Redevelopment of Farnborough town centre

When we look more closely at the hidden costs of supermarkets, the choice, convenience and value they supposedly offer becomes questionable. By putting small independent retailers out of business, they are hardly providing choice. By forcing consumers to use their cars for their weekly shop, they are hardly convenient, and when we calculate the cost to the taxpayer, small farmers, our health and the environment of 'cheap food', it doesn't seem such good value. -- Corporate Watch

Our research has shown that large foodstores can and have had an adverse impact on market towns and district centres ... The level and consequence of impact will vary depending on the particular local circumstances ... Smaller centres which are dependent to a large extent on convenience retailing to underpin their function are most vulnerable to the effects of large foodstore development in edge-of-centre and out-of-centre locations. -- DETR

A superstore is a neutron bomb. It wipes out commercial life for streets around, while its parking spaces jam the traffic ... -- Simon Jenkins

The supermarket industry is a cut-throat business where companies try to kill each other off. -- Sir Archie Norman, former boss of Asda

It's not good enough. We have got only 5% of the non-food market. We have 18% of the grocery market and there's 90% of the non-food market to go for. And we are up against overpriced high street stores. There's a lot left to go for. -- David Reid, deputy chairman of Tesco

KPI application for demolition and redevelopment of the northern half of Farnborough town centre.

Planning ref: 01/00377/OUT

These supplementary comments should be read in conjunction with my previous report of November 2002.

• http://www.heureka.clara.net/surrey-hants/kpi.htm

The main criticism of the KPI application has to be that it is not sustainable development and does not accord with government planning guidelines on sustainable development. Government guidance calls for retention of and enhancement of open spaces, of the greening of town centres, of houses within town centres, reduction of the use of the car.

Destroying a small housing estate within yards of the town centre, destroying the quiet grassy area to be replaced by a tarmaced car park for a superstore is not sustainable development.

Has the borough sustainable development officer cast his eye over these proposals and given his view? If not, why not?

To destroy Firgrove Court is to destroy good quality housing stock. Yes, it is in poor state of repair, rotten windows, damp walls, water pouring off blocked gutters etc, but that is down to a bad landlord failing to carry out their repair responsibilities and negligence on behalf of the borough housing department to enforce repairs and to advise tenants of their rights. It is grounds for repair, it is not grounds for demolition.

Tenants in slum estates in Aldershot would be grateful for such accommodation.

Firgrove Court was aptly described by one of the residents as 'a quiet oasis'.

It is incorrect to say the loss of open space at Firgrove Court does not result in the loss of 'recreational space' as it is used by the residents of Firgrove Court, their friends and visitors. It is a safe area for the children to play. It is also used for communal activities.

It is claimed there is 'no space within the redevelopment to accommodate all the land required by [Local Plan] Policy OR4' and yet open space, that is currently used by local residents, is being lost at Firgrove Court for a car park (two net additional car parking spaces for each home destroyed, not counting the loss of open green space).

On the one hand planners are saying Firgrove Court is inefficient use of land, ie by providing recreational green space for the residents, on the other hand they are saying there is no space in the redevelopment for the provision of open space, as required by the Rushmoor Local Plan.

The elderly and those without private means of transport can just potter across the road and they are in the town centre. Not even true for the Solartron site

Contrary to what the planning committee was told at its last meeting on 2 June 2004, the tenants do not know where or when they are to be rehoused. Contrary to what the planning committee was told at its last meeting on 2 June 2004, many of the tenants do not wish to move.

Contrary to what the planning committee was told at its last meeting on 2 June 2004, the tenants are not being offered like-for-like accommodation. They are being forced out of maisonettes into two blocks of flats. Firgrove Court has a grassy area where the children can safely play. There will be no such area at the Solartron site.

The proposed superstore will face out of the town not into the town, that is why Firgrove Court is required as a car park. Instead of tying the town together, it will pull the town apart. It will straddle what is now the northern thoroughfare through the town centre. That is why KPI applied last summer to the Secretary of State for Highway Closures. KPI did not even have the courtesy to inform town centre retailers that they would be losing access (a concern expressed by Woolworth). Retailers learnt of the application for Highway Closures from members of the public. A superstore that is in all but name, an out-of-town superstore located on the edge of the town centre. People will drive into the store and back out again. There will be little leakage into the rest of the town. It will kill what is left of the town stone dead. This has happened with similar designs in other towns.

