So where did the recent survey majorities FOR …

Comment posted Waitrose has £325k on table for Tuesday planning hearing – and opposition rolls in by newsroom.

So where did the recent survey majorities FOR a retail development on the pier head come from – as quoted by Sainsburys in the letter we have published?

newsroom also commented

  • This could be said to be an almost perfect line up of the numpties. Authoritative? Hardly. But no doubt it will be sufficient, along with a side dish of pak choi.
  • We understand that it is practically unheard of for Councillor Danny Kelly, who is chairing the hearing, to overturn the planners’ recommendation. If he were to do so on this occasion, it would be strange.
  • Lowry – as you must know, we are a very small team with a huge amount of work to do and we cannot keep absolutely on top of everything.

    We haven’t forgotten about this matter and we will be pursuing it.

    You gave us a smile at the suggestion that this – or anything – might be ‘too political’ for us. Hardly our MO.

Recent comments by newsroom

  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    We dealt with this issue when the RYA initially made their rather ill-judged public complaint.
    There were two competing versions of what happened and no third party can know which was the closest to objective truth.
    The Waverley’s owners’ version was that her less than precise steering was judged by the harbour master to be a risk to other boats in the flotilla, should any unforeseen incident on the water occur.
    As we understand it, CalMac would have had their boat in the flotilla anyway; and Cruiser’s presence was an independent commercial enterprise by Clyde Marine.
    The RYA chartered Clyde Clipper from Clyde Marine for their own guests on the flotilla, amongst whom was Mike Cantlay Chair of VisitScotland.
    Since the RYA’s list of those it deemed Waverley to have let down included its own guests; and since it complained that the paddler’s owners had chosen ‘instead to pursue a corporate charter on the same day’ – it looks as if the RYA had expected to put its own guests on the Waverley at no charge – which seems a bit cheeky.
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    You’re absolutely right. Apologies for the error – and we’ll correct the text now.
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    Thank you – and I wasn’t looking for this.
    Lynda
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    Thank you for your kind comments about the piece.
    I never know to whom comments refer – so to be clear, in what I said to defend For Argyll’s and my own very real independence of anything and anyone, I had not suggested in any way that Mr Black was a supporter of anything.
    I was – and am – concerned only at his assumption that For Argyll is different from what I know it to be.
  • Managed protest at Pacific Quay shames pro-indy campaign
    For Argyll editorialises as a matter of policy.
    With interactive media today, since any reader is free to comment [unedited] – and many do – a news platform is free to take a position and not contribute to a fraud on the public by pretending that there are two sides of equal weight on a specific issue, where this is not the case.
    Our positional judgments are made on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of preconception or bias.
    The powerful evidence for this is that we publicly supported potential independence for several years from 2007. The reasons why we have come to oppose it today are evidential and arise from serious independent researches of our own. These have shown us that the prospectus on which the country will vote on 18th September is incomplete and knowingly deceptive; that promises made cannot be fulfilled as the prospectus stands – and more are being made on a daily basis now [today's is that if you vote 'Yes', wages will go up]; and that controversial decisions planned to be taken [as on various aspects of taxation] have been suppressed until later for fear of losing votes.
    We have also become increasingly concerned at the degree and speed of implementation of a totalitarian political philosophy; and about the willingness to exert intimidation and deploy patronage to suppress criticism and resistance to this direction of travel. Ironically, this is the modus operandi indy is supposed to free us from.
    All that this indy would do is bring those instruments of manipulation even closer to home – and in the hands of a party of majority government now very experienced and skilled in using them. This is quite a frightening prospect.
    Economically and socially we can see nothing supportable arising from this prospectus or, now, from the party promoting it – so we do not support it.
    Personally, I have voted for the SNP in the past – and joined the party for several years – because it showed signs of an objective attempt actually to govern Scotland.
    I departed when it became progressively clear that principle had been discarded in favour of a obsessive will to gamble that the country will buy a false prospectus if it is bribed enough and emotionally manipulated enough.
    Personally, I prefer to hope that people will scrutinise, learn and think enough – but I do not discount disappointment on that hope.
    The methods used to conduct the campaign are below civility and simply insupportable – the bullying, the unachievable promises, the rank dishonesty, the sleight of hand statements to shore up decomposing positions.
    No one to whom honesty and straightforwardness matter could put their name to taking Scotland into an uncertain independence on the back of this prospectus and this campaign.
    I have learned to disrespect the SNP as a party – never a position I had imagined I would arrive at. Whatever the outcome in September, I will not vote for them again.
    Lynda

powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

37 Responses to So where did the recent survey majorities FOR …

  1. Helensburgh has rejected a supermarket on the pier three times in the past decade. How many more times do you need to hear it?

    That being the case, the rest of your argument falls. I am beginning to think we need a For Helensburgh website, leaving you to concentrate on the old Argyll area where you are clearly better informed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • It is about For Argyll itself, which in many respects I admire but which does not seem to have much of a clue about Helensburgh.

      This morning at the hearing it was made clear, through various surveys, that thousands were in favour of Waitrose at Colgrain, and that there was a roughly 55-45 split against a pier supermarket.

