empty until a more realistic and development is proposed. And don't ask me what that is because I don't know. Perhaps it could be used for housing.
Originally posted by shuntquote:To a certain extent the traffic handling is a co-incidental obstacle to the main challenge;- what to do with a derelict and large industrial site, in a location which has seen a huge increase in car usage since last fully operational. The problem is caused by other traffic having filled the void while the site has been dormant. It is in Hertford's interests to find a way to use the site and Sainsbury's to get customers to it's store. Neither can be seen in isolation and if Hertford can't find a way to solve it's current traffic problem to allow a major site to be used again (by whoever) that is Hertford's loss. It'll be a dark day when we say, "Sorry we can't do business because we daren't delay cars".
It's just a shame that the traffic problem is such a big issue. I had to laugh when the application was approved and then they appealed to hertford residents to submit ideas to avoid the inevitable traffic problems. It was like saying, "Okay, you can have this supermarket. Oh, by the way it comes with a huge traffic problem but that's okay because we want you, Mr and Mrs Hertford resident to fix that for us".
Reply ID 67357
quote:Housing is wholly unsuitable as it causes a real increase in traffic numbers in Hertford, particularly in peak times (extra cars, rather than the same cars in a different place). This has to be commercial. Sainsbury does care.....about getting customers to and from it's store. Their motivation is commercial, granted.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:It's not coincidental. It's a major issue. The infrastructure is insufficient to support a supermarket. The idea of just building the thing and then sorting the problems it causes later is madness. Sainsbury do not care about any adverse impact to the town or the people who live and work in it. They don't care if the traffic snarls up and people are inconvenienced. Just because the property is lying unused it doesn't mean you allow it to be developed for a purpose that has an adverse impact. It's better to have the place empty until a more realistic and development is proposed. And don't ask me what that is because I don't know. Perhaps it could be used for housing.
Originally posted by shuntquote:To a certain extent the traffic handling is a co-incidental obstacle to the main challenge;- what to do with a derelict and large industrial site, in a location which has seen a huge increase in car usage since last fully operational. The problem is caused by other traffic having filled the void while the site has been dormant. It is in Hertford's interests to find a way to use the site and Sainsbury's to get customers to it's store. Neither can be seen in isolation and if Hertford can't find a way to solve it's current traffic problem to allow a major site to be used again (by whoever) that is Hertford's loss. It'll be a dark day when we say, "Sorry we can't do business because we daren't delay cars".
It's just a shame that the traffic problem is such a big issue. I had to laugh when the application was approved and then they appealed to hertford residents to submit ideas to avoid the inevitable traffic problems. It was like saying, "Okay, you can have this supermarket. Oh, by the way it comes with a huge traffic problem but that's okay because we want you, Mr and Mrs Hertford resident to fix that for us".
Reply ID 67371
Shunt. I read your posts with interest. You are obviously an intelligent guy with lots of local concerns. However, I can't agree with your views concerning the McMullens site. Yes, Sainsburys would be good. However the government (joke) has determined that we need more housing in our area. Wouldn't it make more sense to use somewhere like the Macs site rather than building on, for instnce, Hartham@
Reply ID 67372
should read "instance"
Reply ID 67376
quote:I agree there is a shortage of certain types of housing in the South East. Unfortunately this particular site would be unsuitable for a number of reasons. Traffic is one of them. A housing project really would add vehicles to the town, resulting in anything up to 400 extra vehicles, most of which would be trying to exit or enter Hartham Lane during the peak periods when the rest of Hertford's road systems are busiest. To solve housing shortages requires social housing. Having sold all the stock for peanuts to bail out a previous government, it's unlikely we'll ever afford that again. People need 3 bedroom houses, but can't afford them, so developers build flats to sell to newcomers. We are an expensive town for housing and predominately commuter. However, not everyone suits the type of job which supports that lifestyle. Some just need a basic job, posssibly part time and locally. Though retail is not ideal and adds little to he national economy, it is commercial and has some of the required qualities. It is also potentially less disruptive than some other industries (Sainsbury doesn't grind metal, or load aluminium kegs as previous and current users of the site do).
Originally posted by buzz
Shunt. I read your posts with interest. You are obviously an intelligent guy with lots of local concerns. However, I can't agree with your views concerning the McMullens site. Yes, Sainsburys would be good. However the government (joke) has determined that we need more housing in our area. Wouldn't it make more sense to use somewhere like the Macs site rather than building on, for instnce, Hartham@
Reply ID 67408
I can hardly believe some of the things that have been posted since my last visit here. Perfectly intelligent people on this forum seem to be blinding themselves to the extreme traffic chaos that will accompany a Sainsbury store in the proposed location. Perfectly intelligent people seem to be unable/unwilling to see that a Sainsbury conversion, with added car park and traffic and lighting and litter and horrible Sainsbury signs WILL be an eyesore (a commercial development of this nature is far more than just the 'tasteful' conversion of one building). ..and the Sainsbury 'difference' that a previous member alluded to is about 5% extra on your shopping bill, if my experience is anything to go by. I'm just moving from St Albans, which has a Sainsbury and two Homebase stores. My message to you is, "Go there if you want to pay more." Personally, I'll be using Tesco [;)] If it goes through, it will be a blight on the area. (DramaQueen - I agree with everything you've posted.)
Reply ID 67409
quote:The key word in your post is "intelligent". Yes, we can all blindly object, but unless we can suggest a suitable alternative, that is hardly intelligent. There's a hundred thigs I'd love to see instead of a supermarket, but none of them are realistic, so there really is no point in discussing them. The only certainty is that the site cannot remain as it is.
Originally posted by homeless
I can hardly believe some of the things that have been posted since my last visit here. Perfectly intelligent people on this forum seem to be blinding themselves to the extreme traffic chaos that will accompany a Sainsbury store in the proposed location. or any developement of this rusting eyesore of a derelict building site Perfectly intelligent people seem to be unable/unwilling to see that a Sainsbury conversion, with added car park and traffic and lighting and litter and horrible Sainsbury signs WILL be an eyesore more than the rusting tanks, pipes, corregated iron and a '70s slab of cheap brick?(a commercial development of this nature is far more than just the 'tasteful' conversion of one building).thankfully, yes, it will include all the other derelict warehouses ..and the Sainsbury 'difference' that a previous member alluded to is about 5% extra on your shopping bill, if my experience is anything to go by. for edible food, and staff a small price to pay I'm just moving from St Albans, which has a Sainsbury and two Homebase stores. My message to you is, "Go there if you want to pay more." Personally, I'll be using Tesco [;)] If it goes through, it will be a blight on the area.thank goodness we have the architectural masterpiece that is Tesco then (DramaQueen - I agree with everything you've posted.)
Reply ID 67410
As a non driver, I object to those who would prefer out of town retail parks. I can walk. I can carry my shopping. I'd like a Sainsbury's and if it happens to have zero parking, it would suit me fine. Just like the 'Metro' type shops in London. More retail space I'd guess.
Reply ID 67415
Thank you homeless. I speak with my friends who are mums of young children.. if you tell them they have to do their weekly shopping without a vehicle, you'll be lucky to survive the torrent of abuse. All of you, take a good look in your trolleys.. ask yourself, can you physically carry all that without any one eles helping you in several resusable bags without a) giving yourself a hernia and b) putting your back out. As a separate note lets be controversial here, McMullen's didnt' want to sell their land to other interests and there is a strong rumour that the newly being built library in the centre of town has their financial support.. for allowing Sainsburys in..allegedly so its a lot more sinister than some would let you believe...
Reply ID 67416
quote:Sinister in what way? What alternatives?
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Thank you homeless. I speak with my friends who are mums of young children.. if you tell them they have to do their weekly shopping without a vehicle, you'll be lucky to survive the torrent of abuse. All of you, take a good look in your trolleys.. ask yourself, can you physically carry all that without any one eles helping you in several resusable bags without a) giving yourself a hernia and b) putting your back out. As a separate note lets be controversial here, McMullen's didnt' want to sell their land to other interests and there is a strong rumour that the newly being built library in the centre of town has their financial support.. for allowing Sainsburys in..allegedly so its a lot more sinister than some would let you believe...
Reply ID 67417
A note on shopping on foot with young children:- 1. Don't buy the extra 1/3 of shopping that households simply throw away. You are carrying it home for nothing and what you save by not buying it will cover all your utility bills. 2. Don't buy Sunny D, lemonade, Coca-Cola or other heavy sugar drinks. They serve no purpose. 3. Shop more than once a week (fresh vegetables, mmmmm!) 4. Don't buy a buggy. They are specifically made for car use and are useless over any distance. Buy a pram. Much lower rolling resistance, easier to steer on rough pavements and parkland and an entire shopping trolley's contents fit underneath. 5. Enjoy the walk and the chance to show your children things on the way, or arrange to go with friends and chat on the way. 6. Time yourself. You'll be surprised how little time the car saved you, if any.
Reply ID 67419
How much are Sainbury's paying you shunt??? Spoken like a truly blinkered man! Perhaps you can tell me why I had to step pretty sharpish out of the way of macs low loading delivery van today that couldn't get into hartham lane but mounted the pavement at the Flower Bar shop and I had to move out of his way to save myself! and you want people to shop in store without using cars!!! The traffic problem is not just severe and ex Policewoman who stood by me at the Public Exhibition over a year ago in the Corn Exchange was talking re: the law and said it was breaking various traffic acts (obviously she knew what she was talking about!) and today I had to preserve my life at 9.34 am walking to work from an appointment! Its not funny, its happening and thats one of many reasons why I actively oppose such a dangerous and life-threatening scheme. There has never been any consultation by Macs as to alternative use of their land (Cinema???) and everybody knows they have put up money for the new library around the corner so.. Pol Pot in Vietnam tried to make his people go back to Year 0 and get rid of carts and things, do you honestly think by telling us that we all should leave our cars at home that this is going to happen???? Get real.. I find the stupidity on some of these posts and the gross inability to see commmonsense instead of pound signs unbelievable...
Reply ID 67420
A note on shopping on foot with young children:- 1. Don't buy the extra 1/3 of shopping that households simply throw away. You are carrying it home for nothing and what you save by not buying it will cover all your utility bills. Because people always buy this extra 1/3 intentionally!! 2. Don't buy Sunny D, lemonade, Coca-Cola or other heavy sugar drinks. They serve no purpose. I think people are grown up enough to decide what drinks they buy. 3. Shop more than once a week (fresh vegetables, mmmmm!) I do, so? 4. Don't buy a buggy. They are specifically made for car use and are useless over any distance. Buy a pram. Much lower rolling resistance, easier to steer on rough pavements and parkland and an entire shopping trolley's contents fit underneath. Some people need to get a buggy in a car sometimes so a buggy is a good all rounder. 5. Enjoy the walk and the chance to show your children things on the way, or arrange to go with friends and chat on the way. I enjoy walking, cycling, swimming and playing with my kids and talking to my friends. Have no interest in combining that with shopping 6. Time yourself. You'll be surprised how little time the car saved you, if any. Rubbish, when I use the car it is for journeys which are too far or I don't have time to walk, so saves a lot of time
Reply ID 67422
quote:Having always had children, the first of whom was born 1982 and the last 1998, I speak from experience of shopping on foot for families, rather than a "blinkered" perspective. As I was the main carer for much of that time, my gender is also not relevant. I'm also a petrolhead, and have been extensively involved in automotive matters, both professionally and as a lifelong passion, currently owning ten vehicles. The motor car is a luxury. We have mistakenly removed alternatives and created the impression that it is an essential, around which everything must be designed. We can re-design so that it takes it's rightful place as a luxury again. If we don't, it will become obsolete and unuseable altogether. Annoying, particularly for someone like me, who is so strongly pro-car and who recognises that some things can only be done by car. The key to keeping the facility in any form, is not to use it for those things for which there are alternatives. Let the roads clog up. Only that self-regulating limit will force supermarkets and the public to re-consider how they do things. For as long as we try to build new roads and design infrastructure exclusively for cars, traffic will increase and the large retailers like Sainsbury/Tesco/Asda.... will have no reason to think hard about how they get goods to customers from any new development like this, or indeed, whether this is the future of retail at all.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
How much are Sainbury's paying you shunt??? Spoken like a truly blinkered man! Perhaps you can tell me why I had to step pretty sharpish out of the way of macs low loading delivery van today that couldn't get into hartham lane but mounted the pavement at the Flower Bar shop and I had to move out of his way to save myself! and you want people to shop in store without using cars!!! The traffic problem is not just severe and ex Policewoman who stood by me at the Public Exhibition over a year ago in the Corn Exchange was talking re: the law and said it was breaking various traffic acts (obviously she knew what she was talking about!) and today I had to preserve my life at 9.34 am walking to work from an appointment! Its not funny, its happening and thats one of many reasons why I actively oppose such a dangerous and life-threatening scheme. There has never been any consultation by Macs as to alternative use of their land (Cinema???) and everybody knows they have put up money for the new library around the corner so.. Pol Pot in Vietnam tried to make his people go back to Year 0 and get rid of carts and things, do you honestly think by telling us that we all should leave our cars at home that this is going to happen???? Get real.. I find the stupidity on some of these posts and the gross inability to see commmonsense instead of pound signs unbelievable...
Reply ID 67423
I thought it was only me who started all these nasty rumours in town.[}:)] The development of the Riverside Yards has been a monumental bore since 1997. Basically Macs were given permission to build on Dolphin Yard providing they incorporated the public library into the scheme of things. They didn't put up any funds. These were given by County who had decided that the current library was now unfit for purpose and put up £405,000 for the library shell and £600,000 for a refit. (Cabinet meeting 11.7.2005)Once in place any funds made from the sale of the current building will offset these costs as they will only pay Macs a peppercorn rent for use of the library. Work could not start on Dolphin Yard because there were legal arguments raging over Adams Yard about ownership, access, CCTV and other pedestrian issues. Adams Yard had to be started before Dolphin Yard as there was no other way to the site. Once Yellow Circle withdrew its application for offices then Atlantech began work on Dolphin Yard and used bricks from the old brewery to build the new river wall alongside which two narrow boats can moor. Then we had the saga of the bascule bridge which no one apart from Planning Dept wanted but Sainsburys will be required to build a smaller pedestrian bridge further down at Little Hartham instead of at New Library Lane to Maidenhead Yard; thus fulfilling the vision of 1997 to join up that part of town. It seems very odd that despite the views of some members of these boards only 33 objections were received by East Herts to Sainsburys plans. The inquiry has heard arguments about the retail impact but the main issue is and always has been - traffic. I am sure I have said this before on a similar thread but Sainsburys (and certainly their consultants) were unaware of the problems at Old Cross when they bought the land. Now it is up to the Inspector and from tomorrow afternoon you can all argue as much as you like on this thread and any other but if he says 'yes' it will go ahead. Final. If he says 'no' then can someone please tell me what else is going to be built on that site, who is going to build it, at what cost and why should they put up a lot of their own money to provide community buildings and amenities and sort out the universal traffic problem that will not go away whatever is there - housing, mixed use, retail etc etc. Mr Peabody, that well known philantrophist is dead and gone.
Reply ID 67424
Yesterday morning a car heading along Cowbridge from Old Cross stopped in the road outside the United Reformed Church with it's right indicator flashing. The driver wanted to park on the right hand side of the road but unfortunately there was a queue of traffic on the right hand side so he had to wait until it cleared, as did the drivers of all the vehicles that stacked up behind him. Round the corner at Old Cross vehicles continued turning right from Millbridge into Cowbridge even when it was clear that the traffic ahead wasn't moving. Perhaps the drivers assumed the vehicles ahead would clear at any moment. Unfortunately the traffic from Millbridge blocked the junction. When the lights turned green at Old Cross to allow the vehicles from Cowbridge to turn left a few cars turned but not enough to free the junction. And when the right turn light turned green noting could move because the junction was blocked. 1 car trying to park caused that.
Reply ID 67425
sloop - if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections. Also with there being so few active people on these forums, compared to the number in the town, they can hardly be considered as representative of hertford as a whole.
