Including Women Event and Neighbourhood Planning

Last week, I was invited along to an event organised by Including Women in Balsall Heath. Strangely, there were two men there, both called Joe and both with an interest in planning - what does that tell you? Anyway, I was asked to speak about our campaigns from global to local level.
I chose food, because we ran a campaign called Fix The Food Chain last year, which raised awareness of the links between what we eat, deforestation happening in South America, Global injustice and Climate Change. On the local level we have been supportive of grow-sites being developed on small pieces of derelict land in Birmingham, so that people can grow their own food, as well as attempting to protect small independent shops from supermarkets taking over the city.
Also speaking were Val from the History Society who spoke about how the neighbourhood has changed over the years and showing some really interesting pictures to illustrate it and Joe Holyoak who ran a session getting people to think about what they want to go into the neighbourhood plan.

It was great to hear people's views on what they would like to be done differently (even if not everything could be changed by the planning process) and, once again, it showed that the kinds of things we ask for in terms of safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists are actually what people with no environmental agenda also ask for.

I'll be really interested to see what comes out of the Balsall Heath neighbourhood plan. From what was said in this meeting, it's hard to imagine that it'll be as focused as the government wants on encouraging more development and more economic activity, but will be about stopping certain types of development, such as more big "shed" retail developments on the old Joseph Chamberlain site, which is positive as far as we're concerned.
I hope that mixed use and employment land is created within the plan for walkable spaces to provide something for an area with high density housing and high unemployment. I also hope that people learn about the good stuff that already exists within Balsall Heath that needs to be supported while they're having these conversations.

Joe Peacock

New Supermarkets vs. Unemployment

Unemployment in Birmingham is a huge problem. As Paul Dale, Public Affairs Editor of The Birmingham Post, recently said on twitter "Unemployment rate in Brum 12.9 per cent. A human tragedy, and a disgrace."

And he’s not wrong. In the West Midlands alone, unemployment rose by 8,000 (to a total 234,000 people) between June and August this year. (http://tinyurl.com/62peuoz)

Therefore, the fact that the majority of the newly proposed supermarkets are claiming that they will be able to provide thousands of jobs has been a major argument in favour of them. In fact, when looking into their potential development, it is impossible to avoid seeing the huge numbers of jobs they claim they will be offering, pulling people out of unemployment. (See this link for an example - http://tinyurl.com/6hpsxkf)
However, a study has shown that supermarket creation was proven to actually decrease employment. The study, (found here http://tinyurl.com/6ex7m6z), cites Association of Convenience Stores Chief Executive, James Lowman, explaining how “we know all too well the damage that can be done to high streets if the wrong supermarket is built in the wrong place. Local businesses often have to cut staff and some even are forced to close as a result of a new development nearby.” Therefore, the number of opportunities offered by supermarkets is completely negated by the amount of jobs lost when other businesses are overwhelmed.

Considering how big an issue unemployment is currently in Birmingham, the seemingly endless newly proposals of supermarkets/supermarket extensions the result could be catastrophic. More unemployment is absolutely the last thing we want.

Asda's "Consulting" Practices

Asda has a long record of using misleading "consultations" in areas where they are planning to build a new store. The supermarket retailer's latest one is in Stirchley where they are bidding to get approval for their 40,000 sq.ft. superstore.

ASDA announced an "overwhelmingly positive" public response in their press release of 20/05/2011. On closer examination however, it is clear that this feedback is based on a very limited number of responses (129 out of a potential of roughly 350, by their own reckoning) and in response to some very questionable questions. "92% of those who commented would appreciate a more local and convenient food shopping option"; wouldn't we all?! Responses like this have shamelessly been used as 'proof' of support for ASDA's plans, despite the fact that there is no link at all to show that shoppers actually want ASDA as their 'local and convenient shopping option'. In fact, a recent poll has been published demonstrating quite the opposite. Furthermore, it was a poll of local residents - those people who would arguably be most affected by the project, and stand to gain or lose the most - not unspecified traders or the MP (just some of the members who attended ASDA's exhibition). We do not know for example, if the traders or people involved and invited to the event have a vested interest in ASDA getting the go ahead.

