To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Asda’s resubmitted application contains rebuttals of various concerns raised by the planning committee.

They include:

Size of store - Asda says that the proposed store is appropriate considering other similar district centres, and as a site capable of competing with out-of-town facilities. The business, community and leisure uses of the site comply with Norwich’s local plan.

Car parking and design - The 334-space car park was the “optimal design solution” and made the most efficient use of space for a development suitable as a district centre, said Asda. The design used the landscape of the site to determine the orientation of the buildings.

Sustainable transport access - A second set of doors to Asda from Hall Road would have required “cluttered environment” of steps and ramps, and may have stopped customers passing the other shop units.

Loss of trees - The plans include the planting of new trees throughout the site to attract native wildlife, with landscaped areas on two corners, something which Asda says outweighs the loss of protected trees on site.

Plans for a £122m Asda superstore development in Norwich are back on the table.

The supermarket chain has resubmitted a proposal for the former Bally Shoe factory site near Tuckswood, identical to that rejected by Norwich City Council’s planning committee just three weeks ago.

The application was refused by five votes to four, though two Labour members who could have swung the vote were missing from the meeting.

Asda said it was returning with unchanged proposals because of the public support for the development, which included a Norwich Evening News poll showing that 79pc of nearly 1,000 readers thought the committee had got the decision wrong.

In the wake of the committee’s decision to refuse permission, city council leader Brenda Arthur lamented the loss of up to 400 jobs the development would have created.

The plans are for a 5,796 sq m superstore, gym, pub, community centre, 334-space car park and other shops at the derelict site on Hall Road, and could be voted on before Christmas.

Councillors had expressed concerns at several aspects of the application, despite their officers’ recommendation to approve the plans on the grounds that the economic benefits outweighed the negatives.

The four Green party councillors and a Liberal Democrat who voted against the plans said the store was too dominant for a district centre, would lead to the loss of trees, was not accessible enough to pedestrians and cyclists and had an excessively large car park – concerns which Asda rejected in the cover letter to its second application (see panel).

Claire Stephenson, leader of the Green group on Norwich City Council, said accepting the plans a second time around would be “a wasted opportunity for Norwich”.

She said: “Asda has behaved disgracefully by resubmitting an identical application.

“I’m very disappointed that the council couldn’t do better for Norwich.

“It appears that Asda have got the message that Labour councillors will vote for anything that is put in, and therefore they have realised they don’t need to improve the application.”

Green councillors had argued that the development should include new homes, as early versions of the plans had done.

Ms Stephenson added: “If this application is passed, Labour councillors will have thrown away improvements which could have included 200 homes, better access for pedestrians and cyclists and better biodiversity. I think that’s a great shame and a wasted opportunity.”

She said that she trusted her councillors to vote for the best option for Norwich, and insisted they would make the decision based on the evidence in front of them.

“I’m surprised they didn’t put in a better application in the first place and it is a shame the city is going to end up with not having an improved application,” she said.

Philip Bartram, ASDA senior property communications manager, said the supermarket had been “surprised and somewhat disappointed” at the committee’s decision in September, given officers’ recommendations and public opinion.

“As a result of this, and after careful consideration, we have decided to resubmit the proposal and now await the outcome of the planning process,” he said.

“The public reaction to the decision taken by the planning committee was substantial and played a role in the decision-making process regarding the resubmission.

“The vast majority of comments and feedback from the public, which were highlighted in the media, were clearly in favour of the proposals and we believe reflect the fact that this is a development people want to see take shape.”

Mr Bartram said feedback from the committee and the public were considered before the plans were resubmitted, but that Asda stood by the original proposals “which we believe deliver the best possible mix of uses for the site.”

15 comments

  • Asda is owned by Walmart - an American uber-corporation which is a huge employer in 16 countries. It is the largest private employer in the US and Mexico and nearly so in Canada. They are incredibly successful with their "big box - low price" strategy. As they are so huge several studies have been done on their impact on local economies when they set up. A study by the University of Missouri found that a new Walmart created 100 jobs in net retail employment in the county, half of which disappeared over the next 5 years as other retail establishments close. Another study in Nebraska looked at 2 Walmarts, one which had just arrived and was cutting prices to the bone and the other which was established and "they had successfully destroyed the local economy, there was a sort of economic crater with Walmart in the middle and in that community prices were 17% higher". Walmart hates unions and has a track record of poor employer - employee relations leading to an annual turnover of 70% of the workforce. There is a documentary called "The High Cost of Low Price." You get an idea of the power of these huge corporations when they feel try to dictate to the elected representatives of a city with the arrogance to put this proposal back on the table. Norwich has been Red forever and now it is turning Green - neither party can look at Walmart and say they like it.

    Report this comment

    oldowl

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • Which is the city of Norwich most in need of - houses or yet another supermarket? I just hope the planners consider this. I haven't seen any reports of fights over lack of goods in current supermarkets so assume there are sufficient for all. Of course if houses are built there will be less agricultural land taken for houses and guess what food is grown .

    Report this comment

    jennifer jane

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • none are so blind as those who can't see. How far would Abraham bend over for a company such as this to break the planning regulation and planning brief? Why should they be allowed to do so and others are not? And who advised them to bring the same application back to planning? Are these powerful multinationals playing with small local authorities until they get their way? Until said authority can't afford to waste good money on lawyers and has to cave in? Bringing back the same application is taking the mickey, it is brown nosing the council. Jobs? do you mean the one's lost in small businesses, in favour of monotone retailers who use our young school leavers on slave labour schemes. Will they be called apprenticeships? And are these the sort of apprenticeships NCC have in mind funding with our money?

