New Aldi Store Deliveries
Posted by N. Yule on Monday, 21st June 2010, 18:54
It appears that despite being given assurances by Aldi’s representatives regarding noise pollution caused by out of hours deliveries an application has been made to remove the said clause 23 from the planning application,
“This application seeks the removal of Condition 23 of Planning Permission P/01589/09 which states that:
“No deliveries or dispatches from the premises shall take place outside the hours of 07.00 to 23.00 hours Mondays to Saturdays or outside
the hours of 08.00 to 22.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays”
The reason for the imposition of the condition is:
“To prevent annoyance and disturbance, particularly sleep disturbance, from noise emissions from the premises and to accord with PPS 23 –
Planning and Pollution Control”.
Aldi consider that this condition is neither necessary nor reasonable.
It would appear then that we can expect large delivery vehicles at any time day or night along either the Newport Rd or Nodes Rd and Three Gates Road.
“Clause 23 No deliveries or dispatches from the premises shall take place outside the hours of
07.00 to 23.00 Mondays to Saturdays or outside the hours of 08.00 to 22.00 on
Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To prevent annoyance and disturbance, in particular sleep disturbance, from
noise emissions from the premises and to accord with PPS 23 – Planning and Pollution
Control”.
I would suggest that the original clause 23 was fair and reaseaonable and does not need removing.
Comments to the planning dept. must be made by 9/7/10
N Yule
56 Responses to “New Aldi Store Deliveries”
Leave a Reply
Village
- - Cowes Amateur Operatic and Dramatic Society
- - Cowes Amateur Winemakers
- - Cowes Heritage
- - Cowes Radar Ex-Employees Association
- - Cowes-Deauville Twinning Association
- - Friends of Northwood Cemetery
- - Friends of Northwood House and Park
- - Medham W.I.
- - Newport Rowing Club
- - Northwood Floral Art Group
- - Northwood Village Produce Association
- - Northwood W.I.
Parish Council
Yes Tesco would like the chance of a small shop this side of the Island, Aldi or Tesco will do us. Bargains are a girls best friend so hurry up and build it.
mice.
I dont think the sort of trade that Aldi will get is going to make any difference with or without ASDA. We shop in Morrisons and Tesco but would still use Aldi as our local shop.
Cowes, Gurnard and Northwood are still in the Aldi catchment area and Coppins Bridge traffic plus the price of petrol and Town parking make it even more attractive to nip up the road.
Even if Aldi have pulled out the permission is granted and would be snapped up by another chain, perhaps Tesco?
Happy shopper.
I heard a rumour today that Aldi have pulled out. The person that told me said it was due to ASDA’s decision to come to the Island.
Does anyone know if there is any truth behind this, I do hope not.
I believe that the store hasn’t started to be built yet due to the need to remove a pipe-mine from the proposed build area.
Once this has been removed construction will start. Does anyone else have a timescale of when this is likely.
Can anyone tell me if planning permission for the Aldi store has been granted yet? I’d quite like a local, small supermarket which is within walking/cycling distance (I live in Northwood) and it would be great not to have to use the car.
If planning permission has been given, how long will it be before the store is built and open?
Thank you.
Thanks Neil. Accurate report which beat me to it! You are absolutely correct on three fronts.
Firstly, as you say, not a waste of time by any means and I hope you agree that the Inspector has shown some sympathy with the reasons why the condition was applied in the first place. Secondly to local residents who might still be concerned and thirdly you led from the front so there is no doubt, to quote your own words “I tried”
I will do my best to ensure that the delivery management protocol is really worhwhile.
Best wishes, Roger Mazillius
Sadly the appeal by Aldi has been upheld. There are some conditions the Inspector has decided to grant,the following is from the decision notice ;
I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for retail foodstore with
associated parking, landscaping and balancing pond; vehicular access from
Three Gates Road, at BAE Systems (Defence Systems) Ltd, Newport Road,
Cowes, Isle of Wight PO31 8PF, in accordance with the application Ref
P/00785/10 – TCP/21760/Y, dated 20/03/10, without compliance with
condition No. 23 previously imposed on planning permission Ref P/01589/09 –
TCP/21760/X, dated 30/03/10, but subject to the other conditions imposed
therein, so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect, and
subject to the following new condition:
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an
operational delivery management protocol shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The protocol shall include limits on
the numbers of vehicles which can make deliveries to, and take dispatches
from, the premises outside the hours of 07.00 to 23.00 hours on Mondays to
Saturdays, and outside the hours of 08.00 to 22.00 hours on Sundays and
Bank Holidays. With respect to deliveries outside those hours, the protocol
shall also include (i) a scheme for the management of potential sources of
noise from delivery vehicles during the times that those vehicles are on site,
including noise from engines, chiller units, cab radios and reversing alarms; (ii) Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/10/2137711
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2
a scheme for the prevention of the use of external alarms and speakers within
the delivery bay area; and, (iii) a scheme for restricting the purposes for which
the roller shutter doors to the delivery bay may be used to loading and
unloading purposes only. From the commencement of the use of the retail
foodstore, and at all times thereafter, all deliveries to the store and dispatches
from the store at the relevant times shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved protocol.
Hopefully the LPA will look closely at the delivery management protocol closely before approving it.
So not a complete waste of time and at least I can say I tried.
N Yule
Thanks Steve. Spot on! All the best, Roger
Thanks for your comments Roger and I understand the process a little better now.
Over the years I have noticed that most planning applications that are presented by large financial concerns are always very well managed by professionals, as you would expect. Every eventuality is normally covered and a few throwaway items are always included (like, density is reduced) and little extras are added (new pavements or crossing points) these are typical things and on a big development would be included in the original calculations. I realise if a good case is not tabled why these things should be in place they will not appear and so yes we need the planning dept and its machinery. Nothings perfect in life but it’s a process that I am sure has and will continue to get better with time.
