Stupidly suicidal

It's raining. I'm in the right-hand 'lane' of High Street, I'm forced into the left-hand lane by the car parked by the cash-point; I turn the corner into the left-hand lane and jink hard to the right to avoid the car parked there and I judder over the poor road surface.

I turn left into lane 1 of Vale Road with one car before me and a gap behind, one car is coming up from Mitton Street and seems to be staying in lane 3. I signal and shift to lane 2 which is clear of traffic, I watch as the Mitton Street car shifts into lane 2 and I prepare to shift to lane 3; which happens much more violently then I expect when I swerve to avoid the stupid young women standing in the middle of lane 2 trying to continue to cross the road.

From turning the corner to swerving it all took place in less then 10 seconds, but she was this close to becoming a dented stain on my car and all because she couldn't be bothered to walk the 30 yards to the crossing point.

Groan

I'd hoped to start a piece on a 'down and dirty' guide to fixing the road layout on Stourport today in the cheapest way possible, but I think I'm coming down with a bit of a chill. My brain's claggy, I'm trying to stay awake, and I'm feeling a bit cold and nauseous. Managed to cast a quick eye over Tav's latest entry on the WFA regarding Weavers Wharf, the site is still not being used to its full potential and that's not just because it's still under development, but really due to some brain-dead decisions in layout. The same argument can be levelled at Crossley in similar ways and I'll go in to more details when my brain starts to function in its (ab)normal way.

Still playing dodgems with the potholes in Stourport, the one on the crossroad island getting worse. Parts of my road are going to be resurfaced soon; they hope to maintain access and are asking for people not to park there, which is fair enough - shouldn't be for too long anyway.

Fun with Outlook 2000 and I'm guessing Sony sync with regard to contact's email addresses. Seeing Mr Foo Bar with an address of foo@bar.com, but clicking on the address properties shows it as "f". Good news is that they're still going out correctly they're just not automatically matching up addresses to names, which isn't a major hassle but still needs sorting out though.

Ditch those plastic bags and make us more profit.

So Marks & Spencers are doing their bit for the environment and starting to charge for plastic bags; how decent of them, how noble of them, how blah blah blah. Okay let's look at this in a little more detail.

As it stands the big stores don't charge for the cheapo bags so the cost of purchasing them has to be absorbed by the company as part of the profit it makes on the goods it sells. This isn't too bad as they're pathetically cheap to buy in bulk and spreading the cost is probably less then a thousandth of a penny across the range. Still it is a loss, but what can you do? Well you could start charging for them, but you stand the risk of alienating your customers. So let's call it an environmental action, charge 5p per bag and give the profits to some eco-charity; who could complain about that?

Well note the bit about giving the profits to charity, so instead of the costs being absorbed indirectly they're now being paid for directly. This means the company makes more money. It gets better when you consider how people re-use these bags for various jobs; bin-liners, storage, keeping your muddy boots separate from other things. What are people going to use instead? the answer is bin-liners and a quick Google shows an increase in sales by around 70% in those areas now charging for carrier bags. So instead of getting plastic bags for free we're paying for them instead and while it can be argued that overall less will be used, it's still more then the pious companies would have us believe is being saved.

To put it simply Marks and Spencers will be making a profit by no longer absorbing the cost of carrier bags and from the increase in sales of binbags by inconveniencing their customers while at the same time making them feel happy about it all. Someone deserves a bonus.

For those who ask 'Why don't we use paper bags' the answer is 1) they're more expensive and 2) they take up a greater volume. However now we're paying directly for them and use is likely to go down expect them to be brought in after a year or two.

[Additional - Good old target="_blank">Daily Mash]

The Tesco report

I know fourth entry today, but the DCC meeting PDF here is well worth reading. It's 46 pages long, but surprisingly chock-full of goodness despite some repetition.

I enjoy the fact it points out that under the current links to town the development would be out of centre unless the Mitton Street pavements were widened and traffic control points put in at Severn Road/Mitton and Lion Hill/Vale Road. We're getting jams simply by extending the timing on the lights in Bridge Street what the hell will this do?

I also like the fact that it suggests both High Street and Co-op are robust enough not to be significantly harmed by the development, well yeah they are at the moment.

A balanced view must be taken with regard to the retail issue. On one hand it is clear that the pedestrian links between the town centre and the store are not ideal, essentially due to the physical constraints in Mitton Street. These have always been evident and in land use terms the site has nevertheless been earmarked for a retail store in the Local Plan and the Development Brief.

and that's the sound of me beating my head against a wall.

It should also be re-emphasised that at present, according to the retail analyses, a significant number of trips are made from the Stourport on Severn catchment area to other foodstores elsewhere, generating unnecessary trips by car. This proposal will clearly reduce much of that car mileage, a significant benefit in terms of sustainability.

Yeah 'cos everyone who travelled to Kiddy by car is now going to walk or take the bus to the new development; as if. As it stands now anyone on the 'wrong' side of the bridge travels through town and up the main drag and returns the same way via Gilgal. Anyone in Mitton is likely to take Wilden Lane both ways. Anyone in Lickhill can take the main drag there and back.

So the new development opens and those on the wrong side of the bridge are still using Gilgal, but now so are those from Lickhill and Mitton. Oh great you've reduced car mileage at the expense of having everyone trying to use the same roads and thus sitting in queues; beautiful.

I look at all the things that are being proposed and think "It can't just be me seeing all these flaws" sometimes it's just silly little simple things like the new route from Discovery Road means that any traffic trying to enter the supermarket from there has to turn right against the traffic from Mitton Street so why use that route when the other is just as easy? The cycle lane provision is a joke, are we going to get ones as per Lickhill Road and Lombard Street i.e. painted cycle signs on the road whoop-de-doo that'll help. The proposed traffic system on Severn Road and Lion Hill is bizarre, if it's sole purpose is for pedestrians then it won't assist anyone trying to leave Severn Road and if it's set up as a vehicle control point then you're going to have so may accidents or jams it's untrue as people turn the corner and crunch to a halt.