The car park, although not for the exclusive use of the superstore, is effectively so. If the superstore did not face outwards, with its own car park, guaranteeing minimum leakage to the rest of the town, no supermarket chain would be interested. The car park will have 277 parking spaces in total. Due to destruction of existing car parking by the redevelopment, this will be a net gain of only 57 parking spaces.

We are prepared to destroy 28 maisonettes for 57 car parking places! That is 2 extra car parking places for each home destroyed!

And that is not counting the lockup garages destroyed and the green area destroyed and the open space destroyed.

Considerably more than 57 empty car parking spaces exist in the town centre at any time of the day, including peak times.

Small retailers in pedestrianised streets, do not have car parking facilities for the exclusive use of their customers. Why therefore should a superstore be given an unfair trading advantage, especially when there is more than sufficient car parking space in the town?

The car park will have a fast service road running through its middle. An accident waiting to happen. Stressed shoppers, see their parked car, head straight for it, and the next thing they know they are being carted off to Frimley Park Hospital.

Do we even need another large superstore? We already have one large superstore in the town centre, within an area saturated by superstores. What is needed is a medium size supermarket, a little larger than the existing Sainsbury's, giving people genuine choice between a large superstore and a medium size store.

This is not a zero sum game. We are losing a large number of retailers to provide the footprint for the superstore. It is these small retailers, the backbone of any thriving town centre, who bring people into the town, a mixed retail environment. People do not come in for the same High Street stores they have in their own home town.

We used to have many small retailers in town, many were family businesses that had been there since the town centre had been built in the 1960s. All have been driven out by KPI.

Some new retailers come in. They stay a few months, lose a lot of money, then leave. Since Christmas/New Year, half a dozen more retailers have pulled out of Farnborough.

Two new retail blocks have been built. KPI were unable to attract the promised new retailers. All we have had is relocation of existing retailers, the few that remain, plus a mobile phone shop. What was claimed to be a prime site, the gateway to the newly revitalised town centre, is occupied by two charity shops! We have lost our last remaining independent baker. The units on The Mead have only been let because they were let at a peppercorn rent, otherwise they would still be lying empty. The quality of construction of these two new blocks, which do not match the rest of the town, is so poor that they will be outlasted by the shoddy 1960s buildings. The two new blocks are an eysore.

Sainsbury's? Why are Sainsbury's so silent on the fact they are coming to Farnborough?

Why would anyone in Aldershot drive to a Sainsbury's in Farnborough when they can drive to an out-of-town Tesco in Aldershot or an edge-of-town Sainsbury's in Farnham? And at least Farnham still has quality independent retailers, including butcher, baker and greengrocer, which is more than Farnborough has.

Debenhams have never indicated they are interested in extending their store. As the store is nearly empty most of the day, they are far more likely to follow the example of Dixons and pull out of Farnborough. At a retailers' meeting two years ago, Debenhams said if the retail situation did not improve, they would pull out when their lease expired. The retail climate, thanks to KPI, has considerably worsened since then. Until recently, Debenhams in Farnborough was used as a dumping ground for the rubbish their other department stores could not get rid of.

At its meeting on the 2 June 2004, the committee failed to discuss the human rights of the residents of Firgrove Court, not unless dismissing their human rights as 'a red herring' is classed as discussion of their rights.

No mention of the tenants who are living in the flats above the shops, KPI tenants. Do they have no rights?

Human rights only got a mention, if only to be dismissed as 'a red herring' because of legal action and the threat of further legal action.

Human rights are mentioned in the agenda for 30 June 2004. It is recognised that the human rights of residents of Firgrove Court are negated on at least two counts. It is also recognised that these rights can only be overridden for the common good. That is they cannot be overridden for the profit of a property developer. In this case it is admitted that they are being overridden for the benefit of a supermarket chain.

