Post by supergas on Feb 20, 2015 0:32:50 GMT
Fair points made by Strage Gas and Gasincider; perhaps it was me being a miserable sod. On a different day I could have been more upbeat e.g. "If Sainsbury need until 2016 to make a case then it looks like their only hope is based around delaying tactics". We'll just have to wait and see.
Every time Sainsbury's delay a final and legally binding decision past March/April of any year they delay the UWE by another season and by default reduce their compensation bill if we decide to settle out of court. The only thing better (for them) than winning and walking away from the contract is being able to launch an appeal that won't be heard until March/April 2016...another years delay from their perspective means a few extra legal bills but increases the likelihood of us settling for a smaller amount of compensation.
Should not forget that the small shops on Gloucester Road, many of whom don't actually compete with Sainsbury's, will be losing out on a pot of 106 money that would have improved their "town center".
Think of those shops miles from the Mem at the bottom of Gloucester road that would have benefitted and will now be losing out.
Well done Trash, well done Greens, you have cost the independant traders a chance to improve Gloucester Road, while Sainsburys would have brought much needed foot fall.
More takeaways and charity shops is the future I am afraid.
The worst case for these traders is Sainsburys are forced to buy the site, but don't bother developing it - no 106 money, no football crowds spending in the local area. Is that what trash call a win win situation ?
It's even more than the S106 if I remember correctly (and if the Evening Post got their reporting correct).
Under new Government rules, the supermarket chain will have to pay a £1.3M levy after winning consent to go ahead with the new store at the current home of Bristol Rovers and Bristol Rugby in Horfield....
...The new levy should not be confused with Section 106 agreements – legally-binding pledges by developers to pay for improvements to mitigate the effects of new build projects. Sainsbury's will be paying nearly £500,000 towards a range of measures to ease traffic congestion in the area. It will also make a contribution of £202,500 – which includes the cost of a full-time town centre manager – to offset the impact of the store on existing traders in Gloucester Road.
Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Council-benefit-pound-1-million-new-Sainsbury-s/story-17890940-detail/story.html#ixzz3SExZcRyq
...The new levy should not be confused with Section 106 agreements – legally-binding pledges by developers to pay for improvements to mitigate the effects of new build projects. Sainsbury's will be paying nearly £500,000 towards a range of measures to ease traffic congestion in the area. It will also make a contribution of £202,500 – which includes the cost of a full-time town centre manager – to offset the impact of the store on existing traders in Gloucester Road.
Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Council-benefit-pound-1-million-new-Sainsbury-s/story-17890940-detail/story.html#ixzz3SExZcRyq
Surely there are a couple of ELECTED councillors (I'm talking about Radice and her new parter in crime/lackey Tim Malnick) who should now be campaigning for the democratic decision of the Council to be upheld and pressure to be put on Sainsbury's to pay their levy ASAP so a massive investment comes into the local area...? Or is that too much to ask? Who on earth is voting for councillors who are not fighting for a £1.3million investment in their local community...?
....oh yeah, I remember, Green Party supporters.....
With the debate about Sainsburys and Trash Horfield, let's not forget that if the Greens/trash had not got involved, our new stadium would be getting built now. When I heard that Sainsbury's were pulling out of the deal with Rovers stopped using their stores. Nevertheless blame lies fairly@ squarely withthe greens/trash interference.
Bristol West is one seat Trash/Greens believe that they are confident of winning in the forthcoming elections. We need to try and actively prevent this by constructive action ie fielding our own candidate.
Disagree with our own candidate idea. Green supporters will always vote Green. Any independant pro-Rovers candidate would have to massively sweep the vote, because otherwise they'd just be taking support away from each of the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem candidates and potentially handing the seat to the Greens by weakening each of the other candidates individually. We'd be much better off picking an existing candidate and pressuring them to support the Sainsbury's application, get them to pressure Sainsbury's to complete and, once they commit to this, throwing our support behind them.