Been reading through the presentation about this proposed new store Tesco and Bristol City FC propose to build at Ashton Gate again.
It’s all there …
It’s a “sustainable development” and even “A Sustainable Store”. “Offering a further choice of shopping destination”, which “has the potential to provide further economic and community benefits to the area”.
Naturally there’ll be “sustainable transport routes” because Tesco are “committed to playing a leading role in tackling climate change”. And “Tesco have built a number of environmental stores” already would you believe?
There’s almost a bucolic feel to it all isn’t there? It’s like they’re proposing some sort of local village post office crossed with a convenience store where they’re generously installing some bike racks for the old maids on their way back from communion and a convenient extra aisle of value baked beans to help the poor.
Alas not. Let’s be clear. The proposal is actually for an 80,000 square foot Tesco Extra with 600 plus parking spaces.
Tesco promote this as a one-stop shopping destination, usually open 24 hours a day. As well as food retailing, it also stocks a range of non-food items, and often includes a post office, a pharmacy, photo processing, electrical goods, soft furnishings, cookware, and other homeware products, clothing, toys/games, garden furniture, diy materials and power tools, plus a cafe/restaurant and creche.
As well as this, it is likely to include a Tesco Bank, mortgage advice, estate agent services, loans and all the other services Tesco have added to their portfolio.
In short, it is not just a food retail store it is an entire ‘High Street’ complex being built next to an “under threat” district centre.
Who’d have guessed?
So its a ‘Tesco Extra’ they want to inflict on us here, and a ‘Tesco Metro’ after they’ve demolished a local pub in Knowle!
If a Tesco Extra comes in its bye bye North Street. But why should it survive? Local shopping streets in the rest of Bristol are struggling, so what’s the problem with another one dying on its feet? If it helps a few local pensioners buy cheap baked beans, why should we worry about a few middle class types who prefer to ‘shop local’ in Southville?
Pile it high – sell it cheap, and give the shitheads their new stadium I say! We all know the World Cup bid is pie in the sky but BRISTOL CITY Council should help the football club that bears its name.
So come on Council Leader Babs ‘call me madam’ Janke, pile in behind the Evening Posts’s hysterical campaign, and give some taxpayers money to multi-millionaire Lansdown’s mega vanity project!
It’s all about marketing and branding at the end of the day.
Er, what about Asda and Sainsburys? They’re not exactly cornershops. Why is Tesco any worse than them?
We’ll be able to rely on Tesco following planning constraints to the letter, and fulfilling all their promises to the local community then. Just like they did at Golden Hill.
Bristol lad: Tesco *are* worse (though not, I’ll grant, by a huge margin) than the other two. They’re also bigger, richer, more ruthless, with better PR liars, and have far more power and influence over central government than Bristol, or any other, council. Also, we’ve *got* Asda and Sainsbury: WTF do we need another superstore for?
Bristol planners won’t dare to refuse, even if they wanted to, because Tesco will appeal up until they do win (and they will), and all legal costs will ultimately dumped on the council.
It’s not. It’s a question of scale, location and that word sustainability.
A Tesco (or any other 80,000 sq ft retail shed) at that location is going to have a negative effect on North Street.
There’s enough supermarket floorspace already to meet demand in the area.
And those who think the World Cup is pie-in-the-sky, think again. Bristol is the only bidder in South West and only one of two (with Portsmouth) in the South outside London.
It’s actually a big possibility. Whether the city should have to pay for this through inappropriate development is another matter.
1. dont you really hate it when you have four things to get through the checkout and theres someone in front of you trying to arrange a fixed rate mortgage?
2. Pompey has the edge of a functional stadium. Its also evidence that the economics of a new stadium can be pretty dubious. I wonder how the business plan of the stadium is based on charging truckloads for parking and having all the supporters drive out, rather than walking round the corner or (visitors) parking on the bridge flyovers.
In principle a planning application for the old football stadium site should considered on its merits without regard for what the proceeds might or might not be spent on. But of course that won’t happen.
Do we have any guarantee that if Tesco get permission the new stadium will definitiely follow? The £20 million from the old stadium site doesn’t come anywhere near the full costs of the new stadium (£60 million and counting?). What if the new stadium project falls through?
What other contributions are going to be extorted from Bristol’s citizens before the new stadium gets built? What infrastructure will we be obliged to fund in support of the development (if the developer wriggles out of funding these through section 106 contributions)?
If they can coerce the council into giving permission for a Tesco at Ashton Gate what else will they try to screw out of them? With the World Cup prospects they’ve got the whip hand – expect them to use it.
Current estimated costs for stadium development by Building magazine;
http://tinyurl.com/myx6zn
A bog standard stadium won’t make the grade for the world cup bid so you are looking at £67m-£147m for a regional “feature” stadium going up to £210m for a nationally significant stadium with “iconic” status.
SteveL asked “dont you really hate it when you have four things to get through the checkout and theres someone in front of you trying to arrange a fixed rate mortgage?”
Don’t worry. You’ll probably be told that they can’t be bothered to pay a human to check your shopping and you need to work a checkout yourself – unless you’re one of those criminals who uses a bike bag to carry your shopping home.
Tesco and Sainsburys are both going nuts for “self-checkout” (I’m fine thanks – it’s my shopping I want to check out, not myself), while I almost daren’t brave Wal-Mart’s madness any more, even for research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfSi0D7KESk
If the introduction of a Tescos would kill off shops on North Street, doesn’t that just mean the shops are sub-standard and/or too expensive?
Welcome to the free market
Bristol Dave, I think you’re assuming Bedminster is a free and fair market. It isn’t. Look up Tesco and price-flexing in the competition commission reports – or just look for the last time people fawned over North Street like they are currently over an imaginary Tesco.
Can’t we build something more interesting and beneficial for our futures, like some biodomes? We don’t all like football and shopping!!!
Bristol Dave said
‘Welcome to the free market’
Free market or monopoly capitialism??
Monopoly Capitalism or not – if Tesco sets up camp near North Street (like, I would point out, both Asda and Sainsburys have) the people of Bedminster are perfectly free to still shop in the shops of North street. If they choose not to once the supermarket opens that just reflects on the quality and the price of the shops. Price-flexing aside, how fair is a scenario of stopping Tesco opening up a store, to force local residents to shop at (presumably) shops that are either more expensive or have less choice, for purely altruistic reasons?