The thing I have noticed over the years, and its only time that shows this, the fewer the number of people that complain about a development the better chance it has going through at the planning stage. This sounds obvious but what we end up with is not always what the majority want, but it’s to late the deed is done.
I suppose that’s fair because if most people are not concerned enough to phone or write objections about a development with out a crystal ball you Councillors have to assume we are happy.
It’s true if you want to use a big store, and most do, its fine but please build it down the road out of my sight and sound.
Aldi, yes you have guessed correctly I didn’t complain and yes I will use it and no I can’t hear and see it from my house. But I did go to the BAE meeting and read the planning web site letters (not many) and very few were against. So most of us must be happy, but not all.
Happy New Year.
Steve
Thanks Neill. Sorry, I thought it was understood that of course it was Aldi who wanted that restriction removed.
And of course living where you do does not in any way estop you from having the right to object. It may however help explain why you did object, eg would you be so against the development if you lived eg in Newport?
I am pleased you have found BAE etc to have been good neighbours and that you do not have an issue with them. A bit surprising considering they now wish to expand development of this site which I would expect to have always been a goal of whoever owned the site, ie making the best use of the owned assets. This would be done as a matter of course once a suitably financially viable scheme was planned. So it was only a matter of time before this part of the site was put forward for development.
Re the lack of present applicants for the industrial units, this point eg lack of demand was considered as part of the case against the development. It was however argued that expected future demand would be met by the application. I recall one of the financial catalysts for this was to be the financial contribution made by Aldi. It is all part of a normal commercial strategy in such circumstances.
I think you will find that all applications of this type gather strong opposite views which in the end are decided by the planning system. So custom, practice and precedent all within the planning and local goverment framework are relevent to such decisions.
What undoubtedly is true is that people have the right to argue their case using every legitimate means at their disposal. Sometimes this results in a victory for “the common man” keeping alive our country’s historic democratic legacy. Locally elected representatives can play an important part in this process even though that will usually make them friends and enemies in equal measure. That is a price worth paying, don’t you think!
Best wishes, Roger Maz.
Thanks Roger for your article most of which I agree with.
May just point out that it was indeed Aldi that sought to remove the delivery clause from the original planning app. As for the rest of the development as I understand it there has not been a single enquiry in to the industrial side of the application. This indeed proves my point all along. Northwood does not need further industrial units when there are so many lying empty.
I must however object to your comment “It is fair to say here that if you buy a home opposite one of the largest employment sites on the Isle of Wight, then do not be surprised if eventually it expands!
That remark is totally irrelevant.
Having lived here for a number of years I can say that BAE/Siemans/Plessey have by and large been very good neighbours and I do not have an issue with them. Just because I choose to live here it does not prevent me from objecting or voicing my concerns about issues that affect me directly. That is my right and I will continue to do so with or without the aid of the Parish Council. The custom,practice and precedent argument is also a weak one, if people don’t challenge these developers then they will continue to push through these things. Just because they do it elsewhere doesn’t make it right. Of course some you win and some you lose but at least I’ve tried.
N Yule
Thanks Steve. Very good points. There are several aspects to the “dilemma” you outline.
Firstly of course if the I.W.Councillor has a prejudicial interest, then as you would expect, that is the end of his or her involvement whether they are on the Planning Committeeor not.
Then however, there are local Parish or Town Councillors who can speak at the Planning Committee concerned who also of course represent their communities.
In addition there are up to three local residents who can speak. In addition to this of course are limitless numbers who can make written representations via letter or email. This is a very popular route especially in controversial applications.
The restriction on local IW.Councillors voting only applies of course if they are members of the Planning Commitee. It does not stop them speaking for or against the application, thus being open and transparent with their electorate. So not voting applies equally across all members of that Committee and in reality I would think evens itself out over say a year between all those planning Councillors.
I hope you can see therefore that not voting or voting in these circumstances should not in anyway allow a local member to dodge his responsibilities because he or she must clearly disclose their views when speaking on the application. If they failed to show a lead in this regard, that would be clearly exposed during the planning process.
In addition to all of this we must not forget those I.W.Councillors who are not on the Planning Commitee. They too can speak on a local application and therefore will show how they have responded to local concerns.
It should also be remembered that there will frequently be opposition to development – that is just the way it goes.
Taking the Aldi site in particular. This is part of a now quite rare area specifically designated for commercial development. Not surprising considering the long history of such use on the site. I understand there have been previous attempts to develop much of the “green” field for housing. The planners did not agree to this because commercial land is scarce and is the main catalyst for employment growth on the Island.
So the quite wide-ranging Aldi/office/light industrial use application was made. This was widely supported but of course attracted a deal of opposition, mainly from close by local residents who probably felt the value of their homes would be threatened and by others who feared the store would result in shop closures in eg Cowes.
It is fair to say here that if you buy a home opposite one of the largest employment sites on the Isle of Wight, then do not be surprised if eventually it expands!
All of these pros and cons were evaluated and read by planners and a lengthy report made to Planning Committee members. Don’t forget also the consultation held by Aldi at the Community Club referred to in one of my recent postings.
Mr Youle articulated his opposition to the development in a most erudite and responsible manner which epitomised the rights of us all to object to planning applications.
However despite this, in the end a decision had to be made and it was in favour of the development but with a large number of conditions imposed to reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding area, eg screening, highway and environmental matters etc. Many of these conditions were imposed as a direct result of local concerns/objections.
Now it cannot be said that this was a wrong decision even though it would have deeply disappointed some. The fact was the site was crying out for development bringing increased employment and indeed competition in the supermarket section which would for example mean that local residents would not need to travel to Newport to shop at eg Lidl, Sainsburys, Morrisons etc. I know many residents were very pleased at the thought of such a cut price store being available locally.
How many of the objectors can say they never travel to Newport for this purpose but only shop in Cowes?
