From Anthony Rae

Saturday, 13 September 2014

I think some people may have interpreted Paul Clarke's kind words about the case which I presented against the Garden Street development as an implied request that I might do the same on this occasion, so let me quickly explain why not.

I've not been centrally involved in the opposition to the Sainsbury's application, and particularly in the very detailed examination of the planning case for or against which as he suggests is critical in such arguments, so couldn't actually do a 'forensic demolition', assuming that is actually possible. But I remain sceptical of the Highways assessment, which doesn't appear to be bothered that the application will result in the loss of around 55 parking spaces in a town centre always under pressure at peak times. All we have is the bland assertion that 'The site is in a very sustainable location within the town centre situated adjacent to a public car park and although it does not require any specific parking provision due to its Town Centre location, parking has been provided for the 5 town houses.'

I think this is slipshod, misleading and shortsighted, but the nature of the Calderdale Highways assessments is that they just aren't concerned with cumulative, indirect or consequential impacts. As a result I've been saying for some time that as soon as the development might proceed the town could be confronted by a parking 'crisis' which will cause aggravating disruption to many people's car journeys, and economic damage, incapable of easy remedy. At that point there will be a big public row about 'parking', which should however have been anticipated - and resolved - within the judgement about this application.

I'm sure those who have been mounting the objection will have their own plans for presenting the case against.

From Andrew B

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

The report posted on this site states:

"There have been 564 objection letters lodged with the council and only 4 letters of support. Still the recommendation from Halifax is that this supermarket planning should be accepted. This is an abuse of democracy!"

Could the writer of this report back up their claim? It's my belief that 564 people strongly opposed, the rest of the town weren't too bothered! Just an opinion though, and obviously acceptable in the democratic society in which we live.

From Anthony Rae

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Since I'm a stickler for accuracy, can I just correct a number in my last post, which said that: 'the application will result in the loss of around 55 parking spaces in a town centre always under pressure at peak times.' The revised number that I provided to Cllr Timbers for yesterday's Planning Cttee meeting was 45. The overcount occurred for two reasons: I had misinterpreted an ambiguous sentence in the Council's highways assessment; and had to reply very quickly to Paul Clarke's posting on Saturday morning before I left for a day long meeting in Leeds so had to rely on memory for the tally of 'spaces' (because the markings are often quite faded) on the Sainsbury's site. Normally I would have just popped down the road and counted the number again.

I also gave him this additional analysis: that since Calderdale Council's last parking review in 2009 the number of cars (in Britain) seeking to park has increased by +3% (to 32 million), but the town's parking stock following a Sainsbury's approval and loss of spaces would have decreased by -8% nett (or 29 spaces), and -16% (60 spaces) on market days. This puts some numbers to the scale of the 'parking crisis' that probably would have occurred.

And I pointed out that - in addition to the 'aggravating disruption to many people's car journeys, and economic damage' I mentioned last time - this loss would all have occurred in the area immediately around that site, causing drivers circulating and looking for spaces to add to the congestion in the same location caused by Sainsbury delivery vehicles, and shoppers coming to the store. I maintain my view that the Calderdale Highways assessment was deficient in not considering these wider impacts.

From Jon Morris

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Just out of interest, at the meeting last night, the spokesman for the developer stated that none of the three existing convenience stores were locally owned. Ok, so there's the Co-op, One Stop is owned by Tesco, but what about Oasis? Does anyone know? Is it a Nisa franchise?

Also, he said that after the original 2007 application, the two retail properties were put on the rental market but received no enquiries. No-one asked this at the meeting, but what rent were they charging? Was it that no-one could afford it?

From Paul D

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Does the loss of parking spaces include all those spaces that weren't there before they knocked the fire station down that the supermarket will replace? It's just that if it does then the number 'lost' would be tiny. The opponents aren't that daft are they? And HGV 'movements'? So there never was an HGV yard on that road? Hundreds of lorries didn't deliver to all those dirty factories? Do we have to base everything on a three year attention span? I'm not saying it won't affect people or there aren't genuine concerns economic and otherwise, but on the factors allowed the opponents look to be trying to build a house with wet tissues.

From Anthony Rae

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Just to answer the two questions asked by Paul D:

- 'Does the loss of parking spaces include all those spaces that weren't there before they knocked the fire station down that the supermarket will replace?': The figures in my second post (-8% nett (or 29 spaces), and -16% (60 spaces) on market days) do not include 'the spaces that weren't there' before the fire station was knocked down. Whilst I didn't know the precise date of the opening of that car park I assumed it was after the 2008/9 baseline for my calculations so they weren't included. The 'nett' in my post is therefore against that baseline.