Human rights are being overridden to create a net two car parking places for each home destroyed.

The human rights of the people living in the flats above the shops are still being ignored.

The 'commercial viability' of KPI's plans is taking precedence over the human rights of members of the local community.

It is not true to say no one will be made homeless by this redevelopment. Whilst it is true that provisons, albeit totally unsatisfactory provisons, have been made for the residents in Firgrove Court, no such provisions have been made for the KPI tenants in the flats above the shops.

If approval is granted for demolition, the KPI tenants living in the flats above the shops will be evicted from their flats and made homeless.

It is falsely assumed that the proposed superstore is of advantage to the town. As its design, with the emphasis on minimizing leakage to the rest of the town necessitates its own car park resulting in the destruction of local housing, there is a net disbenefit. Further more, the loss of a large number of retail units, preventing small retailers ever coming back into the town, and the competition between the two superstores to the detriment of existing retailers, will add further to the disbenefits.

Thus far from being an asset to the town and part of any regeneration, the proposed superstore would lead to anything but regeneration.

The superstore will face out of the town out into Victoria Road. The front of the superstore will have a café, it too will face out into Victoria Road. At lunchtime, office workers stream down Victoria Road, off the main Farnborough Road, down through the town centre to the cafés and snack bars and one sole remaining newsagent at the southern end of the town centre. Lunchtime is the only time the town centre sees any activity. Why would the office workers in future bother to go so far, when they can pop into the superstore for their snacks and newspapers and magazines?

The Virgin record shop will also suffer. Why bother to buy overpriced CDs and DVDs from Virgin, when the same CDs and DVDs can be purchased cheaper at the superstore? The Farnborough store used to have eight staff on a Saturday rushed off their feet, now it is down to three sat around bored stiff. Virgin are closing small stores and concentrating on their Magastores. How much longer before Virgin goes the same way as Dixons which has recently closed?

In 2002, one in every five CDs was bought in a supermarket. By September 2003, Tesco was selling more chart CDs than HMV.

Aldershot has a Tesco superstore on the edge of town. When people have finished their shopping, they do not think: Oh, now we are in Aldershot let's pop into the town centre. They get into their cars and drive straight back home.

Superstores do not regenerate or revitalise town centres, superstores drain the lifeblood from town centres.

I can only suggest look at other towns. Superstores have not led to regeneration. There is also a further trend. It is no longer small traders who can no longer compete. High Street names such as Dixons, Woolworth and W H Smith can no longer compete. As superstores expand from food into general retailing, newspapers, books, CDs, DVDs, electrical etc, other High Street retailers have lost market share. Look at the share price of Woolworths and W H Smith over the last year.

In Asda, jeans with the George label start at £4. Tesco is eying clothing discounter Matalan for a possible buyout. The only reason Phillip Green eyed up Safeway and now M&S, is he realises the only way BHS can remain competitive, if not in business, is through a tie-up with a food retailer. Although supermarkets have only 6% of the book market, this figure is misleading as they are creaming best sellers, where they have 80%. It is impossible to have a best selling title in the UK, if it is not on the shelves at Tesco. Tesco sold more of the latest Harry Potter than W H Smith. Tesco sells more cosmetics and medicines than the combined sales of Boots and Superdrug. Oddbins and Thresher are becoming increasingly worried at the squeeze by the supermarket chains and the abuse of their dominant market position. By 2003, supermarkets controlled 65% of UK wine sales, with one in five of every bottle of wine being purchased at Tesco. Banks, building societies and insurance companies are also being squeezed as supermarkets move into banking and financial services. Soon, as the Lord Chancellor relaxes restrictions on practitioners, superstores will be offering legal services.

Sainsbury's poor performance is due to its slowness in moving into the non-food retail sector where margins are higher. With the sacking of its chairman, Sainsbury's is determined to make up for lost ground.