Now this revisiting of the original Aldi application is because one of the conditions restricted the hours of night-time deliveries and Aldi say this does not fit into their logistical supply operations. They quote many Newport supermarkets who do not have such restrictions. They could well win the appeal based on evidence such as this. I opposed any lifting of the restrictions but for example a majority of Northwood Parish Councillors did not.
That of course is their right and it will be interesting to see what the Planning Inspector decides.
That is the system. It might leave a nasty taste in the mouth about the power of developers/supermarkets but it must be said they could be right, eg why should Morrisons/Lidl/Co-op be allowed more frequent deliveries than Aldi? In any event in practice this will mean probably one extra delivery four to five days a week into an enclosed off-loading bay which should go completely un-noticed by almost every local resident.
This brings us back to the earlier misconception that local residents were “hoodwinked” over the original application. Just who exactly was hoodwinked? Certainly not Mr. Yule and his supporters, not the local Councils, and not the local Member.
Just because an application you dis-agreed with is passed does not mean people were hoodwinked. It was that sweeping in-accurate and downright untruthful generality that made me respond.
Hope this has been at least in part a bit helpful. Best wishes for the New Year, ROGMAZ
Roger thanks for your words on the workings of the IW Planning Committee procedures.
It’s more or less as I thought and my main concern is that in a Ward that has a fully trusted, time proven and respected Councillor it could still get no representation if a prejudicial interest is raised by the councillor as a reason not to take part and I assume this is rarely challenged. I might be wrong in thinking perhaps if the planning application is a very hot potato and the electorate is split down the middle this may be a vote saver or easy way out for some? But I do see the need to stop the advantage of having a relative, works college, sports team mate, fellow Mason etc talking your plan up, but it never happens I’m sure, well fairly sure.
The point you made about the IW Planning Committee member never being able to vote on their own electoral division applications was news to me I thought it was only if they had an interest, that’s even worse than I thought. What’s the reasoning behind that? It means they can declare an interest not be allowed to speak and not even vote at the end of the debate. How do we the electorate get a feel for the direction the councillor is steering the ship? if he/she is bound and gagged. The vote should be allowed and we can draw are own conclusions from it.
Steve.
Right on Steve!
Nell, are you a bit frustrated?
I shall be happy to sign off from my little foray into the unreal world of the posters leaving it shall I say a little livelier than before. No disrespect Neal – keep on trucking!
Still of course no real answer to my facts. Surprise, surprise! Still that’s a small price for standing up and being counted. Roll on 2013.
Best wishes from the elderly Roger Maz.
PS Don’t forget Northwood Parish Council meetings once a month on a Tuesday in the school hall. Next is Tuesday. There were three vacancies but that might be down to one. Anyone got the guts to fill that? (see my earlier posting re how)
Hi Steve, like many on this and other forums you appear to read into the thread what you want it to say. From what I have seen of late any one daring to express a view seen as outside the accepted parameters, will illicit a response where personalities are ‘hung out to dry’ even better if in the process insults are added. To make sure in peoples minds I allude to no single person only the delivery system i.e.. Local Council.
The Aldi Supermarket proposal has generated a lot of steam and generally the threads have been diverse although some toes have been trodden on in the process.
Neil Yule defends his corner with gusto good for him.
Mr C has his own inimitable style but generally he asks questions where no one else dare. For this he is pilloried, in my view needlessly. You may not agree with his views at least he stands up to be counted.
Cllr M. again has his own style, which he is known for across the Island.
I am with Mr C on the subject of the way local government works, there is room for change towards larger councils where the resultant potential for financial savings cannot be ignored, a stronger more solid council will provide a better consensus as issues come before it for decisions.
There ‘Steve’ laid out my contribution on this matter, by the way I never “just moan at people” If I have a view I commit it to the NV Forum, one of many I read.
WHS
WHS you are a younger forum user I guess, your recent 3 lines were certainly not “long drawn out bile” but other than read the Forum what do you normally add to the debate? Its people like you that read it should add comments not just moan at the people, tell them your view on the subject.
Steve
Like Mr Yule, I am sure most of the readers of the forum will lose no sleep if either of the two elderly correspondents never enter the forum.
I have read this forum through many of its good and many of its bad periods, every time we get long drawn out bile that pertains to be debate the forum looses out.
Give us all a rest go play on Ventor Blog or even better the IOW Council forum.
WHS
N Yule I am sure you are correct about a new thread should be started if you wish to talk about other things but the Council/planning system is part of the problem. Mr C. is correct, plans go in and get passed and then changes to the original are applied for, and in most cases given. Call it by stealth, if you like, but to my mind it’s careful, well planned and thought out deception.
Also Neil from Gurnard, I don’t recognise the name and I’m sorry if you regularly use this forum but apart from loosing interest what other input have you had on this forum? If it’s made you put your fingers on the keys good we need people’s views.
Public servants (councillors) are our voice and it’s only when people speak up and get them on the right track we get the results we the Taxpayers want.
Yes ok those of us that do have an opinion that’s not in line with the “Party” and may cause waves are always SHOUTED AT but we are all adults and that’s life and I welcome people to the real world.
I am a firm believer you reap what you sow and its no good months down the track saying “oh I never thought that’s what they meant” ask a dozen different ways and you get the real answer, we, or most of us, are not the as thick as some would like to think we are. Smoke and mirrors don’t work if you put a nice big spotlight on them, and we have one and it’s called the Forum.
Taxpayer
P.S. Neil this thread has been read a thousand times so it’s not run dry yet! Some people do try to shut down threads by deliberately getting to personal but I have every faith in the system and I think what’s been said so far is fair, grown up debate.
Well at least it got people talking but alas making things personal doesn’t help anyone. If you want to discuss matters other than the Aldi issue then start a new thread !