I'm sorry this just resonates so wrongly to me on so many levels I just can't get a handle on it; it just has the same tone to me as a proposed nuclear power plant in the middle of Birmingham and everyone arguing about how the fuel is going to be delivered.

It's all about timing

The Labour Party leaflet mentioned the Town council meeting being held on Monday at 6pm (brought forward from 7pm) at the Civic Centre and both it and the WFA mentions the Development Control Committee the day after at 6pm at Stourport High School (instead of Lickhill Community Centre). Members of the public are, of course, able to attend.

Now is it just me or is it noticeable that when the 'community' get together to organise something on a normal weekday it tends to start around the 8pm mark, but the council always seem to hold their meetings around the 7pm mark?

8pm no problem I'm there; 7pm is a little more tricky and depends on where the meetings are being held; 6pm not a chance unless I leave work early. I'm fortunate enough to work locally, but a lot of people don't so just out of curiosity how the hell are they supposed to be able to attend these meetings and exercise their democratic rights?

Shudder

1am in the morning and what the hell was that? Has something fallen over? All is quiet, was it a dream, wait it isn't quiet - a jammed clock I'm going to take apart is ticking; something must have shaken it. I get up and prowl around the house, nothing's fallen over and a tree hasn't fallen over out front or back. Humph go back to sleep.

So yep we had an earthquake 5.2 or 5.3 depending on who you listen to, all the breakfast news teams rushed out to the epicentre, or at least a few miles off for some strange reason. Up pops a map of Britain showing the location and where reports of it being felt are coming in from, oh and look there's a blob representing London just in case we didn't know where it was.

Next in calls and texts and emails from people talking about their houses shaking, some closer then I to the epicentre and oddly some further away.

Shaking? All I got was fa-dumph as if someone had picked the house up by a quarter-of-an-inch and then let go; sorry it was hardly exciting.

[Update- from the Daily Mash ties in nicely with our local news and its "Quake 08" slot - "there is no evidence these things are getting worse" said the reporter looking gutted]

Labour and Tesco

Had the local Labour Party leaflet through the door with a full page spread on the Tesco fun. Here's some snippets of joy:

[the site] was identified for possible supermarket development in the district council's 2004 Local Plan

Yep note the "possible" as it was really designated for B1 as I've been <sigh> banging on about.

The retail designation was confirmed in 2006 […] under new planning procedures

Except I've looked and can't find any record of this. Ah though here we go…

The 2004 zoning was subject to a retail survey

That would be this and this(both PDF)

I'll quote some key passages from the Retail Study (huzzah I can as well because it's not locked)

[with regard to larger stores] Smaller shopping centres in particular (including small town centres such as Stourport) might be susceptible to this trend, with effects manifest through increasing vacancies caused by relocation or the closure of independent retail outlets.

if allowance is made for the collective overtrading of Stourport's stores, there is latent expenditure capacity in the order of £6.9m, equivalent to an immediate need for 490-1,380sqm net floorspace. Thereafter, expenditure capacity is in the order of an additional £0.7m to 2011, and £1.5m to 2016, meaning that there is capacity for up to an additional 600-1,680sqm net floorspace over the next ten years.

except according to the 2001 report -

In Stourport-on-Severn, the study indicates that there is capacity to support one to two discount stores […] by 2006. Only if none of the identified capacity is absorbed by discount retailers between 2001 and 2011 will there be sufficient capacity to support one supermarket […] operated by one of the big five grocery retailers

Here's the killer

Foodstores in Stourport account for 67% of the main food shopping trips made by residents within Zone 2 [Stourport]. The Tesco and Co-op stores at Lombard Street are the most popular, having a combined market share of around 60%. Most of the expenditure leaking from the Stourport area is directed to the Sainsbury's at Crossley Park.

and suddenly the reason for Tesco to want to build here becomes even more transparent. Here's a big one

Severn Road - Carpets of Worth Site (STC.2)
The Carpets of Worth site is the largest of the three sites covered by the Severn Road
Development Brief. The Local Plan identifies that the area is suitable for a mix of uses, including business (B1), residential (C3) and should there be a demonstrable need during the Plan period to 2011, a possible new food supermarket (A1). Development on this site should provide:

• A mix of land uses including B1 Business and C3 residential. Retail uses may be acceptable subject to the retail policies;
• Retain and use the important buildings identified in the development brief;
• Preserve or enhance the Conservation Area;
• Safeguard/enhance the natural assets of the site provided by the River Stour and the design of the scheme;
• Take account of the flood risk and contamination;
• Be accessible via a new road to be provided as part of the redevelopment, linking the site with Discovery Road.

So does that sound like the go ahead for putting a supermarket there? Also note the subtle equating of A1 with supermarket. Back to the Labour leaflet

A short fall in supermarket capacity in Stourport was established

Well would you look at that another equating of A1 with supermarket and by the way no short fall has been found we're just below the national average in some respects and above it in others. Onward

[…] the proposed new store would be restricted primarily to food. Planning conditions could ensure that this would always remain the case

Note "primarily" and "could" I'd also like to mention the petrol station wouldn't be food and I'd also like to point out supermarkets' track record for following planning conditions to the letter.

The final paragraph details access and that it would need to be looked at carefully.

The back of the leaflet mentions the road closures that I posted about on the 18th and some improvements going on at Riverside Meadows.

So sorry guys not overly impressed.