In any case, the most striking thing about the "positive response" is the questionnaire, to go back to that. "98% of those that commented said the area would benefit from the creation of new jobs." But this not only doesn't specify that people would support ASDA as a jobs-provider necessarily, given the circumstances (and given the poor record they have of treating their staff well and generally being ethical); it also shows how ASDA are using blatantly skewed questions in the first place to get people 'on their side'.

The latest attempt at skewing public opinion seems to be with regards to a survey sent out by the local councillors, as described in this article in the Birmingham Post. Councillor Dawkins said: “It is essential that not only is our survey impartial but it must be seen to be impartial and the last thing we need is an orchestrated effort by Asda to manipulate the result in their favour thus bringing the entire survey into disrepute.”

Let's hope that they aren't successful and that for once the council's planning committee will see sense when it comes to unsustainable and unsuitable supermarket developments.

Super Stirchley fights back against ASDA

On Tuesday evening I went to a lively meeting at the British Oak pub in Stirchley where over 40 passionate local residents and shop-keepers came together under the banner "Super Stirchley".

They were there to discuss what can be done to stop a large ASDA supermarket being given planning permission and also how they can promote their vision of a vibrant and exciting high street.

Tom Baker of Loaf has been a real driving force behind this, but he is certainly not alone and it seems that there is a lot of strong feeling in Stirchley about the issue now. Hopefully, this time the council planning officers will listen to local people rather than big business (unlike in Moseley).

There are very strong reasons why this planning application should be refused:

Traffic and Transport

Another large supermarket will drastically increase traffic, impact on local air quality, safety of pedestrians, particularly local school children, and work to make the Pershore Road corridor a ‘smart route’. ASDA’s traffic data does not reassure me that there will not be a significant negative impact on the health of Stirchley. I therefore urge the council to do carry out a thorough, independent and transparent assessment of the traffic and transport issues.

Poor design

The design does not connect the store to the local high street, meaning it will have a negative impact on trade and attempts to rejuvenate the area. It is also well outside of Stirchley’s ‘retail core’ as identified in the Stirchley Framework SPD, and reiterated in the recent draft Birmingham Core Strategy. The loss of high street parking, the three-lane vehicular access from the Pershore road that crudely cuts through the established building line (contrary to the Birmingham UDP), and consequent poor pedestrian access to the site from the high street are also of concern.

Proof of Need

With the existing CO-OP and the approved and pending TESCO, there will already be considerable supermarket provision in Stirchley. The need for a third supermarket should be fully proven and independently scrutinised. The land could be used for more pressing requirements such as employment, housing or leisure as identified in the draft Core Strategy LDF (s10): “Outside the [retail] core encouragement will be given to conversion and redevelopment for high quality residential, office and non retail uses.”

The Local Economic Impact

Along with the loss of parking spaces, the high volume of car traffic will impede the local businesses’ ability to trade, not only in Stirchley, but also in Bournville, Cotteridge, Selly Park, and Kings Heath. I also fear a loss of skilled, entrepreneurial jobs in the local area as the National Retail Planning Forum conclude that on average a new large supermarket leads to 276 job losses within a 10-mile radius.

Shops in Stirchley will be collecting objections to the planning application, as will members of Super Stirchley at the CoCoMad festival this weekend. If you care about the future of Stirchley and keeping a thriving local high street there, please go to the council website and search for Planning application 2011/03485/PA (Land off Pershore Road/Fordhouse Lane Former Arvin Meritor Works Stirchley Birmingham B30 3BW). Object either using some of the points listed here, or your own objections before 7th July.

Tesco Taking Over

A new Tesco store has been approved for construction in Moseley, in the face of overwhelming opposition from local residents. Despite more than 2000 signatures gathered on petitions against the new store, and an initial rejection from the local council planning committee, the new development will be built on the derelict Meteor Ford site, and will consist of a Tesco store, sheltered housing and a medical centre.

An article in the local press gave a very one-sided look at the impact of Tesco stores, ignoring all the evidence of trade being taken away from local shops, the benefits of spending money with local businesses where that money is then recycled into the local community and not mentioning the business practices they use which trample over small producers and farmers

Residents are primarily opposed to the new store because of fears that it will divert trade away from local independent businesses. The developers claim that the store is needed to win back a market share in the surrounding areas of Hall Green, Kings Heath and Small Heath. This is unlikely however, as the store will not be large enough to detract from large supermarkets in the area, but still large enough to draw business away from Moseley High Street. Again, developers claim that the types of businesses in Moseley are generally high end shops and so will not be in direct competition with Tesco. However, the examples they cite as high end shops are all food retailers, and it is hard to believe that a supermarket primarily selling food will not be in direct competition with independent food outlets such as sandwich shops and bakeries.