I’m sure there are many other people like me that whilst I don’t agree with the system, we are, whether we like it stuck with large parts of it. So get on and work within it. These kind of public personal arguments are exactly the reason people won’t get involved at local level. Mr C & Mr M need your heads banging together neither of you is right or wrong you just have opposite views. In my opinion you have both overstepped the line regarding healthy debate.
Me, I’m going to keep concentrating on the issue (Aldi) in hand and it’s impact on myself and other local residents.
N Yule
I feel this thread has long outlived its usefulness.
When threads become vitriolic ping pong, people get fed up and loose interest in what any contributor says.
Mr C give it up… you don’t represent anyone, let the Cllr get on with ruling the roost.
Nell from Gurnard
Sorry Mr. C. but as usual you have not bothered to reply to the substance of my posting. No comment at all on the reality of how the planning system is at pains to allow full representations. Just your usual “Mazillius is determined etc – attack the writer etc”. Why should I not in the strongest possible terms use the facts to show just how ludicrous is the assertion that local residents were “hoodwinked”!
My record as a locally elected Councillor will have to speak for itself. I do not leave a Council just because I find faults in the system. You did that after just two montns. What a pathetic attitude, It is almost like a little boy who runs to his mummy crying, “I don’t like this game so I am not going to play with them”!
How can you argue so strongly against a system that you were at the heart of but gave up on after such a short time. If that attitude is not belittling those who are doing their best to work within that system and indeed to change parts of that system then as I said in an earlier posting, you have lost the plot!
It is a particular shame that with the opportunities now being offered to local communities by the new Localism Bill, you have opted out of playing a full role as a Parish Councillor. As I said, fortunately there are those who will fill such roles. Good for them. They are not in it for any personal glory or vanity or other “reward”. Just the thought that they are serving their local community.
You had that opportunity but flunked it. Others will pick up your pieces and do their best. It is not a perfect world but there are those who make the best of it and those who do not.
Now on a matter where we do agree, ie merging local Councils or at least local Councils acting together on local issues where together they are stronger, I think this will be discussed at Northwood Parish Council’s meeting on 4/1/11. Of course I understand there are three vacancies on the Council for which applications must be made to the Clerk by 31/12/10. Time for you to get back on board perhaps with two other like-minded residents. I’m game – are you?
Best wishes, Cllr. Roger Mazillius
Thank you Steve. Interesting points. Re IW Council’s Planning Committee procedures, the position is quite clear. Local members can speak about any application in their electoral division as they see fit. Of course if they have a recognised interest eg, the applicant is a close relative, business partner, political colleague etc, then such an interest must obviously be declared although in most cases having that type of prejudical interest would preclude that member from speaking.
If the member is actually a member of the Planning Committee then providing he or she has none of the prejudical interests mentioned above they can speak on the application but not vote. Even if there are no declarable interests, local members are not allowed to vote on applications for planning permission within their own electoral division. Of course this does not stop the member from expressing views which agree or indeed disagree with his electors.
As a rule however, I would say that in most cases local members do agree with representations made locally, bearing in mind that often they have to balance difficult contrary views.
In short it is not a prefect world but a balance has to be struck in what would be seen as corrupt practices eg speaking in favour of a friend or relative’s planning application.
So I suppose it is the best system in use nationwide.
Regarding “political muscle”, that is an obvious result of democratic elections. There is of course a difference between having an elected majority and abusing the consequent power given by that majority.
An anology with business is perhaps apposite. For example, the owners of a business run it as they think fit, bearing in mind they will need to keep a loyal workforce and make profits to pay them, themselves and business overheads. An elected administration needs to observe very similar rules, eg, set a balanced budget, keep a loyal workforce and listen to their electors. That latter point does not mean listen to those who shout the loudest. Often such shouting is destructive rather than constructive. It is usually a fine question of balance. At the end of it all is the cetainty that we will face elections at which our performance will be judged and a verdict given through the ballot box.
So the ultimate power rests with the electorate. Apathy of course works two ways. It can mean an unpopular administration is re-elected or indeed a popular administration feeling complacent is not!
My view is that people go onto these websites, usually anonymously, and state as a fact something which is patently untrue. A good example of this is the previous posting stating local electors were hoodwinked over the Aldi application. I hope I have shown, despite Mr. C’s protestations that this is patently untrue.
Best wishes, Cllr. Roger Mazillius
It appears from the tone of your post Cllr M that you see threats coming from every where and every one.
Some may see that as a form of paranoia, but I suspect not so in your case, just some one determined to win the argument at all costs.
As usual in the manner for which you are well known, you read between the lines and draw a conclusion that is basically…attack the writer, cast slights against the case they are making, all of which is intended to portray yourself as a defender of what is euphemistically called the democratic process. I suspect in many circles this methodology works and protagonists back off, I will not kowtow to vitriol. However ludicrous you feel I am being.
Let me clearly state that at no time have I ever ‘belittled’ any individual on any form of media, and as for the use of the verb ‘whinge’, does that mean you label people, who all they have done is express their views in open forums which might conflict with yours?
With regard to the element of the post , which raised, the fact that I had served on the Parish Council, albeit for only 2 months, does this mean in your eyes that I am not worthy of being allowed to state my point of view? People who know me will see your comments for what they are political drivel with no substance.
I resigned from the Parish Council because the whole way it is structured, in my opinion the small sub committee’s etc do not allow full debate. I stress this is my view however ludicrous. For those forum readers who are new to to this modern form of cock fighting I have for some considerable time been advocating that parish councils in their present form should be condensed to larger ‘District Councils’ a major gain would be financial saving. This makes me a whinger, writer of ludicrous claims, and finally some one who by having an alternative opinion it appears I ‘belittle’ all the good folk who spend time acting out local government on our behalf.
Regards to users of the forum especially in 2011 you are going to all of your resolve.