And why all the fuss anyway? As far as getting my weekly shop goes, what the fuck can North Street offer me that Tesco can’t? A ridiculously-overpriced and understocked “Spar” clone? Please.
People who want to shop at supermarkets probably already shop at Asda or Sainsburys (or Aldi, which I’d point out is on North Street itself!!!) – whatever they go to North Street for wouldn’t change if a supermarket opened.
I don’t think a Tesco is particularly needed but I think complaining about damage to local business is a very weak argument.
Ok. What about damage to local communities? All the different areas of Bristol are directly influenced by their high streets and have a real buzz and character to them – e.g. Church Rd, Stapleton Rd, Gloucester Rd, Park St, Kingswood High St, North St. Shopping at the Eastville Tesco is definitely far duller in comparrison, and they keep running out of essential low-price produce because everyone assumes they can get what they want there – you can’t!
“the people of Bedminster are perfectly free to still shop in the shops of North street”
The people of Bedminster are only perfectly free to still shop in the shops of North street if the shops of North street are still there.
This is about margins which are tight in the food retail industry, even Tesco struggle to get 4-5% whilst smaller independents struggle on much smaller margins….even if only a minority (say 10-20%) of shoppers are attracted away from North street then the independent businesses that currently operate in North St will go under and the majority of North St shoppers will be denied their choice to shop in their preferred manner – ie without relying on a car or from local retailers who have a proprietary pride in their store or in the knowledge that the money they spend will almost certainly be reinvested in the local economy.
Those individuals who prefer to shop in a large superstore already have a choice – they can go to Asda or Sainsbury’s, and if they are really hooked on Tesco there are plenty of them available too. In short there are plenty of superstores but there is only one North Street.
As you might have put it…what can a Tesco Ashton Gate offer you that Sainsburys or Asda, or Tesco Eastgate or Tesco Brislington don’t already? If you want to do your weekly shop in a supermarket go right ahead, nobody is denying you the opportunity to do just that. However, North Street offers a different retail experience, and the 80-90% of the shoppers there who don’t want to shop in a superstore shouldn’t be denied the option of being able to choose for themselves.
Finally, to say that complaining about damage to local business is a weak argument is itself the weakest of arguments – in probably the most comprehensive study ever done, the Dept of Environment, Transport and the Regions found in 1998 that opening an out-of-centre superstore had an impact of between 21% and 75% on the market share of convenience stores within the district centre itself. In 1961 the major food retailers had 27% of the market, they now have close to 90% and yet we are expected to believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that the number of independent grocers has declined from 150,000 to less than 30,000 over the same period. Yeah, sure, it was the lizard men that did for them…
Dave makes a good point about consumer choice: Tesco are capable of offering a compelling selection of goods at prices that independent retailers can’t match.
Tony also makes a good point: large supermarkets to put small shops out of business.
And they’re both the same point. Shoppers tend to look for the lowest price. I certainly do.
Part of Tesco’s (and Asda/Walmart, Aldi) success is from the economy of scale associated with buying goods in bulk and efficient logistics to push those goods out to shops.
But the other economy of scale is regulatory compliance. Tesco are better able to respond to all the demands of government for information, inspection and audit. The can spread the cost of their support staff – accountants, tax specialists, ‘elf & safety, tobacco & alcohol compliance, trading standards – across a much larger turnover.
Free markets:
1. There is no free market operating in North Street, Bedminster. If I took a transit van to France, filled it with booze and fags, drove back and set up a stall outside Tesco Expres in North Street to sell my goods in this ‘market’, how long would I last there?
Ten minutes?
Any market that exists in North Street is already tightly planned, controlled and regulated using the full force of the law.
The argument here is not about notional ‘free’ markets vs regulated markets but the kind of regulation that should happen in North Street.
2. There is no mandate for this notional ‘free’ market approach to retail (or anything else) in North Street.
The councillors are Green and Labour, the city council is Lib Dem, the MP is Labour and the government is Labour. None of these parties have got elected on a manifesto proposing an unfettered ‘free’ market.
Quite the opposite, they all promote various forms of social democracy. And if social democracy stands for anything, it’s for the planning, regulation and management of markets in favour of people, communities and the wider country.
We have given our politicians a clear mandate to regulate, manage and plan the market in North Street, we have not voted for Tesco’s and Steve Lansdown’s idea of a ‘free’ market to happen there.
Why should we have to have one shoved down our throats?
Good point on the misuse of the term “free market” – I don’t think a pure free market has ever existed outside economics textbooks.
Local authorities country wide tend to put the interests of big retailers, not surprising as Labour Tories and the Lib Dems get a large amount of donations/bribes from supermarkets.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2008/02/supermarkets-fo.html
The underlying problem here is the extent to which the free market has been distorted, partly as a consequence of government interference, in favour of large supermarkets. For example the public subsidy of car ownership and use clearly militates against local shops with restricted parking.
So the answer is to reduce market distortions, not to increase them (which is what many of you are in effect arguing for). One approach to that might be to insist that car parking at supermarkets was charged for directly at the market rate and not subsidised by shoppers’ purchases irrespective of whether they had arrived by car or otherwise.
But Tesco would not be planning a supermarket at Ashton Gate if they were not confident that it’s what the consumer wants. And if the consumer wants a Tesco at Ashton Gate, who are we with our middle class, lefty and greeny sentiments, to say otherwise?
*sigh*
Not that chestnut again. Remind me how you subsidise my car use, Chris?
Because when I pay my road tax every year, or fill up my car with petrol every week, knowing how much of the price I pay is solely duty/tax that goes straight to the government I don’t see much fucking public subsidy going on.
I hardly think the fact that I can park for free at Tescos for half an hour equates to my car use being “publicly subsidised”.
This is not as has already been said a “free market”. It is the system of laws,taxes and controls and which organisation is best able to use them for their own benefit.
I am at the moment trying on behalf of a large section of Knowle residents to deal with the Tesco application to build a car park in the garden of the Freindship pub.
We are not allowed to object to the conversion of a pub,fast becoming a rare institution in some parts, to a supermarket open all sorts of hours because national planning guidance brought in a few years ago created the opportunity which Tesco are exploiting to convert without change of use planning permission.
The vast majority,although not all, local residents do not want Tesco because it will undermine our local shopping centre and kill off some local shops. Some also object to the extra nusiance.