Furthermore, the location of the new store is on the outskirts of Moseley as opposed to in the centre, which poses the problem of convenience. As it is based away from the main shopping area in Moseley, shoppers are less likely to utilise the Tesco for goods which were not available in the High Street. It is more likely that they will simply fulfil all of their shopping needs at Tesco, which will definitely take business away from local retailers.

The other major concern is that of increased traffic congestion around the site. The proposed plans have allowed for 103 parking spaces, which for a store of this size is relatively low. Add to that visitors to the health centre and residents, and the amount of parking really seems inadequate. The new store will most likely attract interest from outside of Moseley, such as commuters passing by and residents from other constituencies. All of these factors will lead to increased traffic passing through Moseley, as well as inevitable congestion due to the lack of parking.

Delivery vehicles will be accessing the site via a residential road, which will cause additional traffic problems, but more significantly will increase the levels noise disturbance experienced by residents, particularly during out of hours deliveries. Certain plans have been put into place to make the roads more suitable for increased traffic and encourage public transport and walking to the site. However, due to the size of location of the store, it seems unlikely that many shoppers will use alternatives to simply driving there.

Just five years ago there were only three major Tescos in Birmingham. Now, including Tesco Express shops, there are 33 stores across the city. Changes in legislation in recent years has made it easier for companies to expand, due to it now being much more difficult for councils to turn down planning applications unless they directly affect other planned building developments. It a disgrace that despite Moseley residents clearly not wanting a large supermarket in their area, and doing everything they could to stop it, the plans will go ahead. The developers have "apologised" for bullying the council into getting their way, but this is no consolation to the people who will be affected. Big supermarkets are rarely stopped and are forcing more and more independent retailers to close, leaving empty retail units all over town.

The hope is that this doesn’t discourage protest against future developments of a similar nature. Councillors voted equally for and against the plans, and it was only due to this tied situation that a further vote had to be cast and the decision went ahead. So don’t be disheartened, some people are listening, the core strategy consultation has included a number of anti-supermarkets comments, so let's hope these are now included to protect our local businesses.

Joe Osborne

Conference reflections - big society

On the opening evening of our national conference this year, we had two speakers; Ken Livingstone who provided us with few surprises and a fairly safe speech for that audience and Phillip Blond, who is the architect of David Cameron's big society idea and one of the most provocative speakers you could wish to hear.

Now provocative doesn't necessarily mean good and a lot of the time people were just tearing their hair out at the stuff he was coming out with, such as re-legalising hunting as a way of ensuring conservation of the countryside and the fact that Tories have always been caring with the rights of those working the land very well looked after through history (sorry don't remember the exact details, but it was dismissed by some knowledgeable friends, anyway). I should watch it again to remind myself as the links to both talks and the Q&A session are available here.

However, some of the things he was saying were actually quite sensible - about talking to people about the areas around them and ensuring they feel they can have an effect on those things they care about. The trouble is that he didn't seemed to have a clue that this is what FoE is all about anyway and thought that we were just another environmental campaigns organisation who only ever talk about climate change in the big scary international sense and don't talk to people about local environmental justice.

The other problem I had with what he was saying was that in all the talk of rolling back the state and creating local control, he also acknowledged the need to get away from the big business model, but there was nothing to suggest how this could be achieved unless by state regulation. It's all very well talking about mutuals and cooperatives, with local suppliers helping each other, but when they're constantly faced with poorly regulated, incredibly wealthy multinational companies as competition, it is very hard for them to succeed.

This can be seen with the demise of local shops and smaller businesses all over the country and especially the terrible state of the farming industry being dictated to by supermarkets. A really important test of whether the green measures we take will lead to a better, fairer society will be whether there is a proper Green New Deal with sustainable local jobs created, or whether big business will steamroller in and take all the profits, while employing people on short-term contracts and then discarding them as soon as possible.

If the Big Society just means cutting the state, putting millions of people out of work and expecting business or volunteers to take over all of this socially valuable work that is currently done by public servants, it will not create any kind of just or sustainable society. If, however, it is done as a reshaping of the way we value control over business practices to ensure justice and freedom from exploitation, with curbs on the power of corporations and a move to more cooperative and mutually beneficial models of business, that is something many of us would sign up to.