G R Cotterill Northwood
Yes it is “apathy” and Mr Cotterill you are correct in saying change is not going to be easy and most will stay away due to what’s already in place. I also agree with your comment, and I know that I am not alone, how can a Parish Councillor, declare an interest at a meeting and duck out the debate? Even more worrying I have seen various elected Ward councillors over the years get strong representations why a development should not take place from a large chunk of their Ward and then state at the planning meeting that they must declare an interest, like, I know the applicant, its the Isle of Wight and if you spread your self out to every opportunity that’s available for involvement, for what ever reason, you could get to know thousands of people. I also find it unbelievable and if I have got this wrong please correct me, but I think if you sit on the planning committee in County hall you can’t express the individual views of the people in the ward you represent, is this true? If so what on earth are these Councillors doing on the committee, certainly not representing the people that have elected them?
It will get worse as the years go on, especially as not only will we have the local bun fight (parish and IW) but if, and heaven forbid, we end up with 2 MPs. One from the Government of the day, what ever that means in these enlightened times and one an independent who is a friend to all and never changes any thing due to Political Correctness and lack of political muscle, and believe me political muscle that’s what counts, forget all the nice words and smiles he who plays the tune, plays what he likes and our Island is run by a few.
Happy New Year
Steve.
Thanks Mr. C. All I was posting was that it was totally wrong to state as a fact that “residents are hoodwinked into agreeing developments by stealth”. Surely even you can see how ludicrously inaccurate such a statement is!
Your final comment is so peculiar that I am concerned you are losing the plot! Please consider then why it is that there are people who are prepared to actually stand for local elections; to turn out to meetings winter, summer etc rain or shine. To read papers on a wide range of issues both local and island-wide, to express opinions, to gather the views of local residents, to listen to those views before reaching informed decisions.
But of course that is alright, they can do all that but all you are apparently concerned about are the poor unrepresented residents who find “the pathway to change is so difficult as a result people resort to staying away from meetings etc”. What a load of defeatest drivel!
May I remind you Mr. C. that you became a Northwood Parish Councillor for a few months, or was it weeks last year and then resigned. Hardly a record of public involvement. Just a whinger like those you appear so desperately keen to make every excuse under the sun for. It is the system, it is interests, it is lack of question time when in reality none of these can stop representations being made on more or less anything brought up on Council Agendas.
For example, anyone can send in written or electronic representations at length to ensure that every possible point is covered. A good recent example of this is the many detailed and highly pertinent representations against the creation of a cement packing plant on the banks of the River Medina. These undoubtedly resulted in the application being refused.
It is the whole process which counts, not just this Parish Council meeting or that residents meeting. For anyone to seriously say that people do not have ample opportunities to make their views known on such matters is completely wrong.
Well thank goodness we do have people who will actually stand up and be counted despite your continued attempts to belittle them and the democratic system under which they operate.
If you cannot be bothered to support the system we have, don’t belittle those who do.
Best wishes to all, Cllr. Roger Mazillius
Well there we have it! the gospel according to our Ward Councillor. The only ‘Fact’ that matters is there are still people who feel that despite all the public availability to scrutinise the Aldi plans, do not feel happy with decisions made on their behalf. Please councillor do not jump up and tell us ‘well that’s how democracy works’ I am aware how democracy works, and the 10 items you set out in your post were hardly shining examples of well attended meetings where issues could be debated properly. With the exception of the meeting in the I.W. Community Club all the other avenues open under law, the public are restricted, usually a few minutes, to how long each person can put their point across.
Hardly full blooded public consultation?
Several of your ‘facts’ are flimsy at best, due to conditions laid down by statute, ward councillors and others who have an ‘interest’ must declare it and therefore play no active part in the debate. How does this allow local concerns to be put to Parish, Town,and IOW Council sub committee’s?
Despite your attempt to redress the perceived slight on your colleagues, nothing will I fear change the public’s view of politicians either local or national currently.
The final paragraph was, in my opinion, a desperate attempt to deflect the thread away from the original post. Councillor you may wish to consider why there is a dearth of candidates willing to put themselves up to serve on the Parish Council? My own view is that because the community want a change but the pathway to change is so difficult as a result people resort to staying away from meetings etc. Some call it apathy!
G R Cotterill. Northwood
Facts:
1. The Aldi planning application was subject to weeks of public scrutiny including public consultation sessions at The I.W. Comunity Club in Park Road where Aldi representatives, and in some cases local Councillors like myself, were available to answer residents’ questions.
2. It was considered in public by Northwood Parish Councillors.
3. It was considered in public by Cowes Town Councillors.
4. It was considered in public by the I.W. Council’s Planning Committee.
5. The public were able to attend each of these meetings and speak on the application.
6. The public were able to send in online or written representations about the application.
7. There are many planning matters which by law have to be considered when deciding the result of an application. These were considered in the Aldi case.
8. At each “hurdle” the application was approved, subject to various conditions.
9. One of these conditions was the hours of delivery.
10. That is the only matter which Aldi have appealed to be changed.
Comments such as “residents are hoodwinked into agreeing developments by stealth” are totally unjustified and quite frankly a ludicrous conclusion to draw from the facts.
Now, Mr or Ms Nameless, there are three vacancies on Northwood Parish Council which need to be filled by 31/12/10.
Email the Parish Clerk:
barbara.herbert@sky.com
and register your interest so that next time (and they happen every month) local planning applications are publicly discussed by Parish Councillors, you can ensure that you are not “hoodwinked” into allowing them to be approved. Alternatively, if that is too much for you, just attend the regular meetings and voice your opinion. Believe it or not it will be noted!
Remember also, all these planning applications are prominently printed in the County Press and published online on the Council’s website. So why be as you say “apathetic”, or are you like the people you criticise actually when it comes to the crunch “apathetic” yourself!
Best seasonal greetings to all, Cllr Roger Mazillius.