Tesco have more money and can afford to employ expensive lawyers that the local shopkeepers cannot. They also have a reputation for appealing ad nausium which causes planning officers in some places to be very cautious.
The pub needs investment ,and experts say it is in a good position to become viable with TLC.
It will not get this with Tesco around.
The 2 very local shops would be in very severe danger , and will be undercut,but history has shown elsewhere that cheap prices do not last after the opposition has gone.
Broadwalk shopping center serves a large population and is accessed mainly by foot and bus. It has independant retailers and all the basic elements in one place. Tesco though opening up less than a mile away could kill one or 2 shops and this would mean that people could not get everything they want and are therefore more likely to use a supermarket instead.
We have so far delayed Tesco by 6 months with genuine , but less fundamental concerns, about the road safety issues raised by the “pub”car park.
The civic society have applied to have the building listed.If granted this would make life difficuilt for Tesco as they would be prevented from making the alterations that would be applied for after the “pub car park”
Interesting that Tesco refused options to join in the shopping cetre. If they are not dominating they will not play.
Clearly North St would be damaged by the Ashton Gate Tesco but there is of course no certainty that it would even deliver the world cup.
It would be against current local guidelines and of course Asda and Sainbury would throw every legal spanner in that they could. If the path were not cleared very early the world cup will not come to Bristol.
As an administration it is not for Lib Dems to try to tell planners what to do about Tesco or to tell the football club that they should not sell to them but we are trying to find an alternative.
“As an administration it is not for Lib Dems to try to tell planners what to do about Tesco…”
Gary
If you and your colleagues as councillors of the ruling party cannot tell your own planning department what do, why did you go to all the bother of getting elected in the first place?
Bristol Dave “Remind me how you subsidise my car use, Chris?”
If you insist.
First this ‘road tax’ (which was abolished in 1936 by the way) refers presumably to VED, which is simply a tax on keeping a vehicle on the public highway and does not pay for the roads any more than it pays for hospitals or MPs’ expenses.
VED is not proportional to the use made of the highway and in some cases is very low or even zero, so cannot even be said to pay for the space occupied on the road. For example the space my vehicle occupies merely parked on the road is worth vastly more than the £185 a year VED.
The tax on fuel is of course related to road use, but even so is not hypothecated so doesn’t pay for the roads any more than any other government funded service. But even if we say that the tax equates to around 6p per mile travelled (10 miles/litre, 60p tax per litre?) that doesn’t come anywhere near the value of urban road space at peak times.
On top of which motorists do not pay for the environmental damage they cause or the costs of dealing with collisions and injuries arising. So even allowing for taxes paid on ownership (VED) and use (fuel duty) motorists in general do not even come close to paying for the value of the infrastructure they use or the environmental quality they degrade.
Woodsy said, “If you and your colleagues as councillors of the ruling party cannot tell your own planning department what do, why did you go to all the bother of getting elected in the first place?”
Bless!
Planning is a regulatory duty placed on councils. Councils must apply planning law. The application of planning law is not grounds for political debate.
My position as Exec Member for Transport and Sustainability means that I have responsibility for the Planning Department within my portfolio, but that responsibility is to see that it applies the law in making it’s decisions.
If I do otherwise, then any decision made would immediately be open to appeal.
We can and do debate the framework for those planning decisions. These are set out in National and Local planning statutes, as well as in the emerging Local Development Framework (which has cross party input) and in various SPD Supplementary Planning Documents.
These do include the concepts of environmentally and sustainable neighbourhoods (though not yet as much as we would like) and a Local Plan which indicates broad development aspirations for areas of the city.
Lots of meaty debate here without straying into car subsidy!
Jon
Jon I was aware there was a framework governing the application of planning legislation, but was unaware of the amount of influence elected councillors could have upon what happens locally. Thanks for your full and cogent explanation. 🙂
However, I am still of the opinion that for too long councillors have been to ready to accept rather than challenge the decisions and actions of officers and the latter are more inclined to favour the interests rich and powerful and the great and the good of Bristol rather than the population of Bristol as a whole. You view may differ though…
“But Tesco would not be planning a supermarket at Ashton Gate if they were not confident that it’s what the consumer wants and if the consumer wants a Tesco at Ashton Gate, who are we with our middle class, lefty and greeny sentiments, to say otherwise?”
The public wants what the public gets.
Tesco are planning a supermarket at Ashton Gate because they are confident that they can convince enough consumers to shop there to make it a worthwhile investment – some of those consumers will come from North Street and, that may be enough to further weaken the viability of that district centre, probably fatally. The question of “what the consumer wants” is not a critical element in the decision making process at Tesco. Tesco are a profit-making enterprise whose first responsibility is to their shareholders not to the consumers of Southville and Bedminster wards – that doesn’t make them the Devil but it equally doesn’t make them some sort of Mother Theresa looking out for the best interests of local consumers (aka people). That is down to local political processes and, in the end, the local people themselves, some of whom may well indeed be middle-class, lefty, greens.
In my opinion a sizable proportion of consumers in the area have already made their views known by continuing to use North Street despite the attractions of Asda and Sainsbury nearby – but Tesco have seized upon a business opportunity to buy a prime site being sold during the depths of a recession (despite the fact that it won’t even be available for construction for another 4-5 years) and they know that a combination of clever (albeit temporary) price-setting, targeted marketing and TV broadcasting will convince some consumers to switch from other retail outlets – in the case of Asda and Sainsbury they are big enough to cope with any potential loss of revenues, I seriously doubt if local independents will have the same ability.
This is not about a major business serving local consumers by listening to the local community and expanding “free market” choice because that manifestly isn’t going to happen – Tesco doesn’t offer anything that isn’t already available at Asda and Sainsbury’s or Tesco Brislington or Tesco Eastgate – this is about the ability of a shareholder-funded and (effectively) publicly subsidised large business with the aid of a massive PR budget and a compliant local press to impose itself upon local communities by attaching their development plans to a populist agenda (in this case World Cup football). Using clichés like “middle class, lefty, greens” ignores the fact that this isn’t a class war, nor about left-right politics, and neither is environmentalism the core issue – it is about the rights of a community to determine their own future without being subjected to external pressure just because some over committed investors have linked a superstore development to the idea that some individuals might, just might, get to watch, say, Mexico play Egypt in Bristol for 90 minutes in the Summer of 2018.