Reply ID 67426
quote:I'm not sure you'll get the point of this, but no it didn't. You mentioned all the other car users who contributed, yourself.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Yesterday morning a car heading along Cowbridge from Old Cross stopped in the road outside the United Reformed Church with it's right indicator flashing. The driver wanted to park on the right hand side of the road but unfortunately there was a queue of traffic on the right hand side so he had to wait until it cleared, as did the drivers of all the vehicles that stacked up behind him. Round the corner at Old Cross vehicles continued turning right from Millbridge into Cowbridge even when it was clear that the traffic ahead wasn't moving. Perhaps the drivers assumed the vehicles ahead would clear at any moment. Unfortunately the traffic from Millbridge blocked the junction. When the lights turned green at Old Cross to allow the vehicles from Cowbridge to turn left a few cars turned but not enough to free the junction. And when the right turn light turned green noting could move because the junction was blocked. 1 car trying to park caused that.
Reply ID 67427
quote:The other vehicles contributed. The 1 car that stopped caused the grid lock.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I'm not sure you'll get the point of this, but no it didn't. You mentioned all the other car users who contributed, yourself.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Yesterday morning a car heading along Cowbridge from Old Cross stopped in the road outside the United Reformed Church with it's right indicator flashing. The driver wanted to park on the right hand side of the road but unfortunately there was a queue of traffic on the right hand side so he had to wait until it cleared, as did the drivers of all the vehicles that stacked up behind him. Round the corner at Old Cross vehicles continued turning right from Millbridge into Cowbridge even when it was clear that the traffic ahead wasn't moving. Perhaps the drivers assumed the vehicles ahead would clear at any moment. Unfortunately the traffic from Millbridge blocked the junction. When the lights turned green at Old Cross to allow the vehicles from Cowbridge to turn left a few cars turned but not enough to free the junction. And when the right turn light turned green noting could move because the junction was blocked. 1 car trying to park caused that.
Reply ID 67428
quote:Look closely at what? I'm interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Sloop says that 33 objections were received, which is more than a handful in my book. And of course not every objector would have put pen to paper - that would add significantly more. No-one has yet come up with a feasible solution to the traffic issue. Supporters of the development appear to think it a price worth paying for the benefits it would bring to the town. Others believe the damage to the town caused by the increased congestion outweigh those benefits. Perhaps if Sainsbury's had shown a bit more "due diligence" when purchasing the site, all of this could have been avoided.
Originally posted by codek2
if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections.
Reply ID 67429
quote:Due diligence is surely a matter for Sainsbury's shareholders to judge. I think "supporters" is not quite accurate. A lack of objection does not imply support. I entered the debate looking for a reason to oppose which would stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Having not found one, I am not able to be one of Sloops's 33, even if I'd like to be on an emotional level.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Look closely at what? I'm interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Sloop says that 33 objections were received, which is more than a handful in my book. And of course not every objector would have put pen to paper - that would add significantly more. No-one has yet come up with a feasible solution to the traffic issue. Supporters of the development appear to think it a price worth paying for the benefits it would bring to the town. Others believe the damage to the town caused by the increased congestion outweigh those benefits. Perhaps if Sainsbury's had shown a bit more "due diligence" when purchasing the site, all of this could have been avoided.
Originally posted by codek2
if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections.
Reply ID 67430
quote:When talking about "due diligence", I was not referring to the narrow technical definition. I hoped this came across in my post. I was pointing out that if they'd done sufficient research before purchasing the site, they should have foreseen the traffic issue. Do you dispute the received wisdom, arrived at by all parties who've studied the issue, including Herts Highways and Sainsbury's, that there would be a serious impact on traffic flows in the town? As demonstrated by Ewoowar's post above, the actions of a single driver can precipitate a chain of events that can lead to temporary gridlock.
Originally posted by shunt
Due diligence is surely a matter for Sainsbury's shareholders to judge. I think "supporters" is not quite accurate. A lack of objection does not imply support. I entered the debate looking for a reason to oppose which would stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Having not found one, I am not able to be one of Sloops's 33, even if I'd like to be on an emotional level.
Reply ID 67431
quote:That would depend on whether you consider one car stopping an exceptional event and one which would have been a problem regardless of the number of other cars. Again, with apologies for pedantry, is the problem not the level of traffic preventing stopping being considered a reasonable action? To tie this into the debate. Is the problem increased traffic that has rendered a valuable industrial site unuseable, or that somebody wants to use it?
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:The other vehicles contributed. The 1 car that stopped caused the grid lock.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I'm not sure you'll get the point of this, but no it didn't. You mentioned all the other car users who contributed, yourself.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Yesterday morning a car heading along Cowbridge from Old Cross stopped in the road outside the United Reformed Church with it's right indicator flashing. The driver wanted to park on the right hand side of the road but unfortunately there was a queue of traffic on the right hand side so he had to wait until it cleared, as did the drivers of all the vehicles that stacked up behind him. Round the corner at Old Cross vehicles continued turning right from Millbridge into Cowbridge even when it was clear that the traffic ahead wasn't moving. Perhaps the drivers assumed the vehicles ahead would clear at any moment. Unfortunately the traffic from Millbridge blocked the junction. When the lights turned green at Old Cross to allow the vehicles from Cowbridge to turn left a few cars turned but not enough to free the junction. And when the right turn light turned green noting could move because the junction was blocked. 1 car trying to park caused that.
