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.

Birmingham's vision

Over the past few months I have been on a training course with Common Purpose about leadership and the Total Place concept for Birmingham, showing how we need to work together to achieve the Birmingham 2026 vision. There have also been seminars and talks where this has been discussed alongside the reality of public service cuts in the offing, such as Monday's event at the MAC.

The vision is a good one as far as we're concerned, with really good aspirations for Birmingham to become a greener, more sustainable city. Birmingham also has a Climate Change Action Plan, which begins to show how the council is going to achieve the ambitious target it has for cutting CO2 emissions by 60% by 2026. Yesterday I went along to the first ever cabinet committee meeting on Climate Change and sustainability, where they talked about this plan and the progress that has been made in moving towards the goals it contains.

All of this sounds very positive and should be cause for celebration, but at the moment, with so many public sector jobs under threat and funding cuts for many really good projects already starting to bite or in the pipeline, it is quite hard to be quite that positive about delivery. Birmingham is a city with many talented and dedicated people who really want to make a difference, but the concern is that if all the regional agencies and support mechanisms for local authorities are removed, a large vacuum will be left and all the energy will disappear into it.

Total Place is potentially a good concept, but most of the talk amongst the participants on the course has been about how many people are losing their jobs. There are inspiring ideas and there is a real desire amongst most of the people there to be recognised as public servants who really are serving the public, not being bashed for doing "non-jobs" by politicians (who probably want public attention deflected away from them after their expenses scandals last year).

The most important thing is that the leadership at the council take on real responsibility for the actions happening and I was encouraged by at least one councillor at the meeting yesterday saying that he would do exactly that. It is also up to all of us to show leadership and to remind the politicians of what we've told them when consulted in the preparation of all these visions.

Policy on the ground has to match up to the visions, meaning local business is supported (while large supermarkets and chainstores aren't given planning permission) and people are given the employment opportunities, independent retail outlets and leisure facilities they need locally to reduce the need to travel. If developments such as Tesco in Yardley Wood or Moseley and Asda in Weoley Castle are granted permission, this sets the city on the wrong course, as does the refusal of planning permission to put solar panels on St Mary's church.

Let's get everything joined up and make sure a vision of a sustainable city does come to life. Cuts are on the way, so are massive challenges to stop the big society becoming hugely disappointed with promises not materialising into action.

Joe Peacock