No it’s not. I’m talking about quantifiable figures here Chris, such as the number of billions of GBP that the government take in various duties every year (VED, fuel duty, VAT on both the duties) and the documented amount that it spends on road building every year – not completely imaginary indeterminable “values” of road space that you’ve plucked from your arse.
Agree with the costs of dealing with collisions, though frankly the difference between car-related taxes collected and amount spent on roads should easily cover this, and more.
I can’t agree with the fact that cars causing environmental damage results in the public subsidising car owners. Firstly, that’s what the new levels of VED based on CO2 emissions are supposed to address – and other than that environmental damage is not something that’s easy to measure and charge against, but it doesn’t meant that because there isn’t a specific charge for this, car owners are being subsidised. That’s like saying that just because the government hasn’t started charging me to take a dump, every time I take a dump, the public are “subsidising” me doing so – or any other number of examples.
Motorists pay through the nose to use their cars. Don’t forget all the arguments that have come from the government at various times that dropping fuel duty would mean less money for schools or hospitals. What does that tell you about who is subsidising who?
Dave, you started out as an advocate of free markets and now it seems I have to explain to you how they work.
The value of any good or service, including use of roads, is determined by what people are willing to pay for it in a free market. The value is not directly related to the cost of providing the good or service, so the cost of building and maintaining roads is not a valid basis for determining the value of road space.
The value of anything can vary hugely as supply and demand fluctuate. During peak hours road space is worth a great deal more than off peak. But even if we take fuel duty as a mechanism for paying for road space, it fails to distinguish between these dramatically different values.
As for different VED rates, these take no account whatsoever of mileage and are the same for someone driving 200 miles a year as for someone driving 20,000 miles a year, so they cannot be said to reflect the hugely different environmental impacts.
Nor does VED reflect the occupation of road space for parking since the rate is very low or even zero for hybrid or electric vehicles and on the same for a vehicle mostly parked off the highway as for one kept 24/7 on the highway.
Of course the government are effectively giving away road space for free (or at most for some nominal amount) so they are preventing a market from developing, but there is one absolutely irrefutable indicator of the fact that the price is far too low at peak times – congestion.
Congestion is analogous to queueing at a shop. The price is too low so demand exceeds supply and the supply runs out before the demand is satisfied. The result is the wasteful use of a resource because it is not so much being consumed by those with the greatest need but more by those whose time is least valuable and who are therefore most willing to spend time (as opposed to money) waiting in queues.
If the price being paid for peak hour road space was ‘right’ there would be no congestion. The fact that we have so much congestion indicates that the monetary price being paid is far below the real value of the road space. So the government is subsidising motorists by supplying road space at well below its market value.
TonyD – “In my opinion a sizable proportion of consumers in the area have already made their views known by continuing to use North Street despite the attractions of Asda and Sainsbury nearby…”
If this is the case Tony why on earth should these people who have resisted the blandishments of Asda, Sainsbury, Aldi and Tesco Express succomb to a Tesco Extra? I can see that Sainsbury’s will be hit but North Street? I’d be surprised if Tesco will be competing for the same market as the speciality shops of North Street, but even if they were why shouldn’t the consumer be free to choose?
“The question of “what the consumer wants” is not a critical element in the decision making process at Tesco. ”
Do you really think Tesco have grown so large without putting “what the consumer wants” at the very core of everything they do? They are supposedly in fierce competition with Sainsburys, Asda, et al and could not survive let alone prosper unless they basically got “what the consumer wants” right most of the time.
Nobody has ever been forced to shop at Tesco and in a city like Bristol there is plenty of choice. I’m no fan of theirs (more of a Sainsbury type myself) but I’ve no business telling other people where they should shop and nor have you.
I understand all of this. However, I fear you are letting your green agenda get in the way of logical discourse by coming to the rather bizzare conclusion that the only reason we have congestion is because the government is not charging enough for the road space. This does not begin to account for far more realistic factors for congestion such as drivers being forced to drive and sit in queues because the the alternatives are not practical or adaquate enough. If the “value” of something is, as you rightly suggest, the amount that people are willing to pay for it, then what do you really think the value of road space is? HINT: Here’s a clue.
This still goes back to your flawed assumption that because the government are not charging people for something they could be, then this somehow works out as the public “subsidising” the people that use it. This is simply wrong, because there is no actual cost involved. A true “subsidy” would be if the government actually used taxpayer’s money to reduce the price of petrol at the pump (i.e. Negative tax) – as happens in Venezuela. I unfortunately must return to my analogy of taking a dump. There is no actual cost to anybody if I take a dump, much the same as there is no actual cost to anybody if I park my car in the street, but just because the government doesn’t charge me for it, even though it theoretically could, that doesn’t mean that there is actual, true “subsidy” happening. There is no money being lost in my having a dump or parking a car on the street that is having to be paid for by money that could be spent elsewhere.
No, but that’s what 70% of the price of petrol being a tax of some form or another takes account of! The further you drive, the more fuel you use!
Chris
Tesco et al. have spent a lot of money and used lots of sophisticated psychology telling the consumer exactly what the consumer wants. However, this expenditure is recouped many times over when the consumer consumes what he/she has been told what to want.
Woodsy, Tesco are hardly alone in using advertising to promote their products. Personally I’m inclined to view the more ‘sophisticated’ (subliminal, subconscious, insidious – you know the words) forms of advertising and PR as unfair competition and therefore not acceptable in a free market, which would address your point.
Dave,
“There is no actual cost to anybody if I take a dump”
Your dump has to be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable way and that costs money, which we all pay through water rates. In Bri-stool (ho,ho) the share of our water bills payable to Wessex Water are for sewage and waste water handling and disposal.
If one opts for a water meter this is paid pro rata against your consumption of water, since the amount of foul water to be treated is generally proportional to the amount consumed.
Chris,
I have said this before but I will say it again more clearly because I obviously failed to make my point. The MAJORITY of consumers who currently use North Street WILL continue to use North Street as long as the shops that they use remain in business. However, it is likely that a new Tesco will attract a MINORITY of those shoppers who currently use North Street. Because the margins are so tight for independent retail outlets, losing that minority of shoppers may be enough to see them go out of business, in which case the remaining majority of shoppers will see their preferred choice taken away. How do you square that outcome with providing consumers with the right to choose?