Birmingham Friends of the Earth has always done the volunteering part of the big society, because we recognise the value you get from interacting with people and making a difference to your surroundings. What we want from government is support in that for all third sector organisations who do amazing work around the country, not funding cuts and also a recognition that the real power is financial not political. That means the first priority to creating a just society where people will want to take part is to use state power to create those business conditions that favour local small-scale enterprise and to ensure that the most polluting, unsustainable industries do not leave all of us to pick up the bill in future generations.

Joe Peacock

Points to include in the objection to Moseley Tesco

We thought it would be a good idea to make it easier for people to make objections to the planning application to the Tesco store in Moseley, which is potentially very damaging to the sustainability of the independent shops in the area. Therefore, we have put together a few points that you could use, but objections must be in before tomorrow 1st April.

• site is not large enough to 'claw back' significant amounts of trade from Kings Heath as the retail assessment says. Much more likely to divert trade from the supermarkets in Moseley centre whose parking is further away.
• It's an edge of centre site because it's separated from the centre by a busy junction. People will not walk down to the centre to use the other shops. So a store of this size here (and with parking) is likely to divert trade from Moseley's main shopping area and its diversity of shops, which will damage the viability of the existing centre.

• there is not enough space for parking on the site for all the uses envisaged. This will cause illegal parking problems and congestion.

• Lack of space means deliveries will need to be very early and therefore in a large lorry, which will cause noise problems

• Because deliveries require a large lorry, the plans feature widened roadspace at the junctions, which is contrary to guidance for residential areas and will endanger pedestrians.

• It will increase traffic considerably at what is already a very congested and problematic junction (Oxford and Wake Green rds), and this in turn is likely to affect the very busy junction with the Alcester Road.

Go to www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningonline - click access planning online, and copy in the application number 2009/05931/PA into the 'application number search' and click 'search'. It'll bring up one reference, click on the application number link and you'll get the details including a bit that says "add comments here" click that and write your comments. You don't have to use these, but they are here to give you some ideas.

So, get objecting now and save the Moseley area from this unwanted development.

Swan Centre- an update

The Birmingham Mail have published more about the lack of development at the Swan centre and Developer Jeremy Knight-Adams and local MP John Hemming.

There is more information is on John Hemmings Blog regarding Jeremy Knight-Adams actions, which says Jeremy Knight-Adams is objecting to the compulsory purchase order as the development is unsuitable and they have come up with alternative scheme.

Sadly, I can only find a news item on the website and am unable to find detailed information on the website, so have emailed them for more information.

UPDATE: Received an email referring to a full website that describes the alternative proposal for the Swan Centre site.

Swan Centre- has the Tesco project stalled?

Funny goings on are happening at the Swan Centre, in Yardley which I live nearby. A planning application for a Tesco development was given late last year and so the plan was that the Tesco would open spring 2010. This was all dependant on the A4040 road being diverted over green space allowing space for Tesco to have a large car park outside their store.

All things seem to be going to plan as over the summer the market and car park building was demolished, so I thought it wouldn't be long until they started to do the road works. However, its all stalled. I know they have a tight deadline to get this open by spring 2010 so wondered what had happened.

I then spotted this article the Birmingham Mail, which explains that the development has been unable to compulsory purchased of some land owned by a Mr Knight-Adams, a Malvern-based entrepreneur. He has objected to the purchase and has forced a public enquiry.

Why you wonder has he objected? He is opposed to the Tesco plan and believes "Yardley needs a comprehensive mixed use scheme which will provide opportunities for smaller businesses as well as other facilities that benefit the community."

The inquiry outcome is expected by the end of the year. So I guess it will be a spring 2011 before we get anything at the Swan Centre, which is tragic. The area really needs a boost as the redevelopment of the area has been dragging on, the market traders had to move out years ago and gradually shops have been leaving the Swan centre so it really does leave a sad picture at the Swan. However, I agree with Mr Knight-Adams that a mixed use scheme would provide better opportunities for smaller businesses and the arrival of a large supermarket to the Swan is also a worry to local shopping areas such as Acocks Green and Yardley.