Good to see N Yule still has his eye on the ball in respect of the ‘Proposed Aldi Retail Outlet’ sited at the junction of Newport Road and Three gates Road Northwood.
I feel those that make the decisions are hoping any further elements in the Planning Procedures will just float in and then fade out of public conscientiousness. Another glaring example of how residents are hoodwinked into agreeing developments by stealth. Now I am not saying what is being done in our name is illegal in any sense, but only takes advantage of the apathetic stance from the general population.
I have spoken about this many times in both this forum and even on forums across the Island.
The results are fairly identical, a few die-hards willing to give their views…many, many others read posts and slink back into their cosy chairs to watch X factor or similar.
What does it take to illicit a response from folk?
Keep up your lonely vigil Neil…support, don’t count on it.
Seasons Greetings to all who use the Forum; Healthy New Year 2011.
I heard the other day that the old “pipe bomb” issue has not gone away and is slowing down the build! Any other BAE worker heard this as its not a new problem.
Sam
This is the latest I have had,
A site visit date for this appeal has not yet been arranged. The date of the 14th December was the deadline for the appellant and Local Planning Authority to submit comments on each others correspondence. This is 9 weeks after the start date of this appeal. The ministerial target date for this appeal is 6 April 2011. This is the date the appeal must be decided by.
A site visit for this appeal will be arranged in the new year. As the Local Planning Authority and the appellant have both indicated the whole appeal site can be seen from public land and therefore the site visit will be an unaccompanied. An unaccompanied site visit means we will not be informing any party of the date and time of the site visit. The appointed Inspector will be asked to carry out the site visit alone and it will be for the Inspector to decide when to carry out the site visit.
The Planning Inspectorate
N Yule
Taxpayer the more you write the more I like you! If you get the time perhaps you could stand for the new Cowes Urban Council or the 2nd IW MP, although you will not be the only one in that race as a few are chaffing at the bit now.
DS
Baglady I like you are pleased that Aldi have decided to trade near my home. But probably like you, not that near that I will hear the Lorries at 3 or 4 in the morning. People that are directly affected by planning issues have the right to complain and that’s why our Island is a good place to live or do you not agree?
That’s the only part of your utterance I agree with and I think your words “seen fit to grace us with its presence” is a little bit over the top.
Aldi is a money making machine and like all big retail outlets only goes to areas that will give a good predicted financial return. Its location has got absolutely nothing to do with gracing us or the people in the area.
The other point you make of how you think we users are depressing and petty, if you think peoples view on life now are bad before the cuts hit us, yes us, then please stay away from TV and all forms of other media over the next few years as it will get grim and yes people like us will talk about it and people like you will get upset.
I run my own business spend a few minutes a week on these sites to get an update of whats going down on the Island, hardly a waste of time. I see it as form of relaxation from the stresses of making my first million and Im a firm believer if it rattles a few cages then it must be hitting the spot.
Taxpayer.
The reply from ‘Baglady’ says it all in my view.
Petty comment and slanted remarks aimed at those whose only offence is to speak their mind and protect the environment in which they live. To live your life with such an attitude beggars belief, ‘get on with it’ I don’t think so!
People acting feebly and accepting the inevitable, once the store and its procedural
systems in place any chance of change is lost.
I do accept that the comments on the ‘Forum of Late’ are bristling with bias and sometimes bile, however we must not bow down and accept this without a response. Our right to speak out is inalienably built into the British mind set.
Finally with regard to your last two sentences, yes many of the posts are depressing and yes petty comments do appear in the Forum. The main cause is that life at the moment is depressing, will remain so for a while yet. With great respect Baglady, there are many in our community who through no fault of their own have small issues, some call them petty, but if they make a difference to their family life and environment to them they are worth fighting for.
Kind Regards
G R Cotterill Northwood
With regards to peoples issues regarding small details associated with the Aldi store, I say, “get over it”. The store will happen and NEEDS to happen, like it or not.
We should be pleased that a major company has seen fit to grace us with it’s presence. Since the closing of the Somerton Store those of us that don’t (or can’t) drive have been severely disadvantaged and I for one welcome Aldi, warts and all.
I haven’t read this forum for a long time and when I do it reminds me how depressing and petty you lot are. A phrase jumped to mind, nothing to do and all day to do it in.
Baglady
Taxpayer like you I admire people such as Neil Yule, he has a view and is not afraid to express it.
In any society not everyone agrees with what is said by others, that is what is good about the type of democracy we have. There is one area where I feel we mostly agree, that is the palpable silence from the councillors both parish and ward on all matters where residents have, or are expressing concern. Again I ask WHY? Do they not read what is being raised in the various mediums, and why the apparent reluctance to speak out and defend their corner?
Lets face there is no shortage of avenues which they could use to state the ‘official line’ it is almost like our public figures are insecure and feel that ‘going public’ could potentially leave them open to being taken before the Standards Board as a result of some feeble complaint from one of their peers or they are ‘talking out of school’
How often do we hear from potential councillors what they have too offer the community, one word is used regularly, that of ‘transparency’ they state they will keep us informed…well like both of you I cannot see much ‘information flowing’
There is one local councillor who strives to involve his constituents, I will not name him because I am sure he is known well enough. Surgeries,Newsletters, Blogs all manner of scribbling, perhaps the other councillors could learn from this.
All this begs the question…does this issue manifest itself across the Island?
G R Cotterill Northwood.
Yes at least you can say you tried, and that’s what I like about people like you N Yule. I have no idea who you are but you are a man with the same kind of logic as me. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. How many times have we seen a planning application slip in unnoticed and then more and more applications go down the same route saying its set a precedent.
