BWAG Newsletter 36


BWAG Logo

We are aware that there is considerable interest in the reasons why Sainsbury’s have not yet started work on the Abbey Mill site. We hope this newsletter will provide you with some factual information.

IN THIS ISSUE:

• ‘Stopping up’ Station Road

• Audit commission and Winchester City Council

Many of you will know, or know of, John Hayter who throughout the last three years has fought his own battle to stop Sainsbury’s as an ‘outrider’ to the main campaign. Well, he has continued his activities and the following is an update on where he has got to…

‘Stopping up’ Station Road
As mentioned in Newsletter 34 (end March), in late February, the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport published a notice that she proposed to issue an order (under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to stop up a length of Station Road. Anyone wishing to object had 28 days within which to do so. The notice highlighted the fact that the stopping up order would only be authorised to enable the development that had been granted planning permission under reference 10/01650/FUL (Sainsbury’s Superstore). The proposed Order comprises the whole of Station Road and the B2177 crossing but does not extend into St George’s Square. Objections could only be to this part of the permission, not the permission itself.

On 21st March John Hayter filed his objection to the Section 247 order with the Department of Transport (this is the objection mentioned in Newsletter 34).

The affected areas are the pedestrianised “Public Realm” or “Plaza” between the superstore and South Pond and the changes to Station Road where it meets the B2177 including the proposed Tucan crossing. This “Linkage Strategy” was designed to encourage Sainsbury’s customers to also visit and spend money in the town centre as a means of partially offsetting the trade the High Street is expected to lose. The plans rely on segregation of pedestrians and cyclists from traffic and landscaping to tempt shoppers to walk between the store and the town centre. Initial plans were judged by the Hampshire Architects’ panel and Hampshire County Council’s Highways department as insufficiently effective and likely to create traffic problems. Some changes were made at which point HCC Highways gave their support to the proposals. The Station Road changes are thus a key element in the planning permission.

As a result of John Hayter’s objections to the proposed Station Road highway changes, and following a number of exchanges of letters with Sainsbury’s Transport Planning Consultants and Sainsbury’s solicitors, the Department of Transport announced on 27th June that a Public Local Inquiry is to be held at a date and place not yet announced.

The planning conditions attached to Sainsbury’s planning permission require that development cannot start until the Order is approved. Hence the absence of any start yet being made to the development of the site. The timescale for when the Inquiry may be held is unknown.

Audit commission and Winchester City Council
John Hayter has also been active highlighting to the relevant authorities that, in his view, some of the Section 106 agreements between Sainsbury’s and Winchester City Council (WCC), involving payments totalling £248,124, are unlawful under Circular 05/2005 relating to the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

We understand that as a result, the Audit Commission’s appointed auditor for WCC is to investigate these potential payments due to be paid by Sainsbury’s under the Section 106 agreement. The details of the Section 106 agreement were detailed in Newsletter 34 (end March).

We also understand that this stage is reached only after an elector has made a written objection sufficiently sound to persuade the auditor to exercise his discretion to require WCC to justify their actions.

We gather that the possible outcomes, in descending order of severity are:
• Application by the Auditor to the Courts for a declaration that items are unlawful.
• An Immediate Report in the public interest without waiting for completion of the audit
• A report in the public interest on completion of the audit that is usually around December.
• A mention (or not) in the usual audit report.
We understand that, in the public interest, in terms of cost, the Auditor would only go to the Courts if he could not otherwise persuade WCC to take requisite actions with the same effect. Public Interest reports have to be responded to by WCC and usually contain recommended actions. The outcomes could make it necessary or expedient for WCC to reconsider the decision in whole or part. Although neither the Courts, the Auditor nor WCC Cabinet can direct what the Planning Development Control Committee’s decision should be, what the Courts and/or auditor say would become a “material planning consideration” in reaching their decision.

It should be underlined that this is an audit of WCC, not Sainsbury’s, and as in all such cases there is no guarantee of any particular outcome.

In any event Sainsbury’s cannot start work until the outcome of John Hayter’s Section 247 objections (see above) to the Station Road changes is known.”

We hope this provides you with information on the most recent developments. We’ll be in touch with additional news and information shortly.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Community Groups, Winchester Council and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to BWAG Newsletter 36

  1. Warnimg! The rancour and bitterness which exuded from one individual very nearly destroyed Bishop’sWaltham.net . I hope that transfer of the subject matter to the Waltham Chase website does not have the same result.