I suspect you WILL “be surprised if Tesco will be competing for the same market as the speciality shops of North Street” but the shops of North Street are not all speciality shops, in fact the majority are not – there are roughly 145 different businesses operating in North Street (with another 30 odd vacant properties) and only a few of them can be described as “specialist shops” So not all the shoppers in North Street are attracted by its few speciality shops alone (some are, and also use the “non-specialist” shops), some of them are also attracted by its nearness and use it for everyday goods, even to do a full shop. If a Tesco Extra is built at Ashton Gate that will become the nearest store for a minority of shoppers for whom North Street is currently the nearest retail facility – a minority to be sure but potentially a big enough minority to have a knock-on effect of shop closures in North Street that will reduce the choice for a majority by reducing the retail offering and diminishing the ability to do a full shop. As a result more North Street shoppers will decide to shop at the superstore, more local outlets close, reducing choice even further – it is known as a positive feedback cycle except the only positives are for the major supermarket chains. Your belief is that a new Tesco would improve choice but any objective view should tell you it will in fact reduce choice.
My statement about the wants of consumers not being at the core of the Tesco decision making process is based on having studied their business decisions as made since the time of Jack Cohen, through the tenure of Ian MacLaurin and on until the present day with their former Marketing Director now at the helm. In making your own comment, you appear to be confusing cause and effect. The core decisions taken by Tesco are caused by pursuing a business strategy that is based in the final analysis on determining what is best for the share price – the decisions thus made will sometimes have the effect of benefitting the consumers and sometimes not. For example in a store that is operating in a competitive local market the pricing strategy will be competitive to protect or increase market share, and this will also be what the consumer wants. A store operating in a local market with little or no competition will raise its prices to increase revenues and thus profitability – I don’t know any Tesco customers who want prices to be higher but based on your analysis there must be! The reason why Tesco are so successful is because they are considerably more efficient at methods of targeting their customers, suppliers and other partners with the right price for Tesco than any of their competitors.
I will also ask again a question that you have not yet answered – what will a Tesco offer the residents of Southville and Bedminster that they can not already get from the retail outlets already available to them either in their immediate neighourhood or just a sort journey away? How will it expand consumer choice beyond simply offering yet another outlet for the same products and the same shopping experience they can get at several other locations already?
In contrast, where are the other North Streets in south Bristol? Here is an analogy, there is only one Bristol to Bath Railway Path providing a unique way of travelling from the City Centre to the eastern urban edge of the city and this is the way I travel home most days. However, I can also choose to travel east (if I really wanted to) by cycling along the A432, or the B4465, the A420 or even the A431. But if I choose to travel by bus my consumer choice is (apparently) restricted because I cannot take a bus along the Bristol and Bath Railway Path – however, luckily(!) for me there were plans to do just this but – guess what – you were one of those who opposed them. To deliberately misquote you: What right have you got to tell bus passengers where they should be able to catch a bus – after all nobody is forced to catch a bus in Bristol and there is plenty of choice. I am no fan of BRT but shouldn’t the commuter be free to choose?
There are good, valid reasons to oppose BRT down the Railway Path and some of them are the same reasons why those of us who care about this city should oppose a Tesco at Ashton Gate.
Tony, your arguments are ingenious and creative, but sadly not valid.
Firstly let’s take the Railway Path / BRT analogy. The objections to BRT were because it directly displaced the Railway Path, taking the same alignment. But the proposed Tesco does not directly displace North Street. In fact it is at least 600 metres from North Street (via Raynes Road).
A more apt analogy would be if BRT were run along a parallel route to the Railway Path (say Fishponds Road). In that case I would not be in hte least concerned about the ‘competition’ from BRT (providing it wasn’t unfairly subsidised) sice I am confident that the Path would remain popular and viable.
Secondly to answer the question I didn’t answer – “what will a Tesco offer the residents of Southville and Bedminster that they can not already get from the retail outlets already available to them…?” – It’s not for me to say. That’s a decision for those who might want to use the store. But I suspect that many people will find it more convenient to go to a Tesco Extra at Ashton Gate rather than at Eastgate. It could even be argued that the amount of car travel will be reduced by having another Tesco Extra serving the south west side of the city.
I take your point that the new Tesco might just take enough trade from North Street to tip the balance and make the shopping street as a whole go into terminal decline. But I would still question the right of ‘the state’ to interfere to prevent that.
The logic of your position is that all the existing supermarkets should be progressively closed down to restore the viability of more traditional shopping streets and corner shops, of which there were once thousands. That would be a comparatively inefficient way of distributing goods and result in higher costs and prices.
I think I’ve already pointed out that there is a mandate to do just that though.
Why should some notion of ‘free’ markets trump democracy?
Jon Rogers wrote “Planning is a regulatory duty placed on councils. Councils must apply planning law. The application of planning law is not grounds for political debate.”
That is indeed so, but there are several places where planning law considers the public interest and, as the elected representatives of the public, that is where councillors must represent the interests they stood for.
In particular, PPS6 requires “that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres” so if you feel the public, on balance, wouldn’t accept the impact on Bedminster’s existing centres, then there’s no need to blindly approve Tesco Extra just because Tesco’s pet statisticians can bend the figures into showing something unbelievable like no competition North Street. Push them! When considering this application, ask yourselves: have they shown they’ve tried to find disaggregated non-car-based stores in North Street before trying to plonk an Extra format store at Ashton Gate? Have they explained why the Extra won’t damage “the vitality and viability” of North Street? Both of those are required by PPS6, after all.
Even better, Tesco have a big store in Bristol already: rather than believing Tesco’s study, take a look at what’s happened to nearby parts of Stapleton Road since Tesco Eastgate opened.
Claiming that this is all decided by Westminster and Bristol’s councillors aren’t allowed to plan Bristol’s development is the worst type of policy tourism. That’s claiming decisions are really made somewhere that your electors have insufficient influence. It’s wrong: Bristol’s councillors can decide to refuse a new Extra if it is justifiably against the public interest.
Chris,
it is not the exact physical location of a new proposal that is of paramount importance but the area which it will effect. BRT on the Railway Path would have directly affected cyclists and pedestrians because the physical presence of the buses themselves (as well as the worse effects on noise and air quality) would have been in the immediate location of the railway path itself. On the other hand, BRT on the A432 does not physically endanger those walking or cycling on the railway path and is, in fact, likely to increase the level of cycling and pedestrian usage on the railway path by displacement, thus enhancing its viability and vitality. The “area of effect” of a bus is largely limited to its physical location and the supporting infrastructure along the route it travels. If I am cycling on the railway path, I am in no danger of being knocked down by a bus on the A432!