As far as the Councillors not replying on this, they, that’s parish and ward all read the forums of the 2 Gurnard sites, the 2 Northwood sites and the famous Ventnor blog and keep a low profile when the going gets tough, and if they say they don’t read them perhaps they should its called grass roots communications!
taxpayer
Thanks for your views Graham and here’s the why,
I do not believe that the 18hr window for deliveries is restrictive in anyway to Aldi. My concern is that precedent will be set in regards to the future development of the adjoining industrial area. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong in fighting to keep the un-social hours traffic levels along Nodes Rd , Newport Rd and Three Gates Rd at an acceptable level, after all I live along one of those roads. I have every right to voice my concerns/opinions in the correct and appropriate manner. As I cannot expect the local Parish Councils help I will continue to fight on as an individual. If Aldi win their appeal at least I can say I tried.
As I have said before I am in favour of the Aldi store but there have to be certain restrictions placed upon them.
Still no comments from the Councillors.
N Yule
So Mr Yule the fight goes on? My only concern is why? There has been so much ‘talk’ on this forum about an issue that I feel is like the analogy of the Dutch boy putting his finger in the hole to stop the waters rising. Democracy allows us all to speak in support of whatever issue we stand with, but in the final analysis some thing has to give.
The striking and some times strident comments about the proposed Aldi store have done nothing to persuade either the parish or IOW Council to prevent the development going ahead.
All that is left to debate over is the minor issues at the edge of the application, if and when it ever gets built?
Fight the good fight my friend, but I suspect your efforts will be in vain.
Like yourself I am at a loss at the lack of correspondence, information, defending policy decisions that have been made on our behalf. Where is the Communications Cllr to put out more than just A4 copy on a Notice Board or an edited versions via the Northwood News etc.
G R Cotterill Northwood
Once again the silence is deafening from the local parish council. Is it any wonder that people are apathetic towards local matters !
I have contacted the Planning Inspectorate myself to continue to oppose the ridiculous idea that Aldi require the ability to deliver 24 hrs a day.
N Yule
I have been informed in writing that Aldi is appealing against the councils decision regarding delivery times. Bearing in mind the Parish Councils previous stance on this matter I wonder if their views have changed. I hope we can again expect the support that Cllr. Mazillius and the IOW Council gave us on this matter and stand up to Aldi on this matter.
Thanks Neil. I was in fact attempting to answer the posting of 8th August, which in effect appears to criticise any form of government but from the penultimate paragraph particularly that at local level.
I trust that if you read my remarks in that context, they will be more explainable.
As for the later post claiming I am fence sitting as usual, how nice as I am usually told I have too firm opinions. Oh well, onwards and upwards!
As usual, best wishes to all, Cllr. Roger Mazillius
PS Just read that a Parish Councillor has resigned. I hope it was not because he or she read some of these postings! Anyway, time for someone to stop anonymously moaning and put their “principles” to practical use. The Parish Council could accomodate a Uriah Heep!
Because ‘? Anonymous’ the planners have been suckered by small vocal pressure group, consisting of maybe less that 6 in my opinion.
Let me comment at this juncture, clearly, so there is no misunderstanding about what I am saying, even it were only 1 person using their democratic right to pass comment, in my opinion the council failed in its duty of acting in a consistent and fair manner on all planning matters by placing the constraints in place initially.
If I was behind the ‘Aldi’ project I would be thinking long and hard about whether to carry on and lay the first block.
Perhaps BAE / Aldi should call the project in, then problem is solved. No store, no perceived noise, peace and tranquillity all round.
I forgot, Somerton Business Park, Lorries coming and going, Bus Park and Ride, Main arterial road
Three Gates Business Park, the list goes on.
Perhaps, and I am just guessing, but maybe just maybe this is what the objectors are seeking, knowing there is no Material base on which to throw out the plan, next best would be a vocal ‘ping pong’ so the developers pull out?
Admittedly you are correct other similar stores in Newport and Shanklin can deliver without the restrictions placed on BAE / Aldi.
Perplexed.
If you go to IOW Council website and look under planning online Planning Application – TCP/21760/Y, P/00785/10 you can read the Officer Written Justification notice which will answer all of your questions.
Regarding your complaint about the radar noise have you spoken to either BAE or the Parish Council ?
Well done to Mr Yule for fighting this one.
I should like to know why Aldi are not allowed to deliver out of hours when Lidl in both Newport and Shanklin can, as indeed can most other major supermarkets on the Island.
Surely not allowing Aldi to deliver when they prefer is a nonsense as both of the other stores are in far more ‘residential’ areas.
With regards to noise, have you ever heard the row that the radars make all night long. Why are people not complaining about them?
In relation to Cllr Mazillius’s post, full of his usual political fence sitting. Trying to be all things to all people, especially to the householders affected.
When evocative issues such as this one championed so succinctly by Mr Yule,he is correct about some of the comments in the Cllrs post.
What on earth has the lack of candidates coming forward got to do with the decision taken by Parish Council?
As for the decision taken by the Planning Committee of IOW Council, I personally believe they made an error or judgement on this matter. Why? Where is the consistency in decision making? other companies bringing supplies to their stores operate a system (Protocol) to alleviate the ‘perceived’ problem at Aldi.
Why the ‘ostrich’ attitude when deciding what to do with Aldi’s application?
Consistency,is surely one of the most important tools planners have?
The best solution to this would be for BAE / Aldi to withdraw their application and leave the Three Gates Corner to the sheep. What then? another meaningless thread bleating that they really wanted a Store.
Observation from an neutral.
So there you have it! Its all our fault, typical.
In my opinion most of the type of person who would be ideal for the role of local representative, will not stand because they understand and know how councils work. Democracy Tosh.
Another one standing on the ‘fringe’
Thanks Roger, but I think you have missed my point.
This decision has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of candidates at the election.
The Parish Council made a decision that was not based on the views of local residents. The fact that at least 8 local residents did make objections to both Parish and IOW Council proves my point.
It is perhaps a reason that more people didn’t stand for election. If people feel that they aren’t or won’t be listened to then they won’t get involved.