Reply ID 67432
quote:I would suggest that the overwhelming acknowledgement of an increase in traffic (a fact supported by Sainsbury themselves and more accurately stated by the Highways department at the council) and the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason. It stands up to intellectual scrutiny but fails to convince you.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Due diligence is surely a matter for Sainsbury's shareholders to judge. I think "supporters" is not quite accurate. A lack of objection does not imply support. I entered the debate looking for a reason to oppose which would stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Having not found one, I am not able to be one of Sloops's 33, even if I'd like to be on an emotional level.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Look closely at what? I'm interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Sloop says that 33 objections were received, which is more than a handful in my book. And of course not every objector would have put pen to paper - that would add significantly more. No-one has yet come up with a feasible solution to the traffic issue. Supporters of the development appear to think it a price worth paying for the benefits it would bring to the town. Others believe the damage to the town caused by the increased congestion outweigh those benefits. Perhaps if Sainsbury's had shown a bit more "due diligence" when purchasing the site, all of this could have been avoided.
Originally posted by codek2
if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections.
Reply ID 67433
quote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 67434
quote:Aplogies. I'm referring to the Herts Highways objection. My bad. [;)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 67435
quote:Highways is concerned with road management. Their brief does not include many wider social issues. A large and decaying industrial site in Hertford is not their problem. In fact, being unused so long has allowed the build up of other traffic without them having to intervene. It could be said that unrealistically assuming the site would never be used again and failing to plan for that eventuality was a mistake by that agency.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Aplogies. I'm referring to the Herts Highways objection. My bad. [;)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 67436
quote:The impact of alternative uses for the site have been assessed in the TA: http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/4/2/HCC_Proof_-_Sainsburys.pdf And have you read this? http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/9/b/HCC_Summary_Rob_Jepson.pdf
Originally posted by shuntquote:Highways is concerned with road management. Their brief does not include many wider social issues. A large and decaying industrial site in Hertford is not their problem. In fact, being unused so long has allowed the build up of other traffic without them having to intervene. It could be said that unrealistically assuming the site would never be used again and failing to plan for that eventuality was a mistake by that agency.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Aplogies. I'm referring to the Herts Highways objection. My bad. [;)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 67437
When the lights turned green at Old Cross to allow the vehicles from Cowbridge to turn left a few cars turned but not enough to free the junction. And when the right turn light turned green noting could move because the junction was blocked. 1 car trying to park caused that. No, the cars that blocked the junction caused the gridlock.That is just bad driving So,without going off topic,these instances of bad driving are there before Sainsbury are even here. Maybe if a traffic control system is implemented at the junction of Hartham Lane working in tandem with the lights at Old Cross, this might work ???
Reply ID 67439
Mr Jepson's alternative mixed use is not new. In 2001 the then Chairman of the Hertford Chamber of Commerce Jonathan Burge was concerned that a small retail park or mixed scheme was then being considered and thought that this would have a huge negative impact on the town centre. The Civic Society raised this possibility again at the inquiry and the question remains - if it was such a good idea why has no one come forward to develop it. Even Sainsburys do not need all the redundant buildings (these have been offered for use by Museum, arts groups and welfare services) so in total there is a lot of space that might have to be filled by extra retail or service sector units if the space for profit is to be maximised by other developers. Would that be good for the town centre or is it better for that space to be given to the community.
Reply ID 67440
quote:I have indeed and note that it deals with difficulties of varying importance and liklihood, relating to local traffic. As I would expect, where alternatives models have been suggested, they are hypothetical scenarios which do not exist as real, financed and proposed possibilities, specifically imagined to circumnavigate the problem of returning the site to commercial use. From a traffic management point of view, leaving the site to rot or turning it into a rodent sanctuary would be the best bet.[;)] As a compromise which sounds less ridiculous, one can easily propose housing, as that has a less concentrated traffic impact, despite the wider traffic impact being greater. The social implications on the balance of a community which is already excessively residential are also outside the field of such a study. I'm trying hard to take a holistic view. Yep, traffic is a problem and a big one, but it shouldn't override all other considerations and needs solving, not avoiding by restricting activity to suit the traffic.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:The impact of alternative uses for the site have been assessed in the TA: http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/4/2/HCC_Proof_-_Sainsburys.pdf And have you read this? http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/9/b/HCC_Summary_Rob_Jepson.pdf
Originally posted by shuntquote:Highways is concerned with road management. Their brief does not include many wider social issues. A large and decaying industrial site in Hertford is not their problem. In fact, being unused so long has allowed the build up of other traffic without them having to intervene. It could be said that unrealistically assuming the site would never be used again and failing to plan for that eventuality was a mistake by that agency.
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Aplogies. I'm referring to the Herts Highways objection. My bad. [;)]
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 67453
So when is the decision due?
Reply ID 67470
quote:In short January 2010. The Inspector passes his recommendation to the Secretary of State who apparently can accept it [^]or not[V]. Usually does. But woe all around if there is a General Election before then.[B)]
So when is the decision due?
Reply ID 67485
quote:I've realised that you shouldn't take old Shunt too seriously - as he said himself, he just enjoys/can't help trying to be pedantic. He knows that the 'traffic argument' is a valid one, but he just loves a bit of a debate! Keep it up, Shunty boy!
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:I would suggest that the overwhelming acknowledgement of an increase in traffic (a fact supported by Sainsbury themselves and more accurately stated by the Highways department at the council) and the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason. It stands up to intellectual scrutiny but fails to convince you.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Due diligence is surely a matter for Sainsbury's shareholders to judge. I think "supporters" is not quite accurate. A lack of objection does not imply support. I entered the debate looking for a reason to oppose which would stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Having not found one, I am not able to be one of Sloops's 33, even if I'd like to be on an emotional level.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Look closely at what? I'm interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Sloop says that 33 objections were received, which is more than a handful in my book. And of course not every objector would have put pen to paper - that would add significantly more. No-one has yet come up with a feasible solution to the traffic issue. Supporters of the development appear to think it a price worth paying for the benefits it would bring to the town. Others believe the damage to the town caused by the increased congestion outweigh those benefits. Perhaps if Sainsbury's had shown a bit more "due diligence" when purchasing the site, all of this could have been avoided.