- 'HGV 'movements'? So there never was an HGV yard on that road? Hundreds of lorries didn't deliver to all those dirty factories?' However since that time the number of vehicles on broadly the same highway configuration will have increased at least tenfold (applying the UK numbers). As the capacity of a highway network becomes increasingly occupied it will reach a point of congestion at which its function is jeopardised, particularly in a town centre with relatively narrow streets and where so much of that capacity is taken up with parked vehicles.

From Paul D

Saturday, 20 September 2014

But this seems the sort of dissembling that undermines a case. Applying national data on increased vehicle movements (HGVs) to a specific area that has - actually - seen a huge decline over 25 years is fine until you expose the nonsense at the heart of it.

Vehicle movement into and around that area have increased dramatically but only in terms of private cars. But that inconvenient truth, that people who live there or thereabouts are responsible for a probable 500% increase in vehicle movements cannot be stated. Nor can the impact of tourism traffic be included. Just these awful trucks. Just what the developers have stated may be, not what is and has been.

A huge traffic increase locally that means air quality regularly breaches safe levels on market street isn't us driving to and from supermarkets elsewhere - oh no. It's not tourism. The HGVs are just not a strong case is my point. That's always been an industialised area. Hopefully it always will be. Much as that might irk the commuters who bought into the biscuit tin lid image of the town.

From Jim C

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Just a thought! Can`t we lobby Highways to change the weight restriction on the Bridge to kill any chance of these massive lorry deliveries stone dead?

From Ash M

Saturday, 20 September 2014

How ridiculous is the suggestion to alter the weight limit of a bridge just so we don't have big lorries in the town. Never mind whether it's structurally safe to bear such weights, we're Hebden Bridge and we don't like big lorries.

From Anthony Rae

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Paul D appears to have misread or misunderstood my two previous postings. He says: 'Applying national data on increased vehicle movements (HGVs) to a specific area that has - actually - seen a huge decline over 25 years is fine until you expose the nonsense at the heart of it. Vehicle movement into and around that area have increased dramatically but only in terms of private cars.'

But the national data I applied, and the analysis of it, was indeed for cars - not HGVs.

From Graham Barker

Saturday, 20 September 2014

'm not sure how Paul D arrives at his view that HGV and sub-HGV movements in the Valley Road sector of town have declined over 25 years. I've lived in that area for exactly that time and my perception is that they have increased very substantially. By some oversight I never started compiling statistics but there are plenty of good reasons for the increase.

For a start, there is still quite a lot of industry going on, thankfully. Smaller scale so less obvious, but busy. For another thing, because modern HGVs are more manouvrable, they get to more places. Activities like construction are increasingly reliant on heavy machinery and materials brought in and out by heavy vehicles. Thanks to a shift in logistics best practice from once-a-week drops to just-in-time daily drops, there are many more delivery vehicles of all kinds, whose drivers are often forced to block roads and pavements. There are many more foreign and satnav-dependent wagon drivers getting lost in our funky labyrinth. And let's not forget that many apparently private cars will actually be there on business.

There is little doubt in my mind that central Hebden Bridge is probably squeezing in more goods and business vehicles now than it ever did.

From Jenny B

Monday, 22 September 2014

As far as I can recall, there were several trouser manufacturers in the area of Valley/ Victoria Road (Redmans; CWS; Astins were just 3). The egg packing factory, The trophy place, Shepherds and of course the Fire Station, with a couple of shops in the area too it all made for a busy industrial area with plenty of HGV movement. I might be wrong but was the feed hopper manufacturer around there too once?

All the housing in the area is a clue to the history - mill workers homes.

From Julie C

Monday, 22 September 2014

The traffic movements in the past don't relate to the town as it is now. Now there is much more traffic in general, lots of people come from further afield and many more local people drive to the shops. Most of those mill workers from years ago did not have cars. People tended to work fairly nearby, they walked to work, or got the bus.

The traffic layout has also changed totally, Bridge Gate is traffic free, so is the Square. The focus in the centre of town is to be Pedestrian friendly. Yes there is still a necessity for access for some heavy traffic sometimes, just not constant big wagons every working day.

It is not just Valley Road, Regent Street, Hangingroyd, and the Bridge that are impacted, it is also the corner by Innovation, the turning by the White Lion, and the Junction at the bottom of Birchcliffe and near the Library at Albert St that will have problems, especially if deliveries are heading from the Tod direction.

Previously

HebWeb News: Calderdale throws out Sainsbury's plans. (16 Sept 2014)

HebWeb Forum: Sainsbury's survey (Feb-March 2014)

Save our Shops supermarket survey

HebWeb Forum: Sainsbury's and Tesco's (Dec 2013-Feb 2014)

HebWeb News: Sainsbury's plans now online (30 Jan 2014)

HebWeb News: Protests as Town Council discusses the Sainsburys bid (8 Jan 2014)