Posts
Dear Sir or Madam,
The decision made at Ashford Borough Council Planning meeting to approve the introduction of a Dobbies Garden Centre on Eureka Park was disappointing to say the least.
While there was a number of objections raised regarding the issues of competition, which are not considered to be a planning issue, there was still the issue of changing the designation Of the building in question. This area was designated office space and neither retail more leisure. In the event that this designation was to be overridden, it should have at least been designated leisure space.
To designate the land as “retail use” signifies that the parent company, Tesco, may at any time change the Dobbies to a Tesco supermarket without consulting the public or the council. There are already significant legislative guidelines on allowing monopoly by Tesco across Europe and our councillors have just effectively let them in through the back door.
The ability of the planning committee to override the designation of the building in spite of significant public opinion against the idea, as well as against the principle and purpose of the Eureka Park, raises serious questions About the principle and purpose of our Borough Council.
Public Services should be for the public, run by people that are elected by the public, In order to facilitate the use of the town. When Eureka park was designed, It was intended to be a site dedicated to scientific technology and development to increase jobs and prospects for both the local borough and the country.
However, by introducing a Garden Leisure Centre, as Dobbies is meant to be, we are simply introducing further low paid low-grade jobs and not developing the economic climate of Ashford in the slightest.
Kind regards
Kelly-Marie Blundell
Monday 31 May 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Loaded Web
Hey Kelly-Marie
ReplyDeleteAs you no doubt know, just designating land as retail use doesn't mean Tesco can put in a supermarket where once there was a garden centre. If that were to happen, a whole new planning application would be needed.
I'm a local and have followed this debate in detail. Over 80% of objections to the planning application had absolutely nothing to do with planning at all, but were to do with not wanting competition. Essentially the objectors want Bybook to have a monopoly in the local area and not allow healthy competition. That doesn't sound like a good reason not to grant planning permission, does it?
In this struggling economy we want to encourage more businesses to create more jobs. You should be encouraging competition and business growth.
PS: You've spelt "feminist" wrong on the left hand side.
Spelling mistake ammended.
ReplyDeleteIt essentially does not matter whether 80% of the objections were invalid, if at least 1% of them is a valid objection.
The placement of Dobbies will create unfair competition on Bybrook Barn. Article 102 of the Treaty of Functioning of the EU states that companies able to excercise prices below that of their production costs, as indeed a corporation such as Dobbies can and does. The cost of taking such an organisation to court far outstrips the cost of folding the business and therefore the majority of major corporations succeed in obliterating local businesses who cannot make equivilant market costs.
In addition to this, on a moral level, I feel that saying competition is not relevant to planning law is like saying pedestrians are not relevant to cars. They are instrinsically linked. Given that Ashford Borough Council refused planning permission to Bybrook Barn to extend it's premises on the basis of competition outside of the Town Centre, yet let the Arthur McGlenn outlet go ahead, there is an illogical application of interpretation at work here.
As a local myself, and having been present at planning meetings as well as being legally trained, I am also aware that changing the designation of the land does and will allow any company who gain planning permission on that land to do as they please with it as long as it is within that designation. Therefore "retail" can be anything within that scope.
While I am happy to encourage more businesses and more jobs, the liklihood that these jobs will come from those unemployed at Bybrook through unfair competition is very high (as I was quoted as saying in Kentish Express in April).
I also object to another business that does not provide NRS Social Grades C1 and above, including clerical, managerial and professional labour, which is significantly lacking in Ashford Town Centre (see http://bit.ly/droDtk and quoted in Kentish Express May 2010).
The only advantage to be created by Dobbies now being built is it will soak up the unemployed from the closure of Wyevale. However, I am still confused as to why Dobbies did not want to go to South Ashford or Park Farm where there is adequate retail space and no significant direct competition.
To the anonymous poster:
ReplyDeleteIf another business was to start up in direct competition with Bybrook Barn, that would be healthy, it would create jobs, the consumer would benefit and the businesses would strive harder to bring people into that part of Ashford.
But should Tesco, Tesco alone and specifically Tesco, really be allowed to add a fourth tentacle to it's grip on Ashford?
I have no objection to there being a Tesco presence in Ashford, but I have objections to Tesco growing to the point where it begins to gain monopolistic advantage.