LCCC tactics

I recently received a copy of a letter sent to a local MP which is titled "Executive Summary of the Lancashire County Cricket Club/Tesco planning application" no author for this 2 page document but it is necessary to set the record straight on a number of points included in the letter.

1) Size of the store
The letter states:

"The retail sales floor area of the store is approximately 100,000 sq ft. Opponents of the store cite much larger gross areas but these are misleading as they include for a wide range of non retail space, for example, storage areas, staff rooms, cafes, toilets, atrium areas, escalators, fire escapes.

It is the sales area of the store which is the key consideration as this drives turnover and determines the level of impact a store will have."

LCCC's own consultation exercise initially failed to mention the size of the store on its display boards whilst asking people to say in a questionniare whether they were in favour of a supermarket as part of the develoment.

When this was pointed out as highly misleading the boards were amended to include a size of 140,000 sq. ft - which we were told at the time was the gross floorspace.

When the planning application finally went into TMBC it was for a store with a gross size of 166,847 sq. ft. LCCC is trying to give the impression that the store will be smaller than the initially stated size of 140,000 by publicising a net floorspace size of 100,000 sq. ft in all its press releases and this letter.

People understandably have no idea what all this means - how big is that? Well, inside and out its rougly the size of the Eastlands Asda at Sports City. Or for locals around 5 times the size of the PC World across the road. In terms of height - the equivalent of a 5 story building - but how many 5 storey buildings do you know with a footprint of that size?

Why must the local community live with a store this size when there is already planning permission for a store of 'anchor' size? Wouldn't local people who want a supermarket in their area be happy with a store the size of the Sainsbuy's in Urmston? They tell us they would. The planning inspector said in 2006 that a larger store (88,095 sq. ft) would have been too large and would impact adversely on other local centres.

2) Retail impact assessment (I think they mean retail need study)
The letter states:
"A detailed retail impact assessment is submitted with our application - this demonstrates (a) that there is a need for a store of this scale in this location (currently local people are forced to drive to alternative locations because of lack of provision) and (b) that the impact of the store (any new store will have some impact) is entirely within acceptable levels."

The retail need study fails to account for the considerable number of local shops in the proposed store's catchment area. In 2006 Tesco consultants GL Hearn provided a helpful map which showed 31 local and neighbourhood centres within the catchment area of the proposed 88,095 sq. ft. store. Such information is absent from this application. Will trafford planning department be asking for details or will they simply accept the flawed retail needs study provided?

The blog here about Ayres Road's 47 shops and services not mentioned in the retail need study provides an example of the vital contribution that a local centre can provide in a community - these shops will be affected by a mega store.
in 2006 the planning inspector said:

“local shops cater well for the needs of those shoppers who, in particular do not have their own means of transport. Those shops are a valuable aid to social inclusion. In this respect it seems to me that the shops at Gorse Hill, the Quadrant and along Ayres Road would be particularly vulnerable to the effects of a large store.”

Office of National Statistics data shows that 52% of people living in the area served by Ayers Road shops have no car. Is it right that such vulnerable stores and their customers should suffer so that Tesco can build a very very large store when they already have permission for a large store?

This is too high a price for local communities to pay so that Old Trafford might see Test cricket again (if the Welsh Assembly doesn't help Glamorgan to outbid LCCC again). LCCC should find another way to fund the re-development of their private members club ground.

Campaign in the media

A letter sent in by Richard Fowler in response to a story in the Metro News.
For some reason its not been reproduced online so we thought we'd make it visible here.


The claims made by Jim Cumbes and Councillor Colledge in their letters to Trafford Metro News (Metro News, 11 December 2009) are, at best, disingenuous.

For example, they include claims that the Tesco/LCCC proposal is the only option if international cricket is to return to Old Trafford. Perhaps, then, they can explain why tickets for two international cricket matches taking place in June 2010 are already advertised on the LCCC website.

As for a groundswell of opinion from local residents wanting LCCC to remain in Trafford, that depends on how you ask the question. If you ask “Would you like LCCC to stay in Trafford or move elsewhere?”, of course people will say yes, they want LCCC to stay. But if you ask “Would you like Trafford Council to hand over £21million of public funds to subsidise the privately owned LCCC, with a new and very large Tesco and all the increased traffic congestion that will entail, while local shops are put out of business?”, you will get a very different answer.

The term 'sports-led regeneration' is misleading and dishonest – the proposals won't do anything to regenerate the area in the interests of local people, instead only serving to benefit two private entities, LCCC and Tesco, at the expense of residents in the vicinity of the site and of Trafford in general who will ALL be subsidising this scheme. As for his claims of supporting community cohesion,what about the inevitable closure of local shops (and the loss of jobs that go with it)? The extra £16m per year won't be go into the local economy at all, so what possible benefits are there for local people? Don't spend too long pondering this, because the first answer you come up with is the right one – there won't be any.

Source: p4 of Trafford Metro News, 18th December 2009.