The “area of effect” of a Tesco at Ashton Gate is not immediate to the physical boundary of the store, it’s effect is upon the potential catchment area for the store which will include part, or the whole of, the catchment area for North Street. The very fact that it is 600m from North Street serves to increase the negative effect upon North Street. For example, when the Tesco Express opened in North Street that was terrible news for those existing stores which found themselves competing directly, selling the same, or similar product lines. But for those stores that were not competing directly there was at least the consolation that because the Tesco Express was still in North Street, the consumer footfall was still being attracted to North Street and thus the potential was still there to attract consumers into their own stores. If we look at another proposed (or potentially proposed) Tesco Express on the footprint of the Friendship Inn in Knowle, we find a different situation; we will have direct competition with the existing local stores immediate to its location and we will also have the added effect of its catchment area encompassing that of the Broadwalk shopping area leading to footfall being attracted away from the existing stores at this local centre – a double whammy. This double whammy is what a Tesco at Ashton Gate will bring with it. If I am a newsagent in North Street there is every chance of one of my customers deciding to purchase a newspaper at Tesco in Ashton Gate, especially if the proposed Tesco is either closer to their starting location or on their route to/from work – thus the danger to North Street is increased by the 600m distance not reduced; a completely opposite effect to that envisaged with relocating BRT from the railway path to the A432.
Therefore your “more apt analogy” is in fact inapt as it fails to recognise the difference in “area of effect” between a bus and a superstore and how their location affects the viability of an unique customer choice.
As for your comments regarding the “right of the state” to interfere, as BB has pointed out, there is already the mandate for the state to interfere – the real question is whether the state should interfere to support a large-scale corporation or the local community and its local small businesses.
Well said TonyD.
Or to paraphrase your point. What counts more with the local council – the votes and opinions of the electorate/local community or the bribes (S106 or otherwise) of big business?
3 decades in Bristol have shown me the latter tend to prevail, unfortunately and the time is long overdue for councillors and council officers growing backbones and not going weak at the knees every time some wealthy person or big corporation waved a bundle of cash under their noses.
BB “Why should some notion of ‘free’ markets trump democracy?”
Because in many cases a free market is more democratic than the political system called democracy.
In this case should Tesco build a store every individual will be free to chose whether to use it, remain loyal to North Street, or whatever. Everyone has a choice (providing of course than enough others share hteir choice to make it viable).
On the other hand, how would ‘democracy’ resolve the issue? Are you suggesting a referendum of the people of Southville and Bedminster? Given that only a minority of people bother ot vote in local elections a referendum result is hardly likely to be decisive. But even if it was, with say 60% of local people voting against Tesco, why should the remaining 40% be denied the opportunity to use a Tesco store if they want to?
In practice ‘democracy’ means a relativley small section of the population – middle-class, articulate, politically motivated and well able to afford higher prices in local shops – will dominate the debate and the masses will barely get a word in (as we see on this blog for example).
I personally would be happy to see Tesco fail here and it is tempting to gang up with the small band of like minded people to help bring that about, but if I did it would not be worthy of the term ‘democracy’.
TonyD
Have you ever considered the fact that people living near North Street might actually want a Tesco store near them? Bugger your anti-coporate sentiments for a minute (a view which you seem to have no problem automatically assuming that all North Street-area residents share), have you actually stopped to ask enough of them?
….thought not.
The Green Party has been canvassing on the issue and an overwhelming majority of people of the people we have spoken to have been against.
In your opinion.
Not if your choice is to have 3/4 bed housing on the site. Have you noticed the market signals in this city pointing to an undersupply of housing?
You seem to be dancing around constitutional facts. First you say that markets are more democratic than our democracy. So what? Constitutionally that’s not how political decisions are taken.
Then you propose that this issue should be decided by direct democracy. Why on earth should we turn the country’s constitution upside down because some crappy supermarket firm wants to build a big shed in South Bristol?
Like it or not, we live in a representative democracy and, as I’ve already said, there’s a clear mandate for politicians and decision-makers to manage and regulate markets in favour of people and communities.
They can therefore resolve the issue with their democratic mandate.
The idea that they are somehow beholden to your and Tesco’s rather odd version of ‘free markets’ is nonsense.
You do realise that Tesco, with a 30% market share, shouldn’t exist in a free market don’t you?
They’re the biggest distortion in the market around. Why shouldn’t politicians regulate this? That’s their job.
BristolDave
If the majority of residents living near North Street want a Tesco at Ashton Gate, how many doors do you think I should have to knock on before somebody tells me they would like to see this Tesco materialise?
2? 4? a dozen? 20? 50? 100? Stop me anytime you like Dave…..
Have YOU ever considered the fact that people living near North Street might NOT actually want a Tesco store near them despite your PRO-corporate views?
…..thought not.
Tell you what….I am knocking on doors again this week, why don’t you come down and join me and find out for yourself. You can stand next to me to make sure I am not influencing their opinion.
Or we can meet up outside the meeting on Friday that local residents have set up to organise against Tesco…..I will be knocking on doors before that meeting as well…….
Or if you are too busy washing your hair this week, I will be out again next week asking resident’s opinions.
Anti-corporate? If I dislike Tomato soup does that make me anti-soupist even if I enjoy Mushroom Soup, Mulligatawny Soup, Beef Soup, etc, etc?
Don’t mistake my dislike for the way Tesco currently do business with a dislike for corporates in general. I have worked for, and with, several major commercial organisatons (including Tesco, with whom I still have friends at various levels of the corporaton) and not all of them feel the need to ride roughshod over local communities to get what they want – the reality is that Tesco only behave badly because they are allowed to behave badly, but that is not the only strategy available for successful businesses and it is not the only strategy available to Tesco either – in fact, there are several individuals at Delamere Road who would welcome an opportunity to change strategy but unfortunately it’s a bit like nuclear weapons – none of the big retailers are willing to make an unilateral decision, and none of them trust the others enough to reach a mulilateral agreement.
BB “You do realise that Tesco, with a 30% market share, shouldn’t exist in a free market don’t you? They’re the biggest distortion in the market around. Why shouldn’t politicians regulate this? That’s their job.”