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • Once again, my first comment was binned in an attempt to streamline comments in favour of this despicable re-run of the same planning applications. This is an abuse of the planning system by mob rule. In no way can comments on inciting article's in a newspaper, with leading questions directing the majority of debate towards a planning outcome other than the one adopted, are allowed to form the background for an appeal. Norwich is littered with large retail outlets and the company in question does not need a second store. Norwich's retail outlets generate pollution and traffic, they are making small village stores and post offices unviable, when energy costs are going up, an unsustainable solution to our service requirements.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • Thanks for the advertisements, Foxey, cheque's in the post. By using a public poll of a newspaper to underline their planning application which does not concur to the brief they had been giving, this US giant is making a mockery of our planning laws and uses mob pressure to get its way. I'm sure Ms. Arthur will apply her brand of party pressure to cllr.s and get it passed against the planning laws.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • ingo, the green thingy job k*llers and anti-democracy party, cited “If you look at the latest satellite pictures of the North Pole you can see the ice shrinking in front of your eyes. We should not be encouraging projects like this, which burn up fuel."....D'oh!!! the latest satellite picture now shows the ice reforming, vote Asda in..simples.

    Report this comment

    nrg

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • It is absolutely disgraceful, not to mention arrogant that a company actually resubmits an identical planning application to one previously rejected. If it passes planning, there must be a full investigation carried out on any members of the planning committee voting in favour of it who did not attend the last meeting, and anyone else who changes their vote to pass it. This smacks of nothing more than a dirty deal.

    Report this comment

    Honest John

    Monday, October 15, 2012

  • Hope they get it right this time,if they have their heads screwed on right.I would like an Asda for myself and people who live at LakenhamTuckswood who dont drive although people think Sainsburys and Tesco are close.Perhaps they should try walking there and back with lots of shopping or waiting for a bus that may or may not turn up.and have to rush around to pick children up out of school etc not everybody has cars.It has been suggested that people who live in this area have lots of choice with large supermarkets but not all people own a car let alone a second car,and for older people Sainsburys and Tesco is quite a walk for them.Its an excellent location.Also I liked the George collection of clothes that they had in Castle Mall which they closed.If you visit the Asda on Sweet Briar rd you can never hardly get a parking space,and there is traffic everywhere getting from Tuckswood to Sweet Briar rd.They wont regret bringing life to this area,plus it wont effect the City as there are lots of visitors and lots more people living in Norwich so the city centre gets very very busy so this would even things out and also you dont usually buy lots of food shopping in the city centre.People living in this are will always go to the city.Sure I will like I have all my life,and I have lived in Norwich all of my life and my family for years.Bring Asda here can only be a good thing.

    Report this comment

    foxey

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • I'm all in favour of a new Asda Supermarket. One stipulation, there should be no customer self service checkouts. If they are sincere about making jobs available, they will agree to this.

    Report this comment

    Dennis Wall

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • Asda are wasting planners' time and council taxpayers' money by submitting an identical proposal, in the hope that the two additional Labour councillors will turn up and vote this time. The proposal and reasons for rejection haven't changed and the plans should be rejected as before. The proposal will not create lots of jobs. People will not magically buy more - they will simply go to Asda instead of other shops. Thus any new jobs in the Asda store will be balanced by the loss of jobs in other shops.

    Report this comment

    DrJB

    Monday, October 15, 2012

  • What right does Ingo have to say that Asda do not need another store? They are in a competetive market and its up to them to make a success or not of it. Why cant the people of south Norwich and the surrouinding area not have a choice of where to shop? Surely this is all about choice , competition and potential new jobs and improved facilities for the area. Lets hope that sense prevails this time and the one agenda politicos can go and try and interfere elsewhere.

    Report this comment

    Abraham

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • The comments for and against this proposal are equally valid and persuasive. My own view is strongly for this development. Anyone of like mind is advised to lobby the local Green Party and Liberal Democrats...after all this is supposed to be a democracy.

    Report this comment

    dancer7

    Sunday, October 14, 2012

  • This may just about be legal - see section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - but it is still a total abuse of the planning system. Asda should either have appealed to the Secretary of State or submitted a revised development scheme to Norwich City Council reflecting the reasons for the ealier refusal. What has changed in the meantime? Nothing of a material nature. There has just been a range of (largely) unqualified comment reported. If Norwich City Council decides this time to grant planning permission, what message does that send out to all commercial developers? It will be the equivalent of saying "if you are unsuccessful on the first occasion, just put the same application in a second time and you may get lucky". That is not what proper development control is about.

    Report this comment

    Nemesis

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • I am not bothered whether this goes ahead or not but what I don't like is every time a supermarket chain applies for planning permission for a new store, the local media is suddenly full of headlines about the hundreds of jobs that will be created. This of course shows a public relations company doing a very professional job. One immediate point is that of course most of these jobs will actually be part time, sometimes as little as one shift a week. The headline figures in hundreds reduce to far fewer full time equivalent posts. And most of these jobs will also be low-paid. It is also worthwhile pondering where these new jobs come from and what the repercussions are elsewhere in the local economy. When big supermarkets develop a new site, smaller convenience stores are obviously hit. Here the impact can be more severe. Sometimes their larger rival will drive them out of business. Other supermarkets will also lose trade cut employees hours and not take on any new staff. So all this nonsense about creating 300 jobs is exactly that nonsense

    Report this comment

    John L Norton

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

  • What is the point of all the time of Officers and Councillors in drawing up a policy, if big superstores can override it by muscling in? If the policy is right, then this application has to be turned down again by committee, or the City risk legal objections by competitors.

    Report this comment

    bedoomed

    Saturday, October 13, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 8°C

min temp: 6°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT