Author Topic: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application  (Read 8009 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2015, 08:46:25 AM »
Jon Price wrote:

Quote
Why oh why do we want this supermarket as opposed to one of the market leaders.

This is the reason Jon.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3143518/How-Aldi-Lidl-cut-cost-
shopping-Tesco.html


Quote
Tesco in particular has been hammered by the growing popularity of Aldi and Lidl, as it has traditionally been seen as one of the cheapest options in the marketplace.
It has been ditching confusing special offers and multi-buy deals in favour of consistently low prices on basic items such as bread, milk and eggs in an attempt to fight back.
However, no matter how far it eats into its own margins to cut costs, its business model means it will be near impossible to offer the same sorts of prices as Aldi or Lidl across the board.




Not everyone has a job in Stirchley and even many of those that do are on minimum wage and struggling to pay bills and eat with some even having to resort to Foodbanks to survive.
Combine this with people who are disabled with limited means to travel and many would welcome a 'cut-price supermarket' which is local and not a rip off like the Co-Op.

Remember too that, hopefully, Lidl will employ local people and pay wages significantly higher than the big 4 supermarkets.


Offline Jon Price

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2015, 06:32:25 AM »
One of the reasons costs are low in these supermarkets is the fact that the majority of items bought in are not 'well known' brands. Having tried on more than a handful of times non branded goods there is a significant difference between these.
Yes there are some within the area who have difficulties whether it be financial,physical etc and appreciate that ALL folks want value for money and I just don't agree that the cheaper end retailers will in the long run be able to sustain what they are doing. Kwik Save was a prime example of this.

Offline Hazel Well

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2015, 07:07:09 PM »
What about the long derelict & empty former Kwik Save plot? Who owns, why is it not developed, would Lidl care to take it on, sort out traffic maybe sort out that depressing row of empty shops from the plot to the corner.

Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2015, 09:26:09 AM »
Did I read that Tesco owns that as well?

I suspect looking at the plans from Lidl that the Kwik Save plot is too small. 

Going back to an earlier post, I don't agree with the "create more jobs" argument.  Fitness First and the PSL already employ a good number of people.  I doubt that people who have invested time and money into training to become personal trainers will want a job at a checkout in Lidl.

The cheaper end of shopping is catered for by Farmfoods.  I know that Co-op gets hounded for being expensive but they do sell cheaper end goods as well.  In addition there are a number of smaller retail outlets provided groceries and other essentials. 

Both Fitness First and PSL offer something not available for miles around.  Lidl on the other hand is just up the road. 

Offline villan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2015, 02:55:47 PM »
Some interesting points of view posted from the area being "cheap and cheerful" to the Co-op being a "rip off"...I personally feel the area generally is somewhere in-between with "a bit of both" thrown in for good measure.
When the Co-op opened its present store it was much bigger than most of the other supermarkets around and attracted people from miles around, however as other stores have become as big and bigger it has had to target a different market. Not so often are people visiting the Co-op from Kings Heath, West Heath, Longbridge, Selly Oak and Edgbaston to name a few places as they all have their own big supermarkets now, which has made the Co-op target the local convenience customer. Convenience stores, be they Co-op or any of the other names tend to be more expensive though i believe the Co-op compares favourably with others looking at their latest deals online, while also has taken to offering responsibly sourced goods and supporting British farm producers where possible.
While the area is more often than not "cheerful" i don't subscribe to the idea of it being necessarily  "cheap"...although thats all relative to individual situations i suppose. There are many in the area of potential customers for local supermarkets that i would suggest have a decent disposable income, while others are struggling to make ends meet. In all my years of living in and around Stirchley i think very little has changed with regards to peoples individual requirements, although the loss of many fairly well paid jobs at local employers has forced a re-think for many.
Tesco have for many reasons lost the confidence of shoppers, including their somewhat less than straightforward selling practices and more locally land grabbing. It could be suggested that they would full fill a middle of the road requirement, however to make a big store pay would require pulling in shoppers from a wide area as the Co-op did in the past making for bad traffic management situation to become even worse (if thats possible after the council interference on Pershore Rd). The normal product range is priced at much the same as Sainsburys, Morrisons etc in my experience, which makes it unlikely to attract those buyers from other areas with those stores. Again in my experience, the value range is pretty poor making it just poor economy for many.
Lidl do offer an alternative. While they don't offer a huge range of products or the sort of incentive schemes and deals that other stores do, they do offer good products at discount prices which caters for "a bit of both." They are local to their planned customer base with a number of other shops not far away, so im assuming they are not wanting to lose their trade from say Kings Heath for example to Stirchley meaning less car miles.
I could go on but for fear of becoming boring  ;) it just leaves me to say yes to Lidl....but as previously posted,preferably not at the expense of a leisure facility.

Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2015, 11:15:05 AM »
Eloquently put.

Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2016, 08:48:41 AM »
The application has been writhdrawn.  I had an email this morning from B'ham Council.

Good news IMO


Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2016, 01:26:42 PM »
My objection for this one, which is an expanded version of my previous objection

The fitness first gym is the only gym in the area, the closest alternatives are in Kings Heath or Cotteridge.  One is much smaller and the other is mostly free weights.  I use fitness first 3 times a week and in the evenings it is very busy catering for a wide range of ages.  It offers a varied selection  of activities with good support from helpful and knowledgeable staff. 

The bowling alley frequently has offers for families which we take up.  It's a nice friendly venue and a good place to go with my wife and two children.  There is nothing similar for quite a distance.

On the other hand there are plenty of shops available.  The co-op is close by as is Farmfoods.  Tesco maintain their intention to build a supermarket.  If they do so and this application is granted we will have 4 supermarkets within a square mile, but no gym and no family based activity centre for older children. 

The removal of fitness first and PSL will erode two key community centres.  At a time when health is a key concern it makes little sense to replace two activity centres with yet another food store.

Lidl cannot demonstrate the requirement for another supermarket in this area when it is already well served by several large and small food and grocery outlets. 

If the council are minded to give permission for Lidl to build in the area may I suggest that first Tesco be put to task to commit firmly its intentions in Stirchley either way.

The staff at fitness first are trained and qualified and would struggle to find alternative employment.

The traffic in the area is already heavy and congested for most of the day. The recent changes to the road layout have done little to alleviate the issue. The introduction of a supermarkket outside a busy road and opposite and near to other busy junctions will increase road traffic congestion.

Stirchley High street will be affected  by the introduction of another supermarket, just as it is beginning to develop.  Shops such as PCafe and Loaf improve the area, another supermarket will not.
 
National planning guidance PPS6 states that “to deliver the Government’s objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focused in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them.” By
approving construction of another supermarket whilst replacing existing useful business the local authority will be directly contravening this guidance.

Offline RippleRoad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2016, 02:35:23 PM »
and this palace is already a problem with traffic.....god help us if they put a lidi there

Offline BakeryGirl

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2016, 02:39:21 PM »
If owners of current leisure facility do decide to move - perhaps they would like to consider a new-build in the the space behind Lifford House - they could have plenty of parking with perhaps a more attractive and easily accessible building.

Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2016, 04:32:50 PM »
I thought houses were going there?

Offline Leonie06

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2016, 03:26:58 PM »
Hi, which local parties are looking to fight to save Fitness First and PSL Bowling?

Offline Kwacky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
    • Tankslap
Re: replacing fitness First and Bowling planning application
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2016, 10:27:53 PM »
I asked the labour people who came door to door recently and they oppose it. No idea about the other parties.