I accept that no supplier should be allowed to achieve a monopoly, although I’m surprised that a 30% market share should be considered excessive, given that there are only a handful of major supermarkets. I also accept that markets need regulating.
But I think this is going beyond just regulating the market. You are trying to prevent competition emerging rather than trying to ensure that competition is fair.
Chris,
I find it hard to reconcile your support for a new Tesco with some of the statements you have made on this very thread……for example your first post on this thread warned that the developers behind the new stadium development were trying to “coerce the council into giving permission for a Tesco at Ashton Gate”
Your second post informed us that “the underlying problem here is the extent to which the free market has been distorted, partly as a consequence of government interference, in favour of large supermarkets”
Later still you discussed some of the advertising techniques used by the major supermarkets and told us “I’m inclined to view the more ’sophisticated’ (subliminal, subconscious, insidious – you know the words) forms of advertising and PR as unfair competition and therefore not acceptable in a free market”.
You have even said that “I take your point that the new Tesco might just take enough trade from North Street to tip the balance and make the shopping street as a whole go into terminal decline”.
Nevertheless, despite the above acceptance from you of political coercion, free market distortion in favour of large supermarkets and unfair competition via advertising/PR and the fact that even you can foresee this development sending North Street into terminal decline you appear to support a new Tesco on the basis that we shouldn’t interfere with a free market – a free market that you have already conceded doesn’t exist.
I have no wish to offend you Chris, but re-reading your posts reminds me of an old Kerryman joke. If you spend enough time in Ireland at some point somebody will tell you a Kerryman joke – usually based on a very non-PC and unfair stereotypical view that locals from the far south-western county of Kerry are…..well….country bumpkins. One of the jokes is about a Dublin businesswoman driving through the Kerry countryside on her way to Tralee, when she realises she is lost. Seeing a local, she decides to ask for directions;
“Could you tell me the way to Tralee, Please?”
The local wipes his brow.
“Certainly, miss. If you take the first road to the left… no still that wouldn’t do… drive on for about four miles then turn left at the crossroads… no that wouldn’t do either.”
The local scratches his head thoughtfully.
“You know, miss, if I was going to Tralee I wouldn’t start from here at all.”
There is no utopian “free market” in North Street and arguing against interference in it involves starting your arguments from a point that exists outside the reality of where North Street is today. As has been pointed out (not least by yourself), there is already interference – the real question, and I make no apology for repeating this, is whether that interference should be in favour of a large-scale corporation or in favour of the local community and its local small businesses. In my view arguing that we should let the free market decide involves ignoring the reality of the situation and is as useful as the Kerryman’s advice was to the lost traveller.
TonyD “you appear to support a new Tesco”.
But I don’t specifically support Tesco, merely the principle that people have the right to choose where to shop.
In this case that favours Tesco because we all know that whatever people may say to canvassers on the doorstep in the end many of them will choose to shop at Tesco. However if it was Tesco that was threatened by North Street rather than vice versa I would equally argue against restricting consumer choice in order to save Tesco.
You argue very effectively that the reality is far removed from a free market due to the power of Tesco to distort things in its favour. I accept that there is evidence to support that view. Then the question is ‘are we so far removed from a free market that free market principles should not apply?’ I don’t know the answer.
I don’t much like the free market but the alternative, the dead hand of state control, seems so much worse. A case of the lesser of two evils I suppose.
One matter has been brought into clear focus by the comments on this post, i.e. that in current circumstances the population of this country is more valued for its role as consumers/customers than it is as citizens.
As proof, this has even been enthusiastically taken up by the British State at all levels, from e.g. Bristol City Council’s re-branding of Local Area Offices as ‘Customer Service Points’ to HMRC’s referring to customers rather than taxpayers.
One reason I can think of for this is that customers are mostly passive (they pay up and shut up – on the whole) whereas citizens are active, have opinions and are cost more money to service than their passive consuming counterparts.
Woodsy the other issue about being a consumer rather than a citizen (I guess we are all both) is that it ignores the collective dimension. Actually human beings are social animals and act best collectively whereas the consumer agenda treats us all as if we are only individuals driven only by self interest and personal needs.
Good points Woodsy and Paul. Collective decisions sometimes deliver a greater good than the sum total of individual decisions, but not always by any means. There is “wisdom of crowds” whereby large numbers of individuals acting independently produce the most effecient response to a problem.
As for Customer/Citizen distinctions, one could say that the customer has the option of taking his custom elsewhere whereas the citizen is beholden to the state. That freedom of choice is extremely powerful and forces those providing a poor service or overpriced goods out of business.
Chris clearly the customer can move their resources elsewhere assuming that there are alternatives – state monopolies and private sector monopolies deny that choice. Also the power of a consumer depends upon their individual purchasing power. There is and never has been (and never will be) such a thing as a free market and therefore complete consumer choice.
Ultimately almost all human endeavour is collective in some way or another – that is why we have society, companies, organisations etc. We are massively interdependent upon others for our basic requirements – food, energy, healthcare etc.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the new city ground development….
Reading the Evening Post Barbara Janke is completely for it, Gary Hopkins is for it but against the proposed means for generating the capital to build it, Jon Rogers is keeping his transparent head down – I wonder what the Council will do
Afternoon all
I think I remain pretty transparent and open in my words and deeds.
Admittedly, the Evening Post has more interest in my thoughts, views and ideas on bus transport, smart cards, integrated transport authority, integrated ticketing, GBBN, improved rail services, Sunday Streets, £1 fare trials, innovative route ideas, etc, etc.
I hasten to add that NONE of them are my original ideas (for Chris’s benefit, they are of course not “new”)
On the BCFC new ground development I am with Barbara and Gary.
Of course, for Chris’s benefit, it is not really “new ground”, but old ground with a new use!
Have a good day all.
Jon
Jon, you’re obviously struggling with this ‘new’ concept, due to getting involved with Cycling City no doubt.
The proposed ‘new’ football stadium would be ‘new’ because it isn’t already there, even if the ground on which it would be built isn’t ‘new’ because it is already there.
It’s perfectly simple, unless you deliberately confuse ‘ground’ as in earth with ‘ground’ as in football stadium.
Sorry Chris – weak attempt at humour. Jon
Sorry Jon, I’ve never had much of a sense of humour although Cycling City is helping.
I tend to take everything literally and at face value, hence my obsession with the meaning of words like ‘new’.
“On the BCFC new ground development I am with Barbara and Gary.”