      Yet For Argyll has consistently claimed the opposite in both cases.

      Today there is a huge attendance of Waitrose supporters and, so far, six objectors have put their heads above the parapet.

      Interestingly, the only person booed this morning was the representative of Helensburgh Retailers Association.

      If I was the editor of For Argyll, at this point I would be questioning the quality of the reporting.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. For Argyll don’t seem to understand my area either. Folk here are still waiting to learn the membership make up of the Easdale Island charity, Eilean Eisdeal, and how the money was spent from the Scottish Gas Green Streets award. For Argyll claimed that this information should be in the public domain – so where is it? We seem to have been forgotten or FA aren’t interested in persuing this further. Perhaps they’re not bothered about the rights of folk here, or is it too political?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Lowry – as you must know, we are a very small team with a huge amount of work to do and we cannot keep absolutely on top of everything.

      We haven’t forgotten about this matter and we will be pursuing it.

      You gave us a smile at the suggestion that this – or anything – might be ‘too political’ for us. Hardly our MO.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Copied from URTV’s Facebook page:

    Final count is 693 letters of support to the council for Waitrose and 137 letters against, including a petition. There were also 7 miscellaneous letters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Same source again – URTV:

    The Council Planning Department and Waitrose have both spoken. The Planning Department say that the effects on the town centre could have been grossly underestimated by Waitrose’s retail impact survey and that they are maintaining that they recommend refusal of the application.

    Waitrose still believe that the effects on the town centre will be negligible and they can mitigate them. Waitrose spokesperson, Martin Gorman, received a big round of applause for saying Helensburgh is crying out for a good quality food store.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. I could be wrong. But I think they made an exception for Henry Bros at Colgrain, which was greenbelt outwith the local development plan. That seemed strange at the time. Probably a large brown envelope involved there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. From URTV again:

    ‎30 pro Waitrose representatives have spoken, including Councillor Vivien Dance and Community Councilman Nigel Harman. Now it’s over to the objectors.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. We cope with bin collections once a week (or even fortnightly) so how about fancy supermarket visits once a week? – a Waitrose on a seagoing barge, serving the west coast – say from Helensburgh to Fort William, stopping off at Dunoon, Rothesay, Campbeltown, Oban, Fort William – and maybe Tobermory and Port Ellen alternate weeks. Just dreaming. At Helensburgh it would tie up at the pier, of course. The supermarket aisles would be cushioned with giant airbags to keep everything shipshape on passage, and maybe even giant gimbals would be effective.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Bruce Marshall has stated that he will support the application if a competent amendment can be brought forward. David Kinniburgh has stated that he will be doing the same. Robin Currie has stated that he hopes the application will be approved but the mitigation is insufficient. He is looking for an additional £420k in mitigation for various items. Neil McKay also looking to support it if an amendment can be put together but needs more mitigation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Alex McNaughton has also confirmed his support along with Gordon Chalmers. It is now clear that it will be approved if a competent motion / amendment can be put together.
    Cllr McAlister has also indicated support along with Cllr Devon, Cllr McMillan and Cllr McQueen.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Pingback: Argyll News: RIP Helensburgh town centre: Waitrose out of town location approved | For Argyll

  11. A long hot day, but full marks to the Helensburgh area public for their active participation.

    The right result too, so long as Waitrose are not put off by the vastly increased ‘mitigation payment’.

    On a wider stage, Government should be looking at how such payments, which are pure and simple bribery, could be regulated.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I thought ‘mitigation’ in the context of a supermarket proposal meant meeting the cost of any extra roadworks, pedestrian crossings etc made necessary by the extra traffic generated by the development. I’d like to know if some councillors took a more elastic view of the meaning of the word.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. I’m sure they won’t be put off by the mitigation payment. In all probability there will be negotiations over the purchase price between drum & waitrose. The application was made under two names – Waitrose & Wandering Wild (aka drum). It is highly likely that there is an agreement between drum and waitrose, where waitrose purchase the land subject to planning approval. This allows them to attach caveats re planning gain / mitigation payments. It will probably be drum who take a hit on the price. They’ll be aware that without planning approval their land is worthless. I actually think planning gain is a good thing. Just as long as it reaches the intended parties and not the council coffers, which sadly often happens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. I’d like to see the money used to directly improve the retailers units / frontages. I’ve attached a link to the merchant city initiative below, which completely transformed that area.
    http://glasgowmerchantcity.net/regeneration.html
    I’m pleased Waitrose got their approval. Had Waitrose been rejected, then all that would have happened is a continuation of the current decline of the town centre. That decline is due to the apathy of a lot of shop keepers. Either the shopkeepers take this opportunity to get their fair share of mitigation money to improve the service that they provide. Or they sell up and allow the next generation of shopkeepers to take over. I’m sure like me, the majority of Helensburgh shoppers do not want to soley shop in Waitrose. To me the Waitrose development has always been about a high end outlet recognising the potential and wanting to invest in our town, which will hopefully be a catalyst for further investment in the town centre.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.