Furthermore, I actually think that by and large the Parish Council get it right but when they don’t it is fair to say so.
Neil Yule
Just to say how pleased I was that our Planners refused Aldi’s application for revised delivery hours. However it is a bit hard to knock the Parish Councillors for not opposing. They were very much in support of the original proposals, as was I, and I am sure they acted in what they sincerely thought was in the best interests of Northwood.
It is not their fault that there were insufficient candidates in May to trigger Parish Council elections. That responsibility lies squarely with Northwood residents.
Whilst many have strong opinions, most will not put themselves in the firing line of actually standing for office, with consequent work and statutory responsibilities. It is always easy to fire off electronic anonymous broadsides and sit back and await reactions!
The coalition government want to see more local services being delivered by Parish and Town Councils on the basis that they will be more in tune with local wishes and requirements. Now whilst the local Councils may not always get it right, they meet, usually monthly in a local hall, so are very accessible to local residents who therefore have every opportunity to attend these meetings (plus often extra meetings to deal with local planning applications) and use the opening 15 minutes to ask questions of the Council or make comment on issues before the Council.
It really is a matter for local involvement as as has been said, don’t complain if you sit back and merely moan!
Best wishes to all, Cllr. Roger Mazillius
I agree with ‘puzzled’ on the comments made in his/her post regarding decisions made by councils of all shades and ideologies. When residents couldn’t care less what happens in their neck of the Island, until it starts costing them money. It is little wonder the ease at which vocal agenda driven groups can dictate the direction of local issues.
Apathy is the greatest destroyer of our way of life in Britain today, we no longer care enough to protect what our forefathers fought for, and died for. I realise decisions made at Parish level are not earth shattering, but none the less they form part of the patchwork that makes up our nation.
Take one part away the structure is weakened, that has already taken place with the overwhelming rise of apathetic, couldn’t care less attitude prevalent today.
Take a good look at our nations Government, dis-jointed, no firm plan or direction in which to move the country forward. Every issue is based around political expediency, no serious thought of the repercussions that will fall on citizens.
Intermediary levels of government are no better, decisions taken by the myriads of ‘Committee’s’ set up to sit and deliberate for endless hours of meaningless talk, then a ‘Cabinet of the Inner Circle’ sits in more talks and so it goes on.
Finally we have Parish Councils, over 40 on the Island each with between 6 to 8 councillors all according to Mr Yule making decisions based on nothing more than ‘Best Guessing’ what the community really wants.
Talk about a country in dire need of giving itself a long hard look at the way democracy works in Britain today.
The mention of crystal balls makes me wonder what people see for themselves and families in the years too come? I wish I had that ability, one thing is certain we are going to rue the day we sat back and let the activists rule our very way of life.
Food for thought.
Parish Council decisions (not just Northwood’s) are not normally a true indication of the wishes of the locals. The reason is I believe due to lack of communication from the council prior to issues being decided and massive apathy from the electorate so they receive little input. Hardly a soul goes to the monthly meetings and most votes are cast influenced mainly by personal preferences, if its N.I.M.B.Y they don’t normally have a problem, If you don’t agree with my view explain how a non-politically biased councillor with little or no feed back from the locals on an important issue can decide any other way? It’s got to be personal preference and unless they have a crystal ball they won’t get it right most of the time. Common sense should play a part but I have seen some stupid things in the last few year’s like allotments on known water meadows and 80 foot, view blocking fir trees planted on the village green in Gurnard to name just a couple.
Some Town and Parish Councillors are out in the Towns and Parishes meeting with lots of different people on a daily basis but most are not, unless of course they are in disguise.
Puzzled.
Thankfully the IOW Council have decided to reject Aldi’s proposal to extend the delivery times. They say,
“The removal of the condition restricting delivery times would result in unacceptable
disturbance to nearby residential properties, especially sleep disturbance which would
in turn have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants
contrary to Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control”
Quite why our own Parish Council thought it was a good idea to support Aldi’s application to remove condition 23 remains a complete mystery to me and others.
Perhaps they could explain there reasoning ?
It’s amazing what a little common sense can do !
I would like to thank those concerned for their support in this matter.
Neil Yule
Bob I think as the land was always going to be for industrial use a store and small Units are better for us locals. I go to Newport to buy cheap food and this new store will be ideal for me.
If a new factory started up building boats, planes or even sheds in the new industrial revolution that’s just around the corner (I am forever the optimist) it would still be unwelcome by some. This is the place for Northwood, Gurnard and the south end of Cowes to shop. Its near the factories and large transport buildings so will fit in to the industrial scene. The loser could be the local Coop but that may have an effect on prices. One other point Bob, BAE Systems Property Management Business will have done the sums and as one that has had dealings with this side of BAE Systems they certainly don’t need their head checking if it’s about making money.
Happy Shopper
I still think the whole development plan stinks. Whoever thought ruining a piece of open land with industrial units and a supermarket would be a good idea needs their head checking!
Bob of Newport Road
I have now read the submission from our Parish Council on the IOW Council website. It appears that our parish councillors are out of touch with the views of local residents on this matter. They have chosen to raise no material planning objection to Aldi’s request for the removal of clause 23.
What is the point of local residents at the very heart of this matter raising informed points if our local Parish Council do not support us. After all it was the IOW Council that put in the clause in the first place not Aldi.
The phrase “turkeys voting for Christmas” comes to mind.
If and when the further development of the industrial units takes place then a precedent will have been set regarding this matter.
Surely it would have been far more sensible for our Parish Council to have supported the IOW Council and local residents rather than Aldi and asked for the said clause to remain.
It is true that Aldi would then have had to appeal the decision but that is down to them.
Neil Yule
Thanks Neil and Anonymous. I see no reason to change the condition and will be making this view known. Cllr. Roger Mazillius
What are the views from our Parish Councillors ?