Originally posted by codek2
if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections.
Reply ID 67487
quote:You're partially right, particularly when I'm bored and laid up with a twisted knee.[:(] I don't dispute the weight of the problem, but the emphasis of the response. Put simply, is it better that Hertford obstructs commercial investment in favour of traffic flow, or traffic flow in favour of commercial investment? I do not dispute that first is, by far, the easier option.[:)]
Originally posted by homelessquote:I've realised that you shouldn't take old Shunt too seriously - as he said himself, he just enjoys/can't help trying to be pedantic. He knows that the 'traffic argument' is a valid one, but he just loves a bit of a debate! Keep it up, Shunty boy!
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:I would suggest that the overwhelming acknowledgement of an increase in traffic (a fact supported by Sainsbury themselves and more accurately stated by the Highways department at the council) and the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason. It stands up to intellectual scrutiny but fails to convince you.
Originally posted by shuntquote:Due diligence is surely a matter for Sainsbury's shareholders to judge. I think "supporters" is not quite accurate. A lack of objection does not imply support. I entered the debate looking for a reason to oppose which would stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Having not found one, I am not able to be one of Sloops's 33, even if I'd like to be on an emotional level.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Look closely at what? I'm interested to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Sloop says that 33 objections were received, which is more than a handful in my book. And of course not every objector would have put pen to paper - that would add significantly more. No-one has yet come up with a feasible solution to the traffic issue. Supporters of the development appear to think it a price worth paying for the benefits it would bring to the town. Others believe the damage to the town caused by the increased congestion outweigh those benefits. Perhaps if Sainsbury's had shown a bit more "due diligence" when purchasing the site, all of this could have been avoided.
Originally posted by codek2
if you look closely you'll see there's only actual a handfull of people who are vocally opposed to the plans - this explains why so few objections.
Reply ID 67489
quote:[;)] I have no objection to a bit of competition for Tesco and yet more more choice for
You're partially right, particularly when I'm bored and laid up with a twisted knee.[:(] I don't dispute the weight of the problem, but the emphasis of the response. Put simply, is it better that Hertford obstructs commercial investment in favour of traffic flow, or traffic flow in favour of commercial investment? I do not dispute that first is, by far, the easier option.[:)]
Reply ID 67497
quote:Under the local plan it is identified as an employment area. Policy HE8 seeks to retain it as uses under B1 and B2 ie businesses, offices and light industrial or as used by McMullens. Chase & Ptrs who provided the retail study for East Herts admits that this site could be developed for retail purposes. Therefore any planning application is based on planning rules and not what we might all like. A leisure facility would contravene the guidelines that state that this needs to be retained at least as mixed use and/or for local employment. The developer in question ie Sainsburys have ticked all the right boxes although one of the planning guidelines questioned was the capacity in Hertford for further retail space. Not wishing to stir muddy waters Sainsburys intend to maximise the store as a food outlet of which many feel Hertford has enough. Tesco will add to the white goods market - something that Hertford leaks to other towns such as WGC, Harlow etc. In other words comparison shopping. It could be argued but not actually by me that Tesco are adding to the retail offer and preventing further slippage. This would most probably be the basis of their argument and supported by all the retail surveys, most importantly by those actually commissioned by East Herts of which they have copies. But enough of Sainsburys - done deal now whatever the Inspector will decide. We move on to Tesco.[}:)]
Why does it need to be primarily commercial? We're not a poor area - can't we afford to expand our leisure facilities/open spaces?
Reply ID 67502
quote:So we even have to stick to these rules when they may not work in our interest? Surely there's a mechanism that allows discretion. Isn't there? Reminds me a bit of the 'rule' that did for Serendipity. And where did that get us?
Originally posted by sloopjohnbquote:Under the local plan it is identified as an employment area. Policy HE8 seeks to retain it as uses under B1 and B2 ie businesses, offices and light industrial or as used by McMullens. Chase & Ptrs who provided the retail study for East Herts admits that this site could be developed for retail purposes. Therefore any planning application is based on planning rules and not what we might all like. A leisure facility would contravene the guidelines that state that this needs to be retained at least as mixed use and/or for local employment. The developer in question ie Sainsburys have ticked all the right boxes although one of the planning guidelines questioned was the capacity in Hertford for further retail space. Not wishing to stir muddy waters Sainsburys intend to maximise the store as a food outlet of which many feel Hertford has enough. Tesco will add to the white goods market - something that Hertford leaks to other towns such as WGC, Harlow etc. In other words comparison shopping. It could be argued but not actually by me that Tesco are adding to the retail offer and preventing further slippage. This would most probably be the basis of their argument and supported by all the retail surveys, most importantly by those actually commissioned by East Herts of which they have copies. But enough of Sainsburys - done deal now whatever the Inspector will decide. We move on to Tesco.[}:)]
Why does it need to be primarily commercial? We're not a poor area - can't we afford to expand our leisure facilities/open spaces?
Reply ID 67506
I don't want hertford's finest landmarks and buildings defined by Supermarkets! Why cannot sainsburys use the old Police station area in Ware Road to make a bigger store, plenty of free parking, good road networks?????? At no stage can I remember Macs asking the public if we wanted our new public library in their old listed buildings. The new one is not going to be any bigger, but wouldn't it have been nice to have a cinema, library and stuff in the macs disused bit rather than a beautiful old building being a supermarket!!!???? I am not against sainsburys just its not the right location and as most will know who use Tescos the car traffic has gone up, not down on the Ware road site and that's bad enough as it is... Cannot commonsense prevail??? Look what a bad council decision did to Hoddesdon town centre with the Tower Centre?? I rest my case!