Leominster saw a 30% decline in town centre trade on the arrival of a superstore. When Tesco opened a superstore on the edge of Cirencester (Wiltshire), the market share of town centre food stores dropped by 38%, for convenience stores the impact was far greater. In Fakenham (Norfolk) the opening of an out-of-town supermarket caused a 64% drop in market share for town centre convenience stores. At Warminster (Hampshire), the impact was even more dramatic, a 75% drop.

Look anywhere in the country. Open a superstore and everyone else suffers.

If, the presence of a superstore revitalises a town, why has not Asda revitalised Farnborough? If, the presence of a superstore revitalises a town, why has not Tesco revitalised Aldershot?

Superstores open their doors and the life blood drains out of a town. It is no accident, it is corporate policy.

The authors of the recommendations of the report to the planning committee have little understanding of modern retail trends and are simply repeating the garbage fed to them by KPI.

It is not only the small retailers we will lose from Farnborough town centre, we would also lose W H Smith, Woolworths and the sole remaining newsagent (we used to have three before KPI bought the town centre). Dixons closed down this month. Boots, squeezed between two superstores, and Superdrug, at the dead end of town, would also be likely to close. As quite likely Debenhams. This leaves little left in the town.

When a superstore appears in town, it takes trade from all the other retailers. Shops begin to close. Eventually a critical point is reached where there are so few shops that shoppers have no choice other than to visit the superstore. At this point, the money that was circulating in the local economy is sucked out of the local economy by the superstore, the town rapidly collapses. One of two things then happen: Either we are left with empty boarded up retail units or we have clone town, the same old charity shops, junk food shops, pound shops, card shops, and bars full of drunken yobs.

Farnborough has all the symptoms of a dead and dying town. It is very close to the critical point. It may have already passed the critical point. If not, it would take very little to knock it over the edge.

The overall impact of dead and dying town centres can be seen on the street. A sense of depression sets in. Instead of smartly dressed people on the street, alert and having an enjoyable day out, they are replaced by gangs of dull-eyed, bored youths with time on their hands, hassling passers-by. This further hastens the decline of a town centre. This can be seen locally by comparing Guildford with Aldershot.

Apart from a superstore being of disbenefit to the town centre, the local community have said that whilst they wish to see redevelopment and regeneration it is not that proposed. Thus building a superstore cannot be said to be for the 'common good'.

Superstores do not revitalise town centres: Between 1995 and 2000, we lost roughly a fifth of our local shops and services, banks, post offices, butchers and bakers etc. The trend continues, in the five years up to 2002, 50 specialist retailers have closed every week. In 1960, independent retailers had 60% of the food retail market. By 2000, that share was down to 6%. The impact of a superstore is felt up to 15 miles away. Half the nation now shops in only 1,000 superstores.

Superstores generate traffic: One superstore causes £25,000 of pollution, congestion and associated damage in a local community every week.

Superstores destroy jobs: On average, every time a new supermarket opens 276 jobs are lost. £50,000 is spent in a small shop to generate one job, it needs £250,000 to be spent in a superstore to create one job.

Superstores generate waste: Superstores produce a large amount of waste with their excess package. The cost of disposal has to be borne by the local taxpayer.

Superstores drain wealth out of the local economy: Money spent in a superstore is money drained out of the local economy. Money spent with local businesses is recycled within the local economy. A study in Cornwall found that £10 spent in a local organic box scheme generated £25 in the local economy, £10 spent in a local supermarket only generated £14.

It is a myth that superstores are cheap: Known Value Items are kept at artificial low price, often at below cost to force independent retailers out of business. Special offers look good, often on previously inflated prices. Other goods are very often more expensive than independent retailers, especially fresh fruit and vegetables and meat.

Superstores are bad for the nation's health: Superstores promote over-priced unhealthy junk food to our kids.

Superstores do not act in the public interest: Superstores sell at below cost to force independent retailers out of business. Bread is sold below cost to force independent bakers out of business. Farm subsidies enable superstores to force the farm gate price below production costs. Milk costs a small dairy farmer 18p to 22p a litre to produce, the farm gate price 19p a litre - a litre of milk sells in a superstore for 72p a litre. One of the reasons farmers are turning to illegal immigrants as casual labour is because it is the only way they can remain in business. Prices for Third World producers are being relentlessly forced down. Superstores sell Fairtrade products as a niche market at artificially high prices. The profit goes not to the Third World producer. Superstores truck food halfway around the country, 'fresh' produce is air-freighted half way round the world. A major contributer to global warming. 25% of the road freight in the UK is supermarket traffic.