Jon
can you be clear Barbara seems to be backing tesco and Gary opposing. I know lib dems love sitting on the fence with bits hanging over both sides but what actually is your view?
I’m doing a post on just this subject tomorrow.
Quote: “”No stadium. No bid. No World Cup in Bristol.”
Stay tuned.
Paul, you and your imagination! Where does it say Barbara is “backing Tesco”.
Jon
We’re being told that
Barbara backs world cup bid.
World Cup bid requires spanking new stadium
spanking new stadium requires loads of dosh
Only source of sufficient dosh is Tesco
Tesco require planning permission.
Have you heard something different?
Having engaged with Bristol planners over various issues, I know they are timorous and craven when it comes to using the powers available to them to support public objections to developments. I don’t know why this is. In the case of huge global corporations, there’s very little any of us can do to prevent development. Tesco is either more powerful than government, or paying the party in power to get what it wants legislation-wise , which amounts to the same thing. We all end up the poorer, having to shop in fucking sheds surrounded by huge car parks where we once had communities and open space.
Jon you love being patronising and also dodging any question
“Paul, you and your imagination! Where does it say Barbara is “backing Tesco”.”
that doesn’t answer the question asked does it. Does being transparent mean not ever answering a question?
lets try this puff piece on your administration (before you announced £30m of cuts just four weeks after promising a new library, a new swimming pool and more police) from the Evening Post
“Mrs Janke highlighted a range of key issues:
New stadium for Bristol City FC
“We are very much behind the new stadium and the bid for the World Cup to come to Bristol.”
The club wants to build a new stadium at Ashton Vale but it says the move is dependent on Tesco being allowed to build a new supermarket at the City ground to fund the project.
The Evening Post understands some council officers and politicians are against the plan because of the effect that another supermarket would have on local traders.
Club chairman Steve Lansdown says that development of Ashton Gate is “crucial” to the funding of the new stadium, which could be a venue for World Cup games if the FA wins its bid to host the tournament in 2018.”
By the way why not join the Bristol lib dem watch and join the debate there – happy to make you an officer of the group
http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/posted.php?id=125508104656
Pingback: World Cup footBALLS of confusion « The Bristol Blogger
Paul Smith, you are a sad little man. Your only goal on here appears to be to try to trip up Jon Rogers (or any other Lib Dem), rather than to actually contribute anything.
What’s inconsistent about saying you are in favour of a new stadium but against a Tesco on the old site? There is no serious way a Tesco application could get recommended for approval under local planning policy. Therefore, another way has to be found of funding the sale.
Oh, and you knew perfectly well the “£30m in cuts” are a result of your own government’s recession and cuts to council funding from next year. You can play Gordon Brown’s game of pretending the finances are a-okay but noone in the real world believes you.
Get Out – I see it is lib dem tactics to insult people rather than answer questions
‘Clearly North St would be damaged by the Ashton Gate Tesco but there is of course no certainty that it would even deliver the world cup.
It would be against current local guidelines and of course Asda and Sainbury would throw every legal spanner in that they could.’ (Gary Hopkins)
Can I welcome you to the campaign against Tesco at Ashton Gate just like I welcomed you joining the campaign against Tesco in the Friendship in Knowle (after your initial reluctance because ‘Tesco get their way’)??
Mr Vowles
Your idea of campaigning to save the Friendship in Knowle seemed to consist of standing around saying something must be done and copying the petition raised by local shopkeepers and residents onto the BCC site.
What was really required was
1 Conversations with the planning officers to make suire that the matter came to committee rather than being quietly and quickly decided by officers. This bought 2 months and the ability to question and analyse and to effectively inform local people of the plans.
2 Organise a public meeting in advance of the planning meeting that considered not only the TESCO bid but also other threats to our local shopping centre. As you attended you know it was packed and what the overwhelming feelings were. As well as police ,planners etc we also had present the owners of Broadwalk centre .
The meeting was of course advertised in an excellent local publication called Focus and the feedback and results on our streets shortly.
3 Spread the fight to all interested parties and make certain that they aware of the truth.” Tesco will be difficuilt to beat at the Friendship because of the skewed national planning laws but we should not just roll over – or stand around bleating.”
4 Prepare for the planning meeting by alerting allies to submit statements etc.Go for the key objective of getting the committee to come and look for themselves.
This achieved the double purpose of exposing them to the reality of the traffic problems and delayed matters for a further 3 months.
5 Involving the civic society who have now applied to English Heritage to have the building listed . If this is achieved there would be a whole host of spanners for Tesco to deal with.
6 Getting unanimous support from the neighbourhood parnership and the Knowle West regeneration board.- Tesco would be welcomed
elsewhere in Filwood but not at the Friendship.
7 Getting in expert opinion to say that there is a viable future for the Friendship as a pub with sensible investment. -Important with local people as well as those who would be steamrollered by the “There is no attractive alternative”
8 Making sure that ,as previously agreed, the matter comes back to planning committee for decision. This is late this month and of course local people will be informed by me and other interested people who have come on board.Perhaps if you had asked your local councillor you would have been better informed before writing to the post on the subject again.
What this demonstrates is that if anyone is to be effective in even delaying a well oiled and resourced machine like Tesco organisation,ingenuity and effort are required.
It is simply useless to flap around saying “somebody must do something”.
Ineffectiveness is one thing but in the case of Tesco at Ashton gate you are actually helping to make their case for them. By spreading the argument that everyone who is in favour of Bristol being a world cup venue must be supporting Tesco you are giving them arguments and allies. Many of these “allies “would not want to be painted into that corner!
Your colleage ,Charlie Bolton, sent a perfectly sensible queery to our party on the subject and got what he described as a full and informative reply. I would suggest you speak to Charlie before you repeat any more “new Labour ” tactics of attributing motives and positions to my colleages and others that they do not hold.
Pingback: Bristol Blogger discusses Tesco’s presentation « BERATE – Say No To Tesco
I say good luck to TESCO, I bet the people who work for them get a better pension scheme than the shop assistants in North Street. It’s simple if you don’t like the things TESCO sell don’t buy them.
I will take that bet, Coalman
“a £1.1bn deficit in Tesco’s pension scheme has resulted in the conditional allocation of £500m property assets to the fund. However, the lucrative sale-and-leaseback deals that Tesco was able to execute at the top of the property market will be harder to engineer today.”
Investors Chronicle, April 2009