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.