Reply ID 67512
quote:The new library is nearly a third bigger
Originally posted by Drama Queen
At no stage can I remember Macs asking the public if we wanted our new public library in their old listed buildings. The new one is not going to be any bigger
Reply ID 67516
quote:I'm sure the people living nearby can think of a reason. The thing is, if those who expect a Sainsburys to attract more trade to Hertford are right, then putting it out of town will pull what few customers there are away. At the moment I park at Tesco and also walk round the town buying a few things. If a Sainsbury opens on the Ware Rd I will go there (Tesco is useless, both Ware & Hertford)
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Why cannot sainsburys use the old Police station area in Ware Road to make a bigger store, plenty of free parking, good road networks??????
Reply ID 67519
quote:We would like to believe that common sense may prevail but that is not always the case. Don't assume that I believe in, accept or defend planning process, its just the way it is. I asked a senior planning officer at a Community Voice if there were any reasons to refuse another application for another bar even if there were thought to be enough already and the applicant was within all planning guidelines. The answer was 'no'. There have been some strange decisions taken over planning issues which appear to go against the Local Plan and you have to ask 'what is the point of a Local Plan if the opposite of what was intended is allowed.' Starbucks was allowed to open because the Inspector concluded that it added a certain vibrancy to the area etc etc. I can't comment county wide but sometimes I don't understand what is happening in Hertford. Drama Queen - the new library is going on derelict land that had been derelict for some time. Although some of us were well aware that the police station had to relocate at the time that Sainsburys bought the Macs site (about 2005 and probably in discussions much earlier) there were no immediate plans to move the police station - basically because there was nowhere for it to go in town. One of my many little projects at the time to try and find suitable premises. I understand why a leisure site would be an attractive proposition but see my earlier post about designated land use and it really is a big site - Sainsburys do not want all of it either. Problem is, who would buy it and make enough money from a non-commercial use. But you have to move on because its all been said and in the last analysis - down to the Secretary of State - whomever he or she might be in December/January.
So we even have to stick to these rules when they may not work in our interest? Surely there's a mechanism that allows discretion. Isn't there? Reminds me a bit of the 'rule' that did for Serendipity. And where did that get us?
Reply ID 67522
quote:[;)]
Originally posted by Drama Queen
I don't want hertford's finest landmarks and buildings defined by Supermarkets! Why cannot sainsburys use the old Police station area in Ware Road to make a bigger store, plenty of free parking, good road networks?????? At no stage can I remember Macs asking the public if we wanted our new public library in their old listed buildings. The new one is not going to be any bigger, but wouldn't it have been nice to have a cinema, library and stuff in the macs disused bit rather than a beautiful old building being a supermarket!!!???? I am not against sainsburys just its not the right location and as most will know who use Tescos the car traffic has gone up, not down on the Ware road site and that's bad enough as it is... Cannot commonsense prevail??? Look what a bad council decision did to Hoddesdon town centre with the Tower Centre?? I rest my case!
Reply ID 67567
Who's going to be the first to complain about an errant Sainsbury shopping trolley in a river on Hartham, or half way down Cowbridge? Me probably [^]
Reply ID 70140
quote:Well they recommend refusal now........... http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/6/c/Hertfordshire_County_Council.pdf
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 70141
quote:The County Council isn't the Local Planning Authority (LPA). This document is simply their submission to the Planning Inspectorate as the authority responsible for highways. They made the same objections to East Herts District Council (who ARE the LPA).
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Well they recommend refusal now........... http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/6/c/Hertfordshire_County_Council.pdf
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 70142
This bit amazed me! I knew traffic would be bad but never knew they had a table to calculate how bad it would be! Old Cross is already a congested junction at certain times of the day. In the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours, some arms of the junction work at capacity (and certainly in excess of the 90% Degree of Saturation (“DoS”) level over which a junction becomes overloaded) or over capacity – see SoCG 4 Tables 3,5 and 6. For the Friday PM peak, the development proposals would increase on St. Andrew Street from 108% to 117% DoS and the queue would extend from 41 vehicles to 63. On Old Cross, the DoS would increase from 100% to 128% and the queue from 22 to 84 vehicles [RJ Table 6.3 p37].
Reply ID 70143
quote:That is partially correct. Herts County Council is the local highways authority and as such is one among many bodies to be consulted by East Herts Council when it assessed the merits of the planning application. HCC can and does agree planning applications - usually large ones but it did give permission for the big white adult care centre on Ware/Stanstead roads in Hertford, which it runs. Other consultees for the Sainsbury's application included Hertford Town Council, who also objected, English Heritage (the Victorian part of the brewery building is listed), the Environment Agency (to assess the environmental impact of the scheme) and so on... HCC recommended against planning permission however councillors on the development control committee felt that access would be a problem whatever the development on Hartham Lane and that the area needed to be developed. The scheme was approved by East Herts. But then the decision was refered to the Secretary of State after pressure from Tesco which was unhappy because its application to redevelop had not been approved, and was rendered unlikely ever to be approved by Sainsbury's success. The joint planning inquiry was set up (backed by Hertford Town Council and the Civic Society), which Tesco then dropped out of... which you may find surprising since they were the ones arguing for an inquiry in the first place. But Sainsbury's would still have to argue for planning permission all over again and Tesco could argue that a big supermarket was not what Hertford needed rather a much smaller extention plans to an existing supermarket (their own). In the end they didn't bother turning up to the inquiry but submitted written material. Incidently, Tory councillor Will Quince said after the original development control committee meeting (which he sat on) that had he known the levels of objection in Hertford at the time he would not have voted for the scheme! The scheme only made it through by one vote!!! He has since left the council to become Tory parliamentary candidate in Colchester... apparently the Tories considered him worthy of being one of their MPs.