Superstores do not act in the public interest. Superstores are not philanthropic institutions.

The high socio-economic and environmental costs of superstores has caused a grass-roots alliance to call for a mandatory code of conduct for superstores and regulatory watchdog with teeth to enforce it.

The council concedes that the human rights of the residents of Firgrove Court are affected by the proposed town centre demolition and redevelopment. They claim that these rights can be overridden by building a superstore, that it is in the 'public interest'. Superstores do not act in the public interest. To demolish 28 maisonettes for a net gain of 57 car parking spaces, for a superstore that the community does not want, is not to act in the public interest.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. The term 'act' includes a failure to act, ie a failure to protect a Convention right.

The resolution put before the committee was changed as a result of the legal action and fear of further legal action (2 June 2004). It is so flawed that the most incompetent of lawyers, probably as incompetent as the one who drew it up, could drive a coach and horses through it. It offers no protection for the residents of Firgrove Court (even assuming they wish to move which many have said they don't) and no doubt that was the intention.

Demolition cannot go ahead unless the Solartron site is made available. It does not say available to who. This wording has now been tightened up (30 June 2004), and explicitly says made available to the Firgrove tenants, but as already noted, they are not being offered like-for-like.

The second part of the resolution only offers 'alternative replacement accommodation'. Not 'satisfactory', or 'acceptable'. This part of the resolution could be met by pushing them all into bed and breakfast accommodation.

What though of the KPI tenants in the flats above the shops? A legal agreement should be drawn up to protect them, ie no demolition can go ahead until they too are offered suitable and acceptable alternative accommodation.

Whether this is okay is to be determined by the head of planning. Absolutely no way. This has to be determined and agreed by the people living in the flats and at Firgrove Court, ie by the aggrieved parties or lawyers acting on their behalf.

We have 3,000 people on the borough waiting list, waiting to be housed. Why are dwellings being kept deliberately empty by Pavilion and KPI? There are at least seven empty properties at Firgrove Court, at least 50 empty flats above the shops in the town centre. Dereliction of duty by the borough head of housing for failing to bring this housing into use.

KPI are not meeting their quota of affordable housing. It is a nonsense to say KPI cannot afford it a) because they picked up the town centre on the cheap because it was run down, b) because they knew the rules when they bought the town centre for redevelopment. The profit a developer may or may not make is not a planning issue.

Once the percentage of affordable housing is met, for the scale of the development, we than have to add on top of that figure, the housing lost at Firgrove Court. To add the Solartron site is to fiddle the figures as its construction is not part of this planning application, whereas the destruction of Firgrove Court is.

Nor do these figures take account of the loss of the 50 two-bed flats/maisonettes above the shops to be demolished. Although these are not 'affordable' under the quasi-legal definition of the word for planning purposes, they are 'affordable' in the sense that they are cheap. It is also rented accommodation, which is in very short supply in the town. Will it be replaced by 'affordable' 50 two-bed flats/maisonettes in the new development? If not, then in terms of satisfying housing needs, especially for those at the bottom end of the income range, the town is worse off.

Even if we put to one side the question of 'affordable' housing, whether in the hands of private landlords or so called 'social' landlords (who in the case of Housing Associations are accountable to no one and worse than Rachman), we are losing rented accommodation. The loss, of what is already in short supply, will force up the rents of that which remains (supply and demand in an unregulated market), hitting the poorest and forcing them out of town.

How many more empty office blocks do we need in Farnborough? We lose leisure facilities, ie open space, which is freely available to all, and are instead offered privatised leisure facilities which only those with money can afford.

There are already several office blocks in the pipeline. More office block are not to the good of Farnborough. More office blocks means more people commuting into Farnborough, which means more traffic, more pollution. More office blocks means more people wishing to live in Farnborough, which means greater pressure on local housing, more demand for housing, higher house prices.