    • Peter Watson says:

      I can’t really see that happening here. The moderator on BW.net in my view was not strong enough to say no to a big troublemaker!

  2. James Bickle says:

    The objections to Sainsburys always smelled of self interested economic protectionism, persons who bought houses in BW in say 1980 when houses were much cheaper in relation to average annual salaries want to protect their tidy profits thankyou. These protectionist thoughts are alarmist anyway, after all, a relatively small supermarket placed on a sunken away existing brown field site which previously contained industrial units anyway. The new Sainsburys will compliment rather than destroy the local shopping experience. It will create some healthy competition and ultimately improve standards and lower prices for all of us.

  3. Laura says:

    It’s going to happen whether you like it or not, so just let it happen.
    Not only is it costing money, it’s annoying and angering many people including myself who actually wish for it to be built.
    Let it go, you’ve lost.

  4. jon says:

    what a wast of money sainsburys is being built and this prat is just costing money

  5. Peter Watson says:

    The delay and indirect costs caused by the likes of Mr Hayter should anger many, especially the many supporters of Sainsbury’s and Bishop’s Waltham Another View (BWAV).
    Sainsbury’s in my view has legitimately obtained planning permission quite legally from the local authority Winchester City Council. The objection to the Stopping Up order on Station Road is only a sad objection too little and too late by an individual who is continuing a futile fight against the inevitable building of the Sainsbury’s store in Bishop’s Waltham.
    This individual has got previous form with regards to meddling and interfering with local authority’s matters that in turn has cost Parish Council as well as Winchester Council, tens of thousands of pounds defending outrageous unfounded allegations, which I am told have NEVER been upheld, or substantiated! He has previously accused Sainsbury’s and their consultants White Young Green of misrepresentation, which subsequently all came to nothing except a big time and money wasting exercise in the planning process!
    So now more money is going to be wasted on a local Public Enquiry with the Department of Transport. Who pays for this? That’s right the tax payer.
    With regards to the Audit Commission “John Hayter has also been active highlighting to the relevant authorities that, in his view, some of the Section 106 agreements between Sainsbury’s and Winchester City Council (WCC), involving payments totalling £248,124, are unlawful under Circular 05/2005 relating to the Town and Country Planning Act (1990)”.
    This money is for improvements which will benefit the local community, as well as local traders. The letter from Mr Hayter to the Audit Commission also places the local Parish Council in a very difficult position accusing the council essentially of not conducting their business lawfully. This is not going to improve, or help anyone. This will also no doubt cost the Parish Council with legal fees. I believe that Mr Hayter feels he is helping, I’d dread to see what he could do if he was to be unhelpful!
    My view is that supporters of BWAG should hang their heads in shame with the fact that BWAG is supporting someone like this, which is costing the community via local authorities thousands of pounds, which could easily be funding things in these recessional times that really matter, such as care for the elderly or education for children. I believe this is an act of nothing less than financial vandalism!
    Local traders in the High Street of Bishop’s Waltham should be outraged by the fact that Mr Hayter is attempting to stop direct encouragement of Sainsbury’s customers to walk from the Sainsbury’s store to visit shops in the centre of Bishop’s Waltham. The link is specifically designed to encourage people to go to the High Street from the store and is an integral part of the scheme. So quite frankly BWAG, if you are supposed to be looking after the interests of local traders If Sainsbury’s build the store without the stopping up order, it will not offer as much encouragement to people to go to the high street from the Store. So quite frankly BWAG, if you are supposed to be looking after the interests of local traders, who were of course the ones who initially made all the fuss about the new Sainsbury’s store, by supporting this action you are not actually looking after local traders interests, but in my view supports the ridiculous views and irresponsible actions only of Mr Hayter!
    It has to be asked, who does all of this help?
    There is surely no real benefit to BWAG or the High Street Traders of Bishop’s Waltham is there?
    What benefit is there to Mr Hayter apart from wanting to stop the Sainsbury’s store being built? – None, It will be built!
    Will any of the local councils benefit?
    No, they will have to use Council tax money to pay legal fees.
    In conclusion I find this all so completely mindless, and pointlessly sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s