Originally posted by Stevequote:The County Council isn't the Local Planning Authority (LPA). This document is simply their submission to the Planning Inspectorate as the authority responsible for highways. They made the same objections to East Herts District Council (who ARE the LPA).
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:Well they recommend refusal now........... http://80.168.51.108/media/pdf/6/c/Hertfordshire_County_Council.pdf
Originally posted by Stevequote:The Council didn't reject the plan, they approved it.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
...the lack of suitability of road access to the site not only stands up to intellectual scrutiny but provides a compelling reason for the application to be rejected, which is exactly what the council did and for that very reason.
Reply ID 70145
quote:This is quite correct. However, the County Council can only give planning permission for mineral workings, waste management activities and for services it provides, such as schools, library and day-care centres, the latter obviously being the activity that takes place at the building in Ware/Stansted Road. It's always struck me that there must surely be a conflict of interest here, where the Country Council are responsible for effectively giving themselves permission to build schools, day-care centres etc. I'm not quite sure why in these circumstances the power is not retained by the District Council.
Originally posted by xtra_xtra
HCC can and does agree planning applications - usually large ones but it did give permission for the big white adult care centre on Ware/Stanstead roads in Hertford, which it runs.
Reply ID 70156
quote:The same thought had crossed my mind. Presumably if you asked the council, they would say that the planning applicant, for example adult care services dept, is seperate to the planning dept, which makes the decision. (This kind of conflict must happen all the time in unitary authorities). I don't buy the argument though. I think its just convenient for them not to have another authority meddling in their business. There should be proper seperation of powers - its more democratic. As an amusing aside regarding the big white building between Stanstead/Ware roads, a certain Hertford councillor raised numerous objections to the building on behalf of local residents at a town council meeting. Then after a change of hats (to her Herts County Council executive role), she ended up opening the building!
Originally posted by Stevequote:It's always struck me that there must surely be a conflict of interest here.
Originally posted by xtra_xtra
HCC can and does agree planning applications - usually large ones but it did give permission for the big white adult care centre on Ware/Stanstead roads in Hertford, which it runs.
Reply ID 70166
Too coy to say who it was then - Xtra?
quote:
Originally posted by xtra_xtraquote:The same thought had crossed my mind. Presumably if you asked the council, they would say that the planning applicant, for example adult care services dept, is seperate to the planning dept, which makes the decision. (This kind of conflict must happen all the time in unitary authorities). I don't buy the argument though. I think its just convenient for them not to have another authority meddling in their business. There should be proper seperation of powers - its more democratic. As an amusing aside regarding the big white building between Stanstead/Ware roads, a certain Hertford councillor raised numerous objections to the building on behalf of local residents at a town council meeting. Then after a change of hats (to her Herts County Council executive role), she ended up opening the building!
Originally posted by Stevequote:It's always struck me that there must surely be a conflict of interest here.
Originally posted by xtra_xtra
HCC can and does agree planning applications - usually large ones but it did give permission for the big white adult care centre on Ware/Stanstead roads in Hertford, which it runs.
Reply ID 71357
Sainsburys get the go ahead. http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=478410
Reply ID 71358
Interesting that they should state at the end of the article that this will cause traffic problems and that the size of lorries being used should be considered. Ha! Why didn't they state that before agreeing to the build. Sainsbury will not change their lorries at all. I'm glad something is happening with the site but the build itself is going to cause chaos!
Reply ID 71362
quote:With that and Tesco's Welcome to GridLock Herford [V]
Originally posted by Bubbaoshea
Interesting that they should state at the end of the article that this will cause traffic problems and that the size of lorries being used should be considered. Ha! Why didn't they state that before agreeing to the build. Sainsbury will not change their lorries at all. I'm glad something is happening with the site but the build itself is going to cause chaos!
Reply ID 71363
They could have placed restrictions on the type of lorries used but they didn't, even though it was proved that certain lorries utilised for Sainsburys deliveries would have to mount the pavement to gain access to the Hartham Lane. This is a farce.
Reply ID 71369
For anyone who's interested, the inspector's report is on the District Council's website at http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=9127
Reply ID 71388
They will probably put restrictions in place as to what time the deliveries can take place. I guess they will have to be late at night as that would make sense. Saying that, it will probably be 8.30am Mon - Fri and 1pm on a Saturday...
Reply ID 71391
Surely the restrictions would already be stated as a requirement following the inquiry.
Reply ID 71392
quote:The original grant of planning permission by the council ran to nine pages with various restrictions on such things as when the lorries can deliver and things that Sainsbury's had to do (106s?) (such as a pedestrian/cycle crossing at the bottom of Port Hill coming from Hartham). Those of us who lodged planning objections got a copy of the nine pages.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Surely the restrictions would already be stated as a requirement following the inquiry.
Reply ID 74736
Any information as to when work will start? It seems to have gone very, very quiet?
Reply ID 74760
quote:I believe negotiations are still taking place with the District Council on the conditions attached to the planning approval (and remember how long this took in the case of Wetherspoons!). However, it is expected that building work will start in the Autumn.
Originally posted by baloobear
Any information as to when work will start? It seems to have gone very, very quiet?