Councillors and officials have failed to date to properly consider this application. They have failed to engage with the local community. With one or two notable exceptions, they have failed to get off their backsides and even take the trouble to walk about in the town and talk to people. Do councillors wish to see further legal actions for failing in their obligations to the local community? If yes, then they are opening themselves up to be surcharged for the costs.

A retail impact assessment has been carried out. Why no details in the agenda? Why not even a one page summary so we can see the key facts, subject them to scrutiny? Why are no councillors querying its absence? A retail impact assessment that has been carried out by KPI or their agents. No bias there then! A retail impact assessment that has been carried out without talking to shoppers or retailers! Not that there are many of either left in the town anymore.

Anyone who believes the proposed development would deter shoppers from going to Guildford is living in cloud cuckoo land, and it is not the presence of the Friary which is a run off the mill shopping mall lacking any quality retailers.

What makes Guildford an attractive shopping town is the range: from two large department stores through to a very large number of small independent retailers. Coupled with, good restaurants, pubs, three theatres, a large amount of green areas and parks (both around the Castle and down by the River), good markets on Fridays and Saturdays, and a Farmers Market on the first Tuesday of every month. Plus a wide range of festivals. In addition, Guildford has something Farnborough will never have, character. Curiously there are no superstores in the town centre! Indeed, Sainsbury's have recently downgraded their supermarket in the town centre (approximately the same size as the existing Sainsbury's in Farnborough town centre) to a Metro store.

There are superstores in Guildford, but they are on the edge of town, cf Tesco in Aldershot.

Thus as far as Guildford is concerned, a superstore is not seen as key to a thriving, vibrant, sustainable town centre.

No environment impact assessment has been carried out. The scale and size and impact of the redevelopment requires one. Failure to carry one out is a breach of EU Directives.

Few would disagree we now need town centre regeneration and redevelopment. KPI have seen to that by laying waste to the town centre. The state of their flats would do justice to an inner city slum. But what is not wanted is the redevelopment being forced through by KPI and their friends on the council.

Any development has (according to the Local Plan and government planning guidance):

• to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access (PPG6, draft PPS6, and PPG13)
• to provide more and much enhanced living accommodation within Farnborough town centre (PPG3 and PPG13)
• to meet the shopping, leisure and service needs of the local community and local businesses

The development fails even on this narrow criteria. We are destroying good quality housing stock within 2 minutes walking distance of the town centre to create a car park for the near exclusive use of a superstore (at a net gain of 2 car parking spaces for each home destroyed). Have already destroyed a large number of local businesses, many of whom have been in business for two or more decades. Fail to meet the shopping needs of the local community as the diversity and range of local shops has been severely curtailed.

KPI’s proposals, far from being able to 'contribute to the revitalisation of the town centre and result in a much improved living and working environment, improved services, enhanced transport facilities, and more and enhanced residential accommodation', have to date laid waste to the town centre, turning it into a ghost town, and in the process have almost killed the town stone dead. We now seem to be preparing to deal the final death blow.

Sticking people in overpriced shoeboxes in high rise flats several stories high, does not enhance the quality of the living environment or deliver 'enhanced residential accommodation' or encourage people to live in the town centre. Especially when part of the proposals involve kicking people out of the town centre to make way for a car park.

New retailers do not come into a town centre because there are new buildings. They come into the town because there is business on the streets. It will take at least ten years, maybe never, to recover from the damage KPI and their supporters in the council have inflicted on Farnborough. A strange council indeed that allows the destruction of its own town by a Kuwaiti investment front company. By people who have no interest in the town whatsoever other than the profit they hope to drain out of the local economy. Money that is no longer available to flow within the local economy and generate further wealth.

We need a town centre redevelopment that is sensitive to the needs and wishes of the local community. We need a mixed retail environment.

The KPI redevelopment fails on all counts and for that reason must be REJECTED.

Planning documents and committee reports

• http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2570
• http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2788
• http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/media/adobepdf/1/a/SectionB.pdf