Plans outlined for Gosbecks Road supermarket (From Essex County Standard)

Not another Tesco Please !!!!

Shrubend could do with a tesco.bring it on.

wellnow wrote:
Shrubend could do with a tesco.bring it on.

Wind-up artist, pay no attention.

Grabber wrote:
Not another Tesco Please !!!!

You don't want Tesco's (assuming its them) then vote with your feet and stay away.

possibly 100 new jobs .... plus the extra work created in building the place. Can only be a good thing for Colchester.

I hope this goes ahead and I hope it's a Morrison's or Tesco. We have too many (overpriced) Co-Operative stores and need a competitive price this side of town. I'll use it. Can't come too soon.

Yendor says wrote:

Grabber wrote:
Not another Tesco Please !!!!

You don't want Tesco's (assuming its them) then vote with your feet and stay away.

possibly 100 new jobs .... plus the extra work created in building the place. Can only be a good thing for Colchester.

No it's not a good thing for Colchester. Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere.

Are CBC and TDC in Competition to see who can open the most Tesco's in their area. With Butt Road ,CBC will have 6 but TDC are well in the lead with 8 and have Walton and Manningtree still to come.
All people on both planning councils
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Still it helps to get rid of all those nice little shops like "Jacks"

roger bacon wrote:

Yendor says wrote:

Grabber wrote:
Not another Tesco Please !!!!

You don't want Tesco's (assuming its them) then vote with your feet and stay away.

possibly 100 new jobs .... plus the extra work created in building the place. Can only be a good thing for Colchester.

No it's not a good thing for Colchester. Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere.

Are CBC and TDC in Competition to see who can open the most Tesco's in their area. With Butt Road ,CBC will have 6 but TDC are well in the lead with 8 and have Walton and Manningtree still to come.
All people on both planning councils
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Still it helps to get rid of all those nice little shops like "Jacks"

"Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere".

Where did you get that statistic from?

With Mr Smith so enthusiastic about this, he must be lining up another sell-off of our assets. A double standard? I couldn't possibly comment.

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:

roger bacon wrote:

Yendor says wrote:

Grabber wrote: Not another Tesco Please !!!!

You don't want Tesco's (assuming its them) then vote with your feet and stay away. possibly 100 new jobs .... plus the extra work created in building the place. Can only be a good thing for Colchester.

No it's not a good thing for Colchester. Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere. Are CBC and TDC in Competition to see who can open the most Tesco's in their area. With Butt Road ,CBC will have 6 but TDC are well in the lead with 8 and have Walton and Manningtree still to come. All people on both planning councils ought to be ashamed of themselves. Still it helps to get rid of all those nice little shops like "Jacks"

"Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere". Where did you get that statistic from?

I think he just makes a number up on each story. Last time it was 158 :-

http://www.gazette-n
ews.co.uk/news/10107
952.New_Tesco_for_Co
lchester__Councillor
s_vote_yes/

That said, do we definitely know its Tesco then ??

Yendor says wrote:

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:

roger bacon wrote:

Yendor says wrote:

Grabber wrote: Not another Tesco Please !!!!

You don't want Tesco's (assuming its them) then vote with your feet and stay away. possibly 100 new jobs .... plus the extra work created in building the place. Can only be a good thing for Colchester.

No it's not a good thing for Colchester. Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere. Are CBC and TDC in Competition to see who can open the most Tesco's in their area. With Butt Road ,CBC will have 6 but TDC are well in the lead with 8 and have Walton and Manningtree still to come. All people on both planning councils ought to be ashamed of themselves. Still it helps to get rid of all those nice little shops like "Jacks"

"Another 100 new Tesco jobs means 176 jobs lost elsewhere". Where did you get that statistic from?

I think he just makes a number up on each story. Last time it was 158 :-

http://www.gazette-n

ews.co.uk/news/10107

952.New_Tesco_for_Co

lchester__Councillor

s_vote_yes/

That said, do we definitely know its Tesco then ??

Most statistics quoted on here are made up and I suspect this is just another example.

As long as it's cheap and easy to get to (unlike Waitrose!) I'll be using it.

Sorry I have not got that quite right.
The National Forum 1998 report says that for every superstore opening 276 full time jobs are lost .A majority of Supermarket jobs are part time so the arrival of a supermarket means that many full time jobs in the local community are replaced by part time ones.
So it's far worse than I originally said

Do you mean the National Policy Forum? If so, that's an almost 15 year old statistic and it's provided by an organisation heavily chaired by Labour supporters and trade unionists. Balanced, it isn't!

This is a test for CBC. They object to plans to a fast food application in another Councils juristiction. Will they have the niagara falls to turn down the supermarket plan in their own juristication because it too will have an effect on the High street or will they view it like Terry leahy that another supermarket and closed high st shops is progress ?

roger bacon wrote:
Sorry I have not got that quite right.
The National Forum 1998 report says that for every superstore opening 276 full time jobs are lost .A majority of Supermarket jobs are part time so the arrival of a supermarket means that many full time jobs in the local community are replaced by part time ones.
So it's far worse than I originally said

ha ha .... keep digging ....

The other thing here is they says it's going to be the size of a hockey pitch. That's about 100 yards long by 60 yards wide. Hardly massive in retail terms.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
With Mr Smith so enthusiastic about this, he must be lining up another sell-off of our assets. A double standard? I couldn't possibly comment.

In approximately 1960, CBC granted Lay and Wheeler (now Colchester Wine Company) a 125-year lease on the land in Gosbecks Road to be occupied by their new wine warehouse. The rent was £500 per year, fixed for the full term of 125 years. This means that for about another 70 years the Colchester Wine Company (CWC) is entitled to continue paying what is now a pittance for the use of CBC's valuable land.
So who pays the sweetener to persuade CWC to give that up? Will that figure be publicised? No it won't. It will be hidden under the cloak of "commercial confidentiality".
If anyone can correct my information, please go ahead.

A very prudent deal indeed!