So interesting times ahead, does this mean that the the planning system has become ineffective and the only effective way of stopping or stalling developments is buy buying an interest in the development. Does this mean only those with money behind them will get to effectively fight these new developments? Already there is the national Greenpeace campaign airplot, where people are buying a piece of the land in the middle of the proposed third runway site at Heathrow. And we have an example of this in action in Birmingham, so watch this space and see how the inquiry at the Swan centre pans out.

Supermarket "sniffing" around at the dogs home?

Again there is mention in the press about a supermarket buying the land off the RSPCA in Barnes Hill

The last time I contacted Deidre Alden, the local councillor, she was denied hearing anything.
However in 2007, Asda went around the areas of Barnes Hill and Selly Oak gaining opinions in a development, and I posted ASDA: Consulting the public or a forgone conclusion?

This is worrying development as this would be on the land of the Dogs home and a green area leading to a park so more of the green space of Brum being eaten away. Going back to what I wrote in 2007:

"It seems that the Barnes Hill site is sparking more controversy. After some investigating, the site includes the RSPCA which is owned by the City Council which Deirdre Alden mentions in her blog but doesn’t mention that the site takes up a green area adjacent or part of the Woodgate, a designated country park which is owned by the City Council. So yet another piece of green land is threatened by a supermarket. Already the developments at the Yardley and Hodge Hill are taking green spaces in the city and now it looks like more green land is threatened in the South edge of the city."

It looks like we need to get our coffin out again to bury supermarkets before it starts digging up our green space and the pets cemetery at the dogs home.

ASDA: Consulting the public or a forgone conclusion?

ASDA has recently been putting surveys around the Selly Oak and Weoley Castle area about plans for two supermarkets. ASDA are asking for public opinions on two sites: one in Selly Oak opposite Battery Retail Park and one in Barnes Hill, in the Weoley Castle area.

Under close examination the Selly Oak option looks highly suspect as a viable project. The planned supermarket would be opposite Battery Retail park, which already has a supermarket onsite and has approved planning applications to redevelop the area. So its very unlikely that the Council would want to allow another development in the area. In contrast, the Weoley Castle area has no nearby supermarket neighbours just a thriving local shopping centre.

When you to look at the plans of Selly Oak they are not well developed with the car park not clearly defined and some car-parking spaces not even big enough for a mini! Also in the plans are triangular retail units - not really practical for a viable shop. There are no plans for a petrol station or recycling facilities in the Selly Oak plans whereas the Barnes Hill these have all been planned and laid out as well as proposed road changes.

So why are ASDA asking the local community about these two proposals? To make residents and Councillors feel like they are being given a choice, thereby backing the Council into a corner and making the council feel obliged to allow the Barnes Hill project. I argue that if they present two plans, they have a better chance of getting the Barnes Hill supermarket than just presenting it as a standalone application. It is not a choice of yes or no, it’s either one site or the other.

There have been other supermarket sneaky tactics happening around the UK for the developers to get what they want. In Birmingham we have seen a lot of these tactics. At the Swan Centre in Yardley the plans for a new Tesco were passed by the City Council but at the last minute the plans where adjusted to allow them to build on an area of the local park opposite for extra car-parking. As this was a last minute change the council allowed it as they needed some development at the Swan and if they delayed it again, it would mean that the area would be further delayed in re-development. In Hodge Hill, playing fields were not allowed to be used for football matches for years so that the land can be considered as less important as a community facility and therefore open it up for development. Local residents there are still campaigning to save their children’s playing fields despite the Tesco plans having already been approved by Birmingham City Council.

I think we have to stop the march of the supermarkets as its going to kill off the High Street. The supermarket power and monopolisation of the food sector results in the closure of local shops and this has so many implications:
- On the local economy, rather than creating jobs, they result in fewer jobs overall once local shops have closed. Supermarkets employ fewer staff per square metre of retail space they own.
- Supermarkets take money away from the local economy. Research by the New Economics Foundation found that every £1 spent in a local shop is worth four times more to the local economy than every pound spent in a supermarket. Local shops typically invest far more in the local economy than big businesses with shareholders and suppliers abroad.

You only need to go out to the now moth-balled Maypole shopping centre to see the damage a supermarket can do to a local shopping centre. We have to join together to show our Councillors that we are not prepared to allow huge superstores that do not have local interests at heart to come in and dominate our communities.

Mary Horesh