Schedule of Email and Postal Responses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix 05 SCHEDULE OF EMAIL AND POSTAL RESPONSES LIDL MAMLESBURY Online Petition Responses 24 January 2018 This is completely the wrong location for an additional supermarket. Use of green land is unnecessary, and the infrastructure does not support potential additional traffic. Why not use existing brownfield sites within Malmesbury. Waitrose planning was granted partly due to its 'walkability' for its residents and the elderly population. Having to cross a majorly busy A429 is a crazy option for walkers, and an unnecessary safety challenge. Please choose a different, more sympathetic and realistic site. 24 January 2018 Lidl will impact massively on the the core town shops viability and the overall historic feeling for the town centre. It will create more traffic and noise on the bypass. In addition the ingress and egress out of Waitrose is frightening as the best of times even though it is supposed to be a 30 mph zone, because most vehicles do not slow down from the 60mph zone until they reach the roundabout. Another supermarket will exacerbate this problem. But I guess you don't care about that or the nature or people of the town, you just roll out the usual sound bites about job opportunities and your profit margins. 24 January 2018 Its is going to impact on the town and the shops. We have two supermarkets already in the town. Its just going to be more noise, and busyness that is not needed. 24 January 2018 I thoroughly oppose Lidl or any other supermarket coming to malmesbury. We do not have the infrastructure to support all the extra traffic. That road is already overloaded especially at school times and Dyson employees going to and from work. We also now have extra lorries because of tip runs. PLEASE no more. We have enough supermarkets already in the area. 24 January 2018 Thank you for your interest in Malmesbury but your presence is not wanted or needed. We do not need another supermarket when we have suck food provision already. 24 January 2018 Malmesbury does not need another supermarket. It has two. The high street shops are already struggling with competition. Malmesbury does not need more traffic or shops that encourage more car use. The bypass is already dangerous. The proposed site could not be reached by pedestrians without a bridge, underpass or traffic lights. The attractive and historic town of Malmesbury does not need yet more urbanisation to erode its charm and character. 24 January 2018 Biggest concern is the location. The road is already very busy. The Waitrose exit is already dangerous. There is a much better site further along the road behind Nurdens garden center. Also a little confused as to why we need yet another supermarket in Malmesbury. 25 January 2018 Thank you for your flyer and the superficial information contained within. It raises a number of questions which I would be grateful if you could please address: 1. You mention that Lidl has acquired 2ha and intends developing the northernmost ha; what is planned for the southern ha? 2. What screening of the site is being proposed; will trees introduced for screening purposes, be saplings or mature? The valley between the Swindon Road and Milbourne is glorious and it is thus very important (to residents, ramblers and lovers of nature) that the landscaping/screening issue fully addresses these concerns. 3. The A429 is already a very busy road and vehicular access into Waitrose is difficult when entering from or to the eastern carriageway (traffic travelling in a southerly direction) and I suggest that it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs. Your proposal introduces a similar problem for northerly direction traffic merely a few yards from the Waitrose entrance. This is a key concern, as your proposal will introduce even greater traffic volume without any really meaningful improvement to the A429, thus increasing risk to vehicles/life. Has consideration been given to a shared roundabout with Waitrose traffic and if not, why not? The highway safety issue must be properly addressed and as presented there is no mention of the issue. 4. If the proposed development is approved, the pedestrian path should connect to the existing path on the Swindon Road 5. Will the roof of the store be screened e.g. growing sedum? RAPLEYS LLP 1 6. Will there still be access from the A429 into the fields to the east of the Lidl area for cutting hedgerows etc? It appears that the existing gate on the A429 will be lost, so where will the access be reintroduced? 25 January 2018 we do not want lidl in Malmesbury. we moved to this area to get away from cheap rubbish supermarkets that spoil the area. you have just knocked 10% off the value of our home by coming to Malmesbury so thanks very much for that. I will be protesting as this is just shocking to be honest that Malmesbury have allowed this. you need to be in the rough areas where there is no money. 25 January 2018 The proposed supermarket is not needed, the proposed building does not suit the area, and this will create extra noise and light pollution. The access via foot / cycle is unsafe if relying on a crossing, and the road access (from a major road) is unsafe as traffic does not travel at 30 mph at that point, more like 50 mph. You are offering nothing for the local community. 25 January 2018 Dear Sir, I very strongly support the proposed new store. Currently I shop at Lidl in Cirencester but more often in Tesco. It would mean less travel. Malmesbury needs a Lidl as Waitrose suits some shoppers but probably not the majority. I think there is a gap to be filled in the market. I wish you every success. Yours sincerely, John Phillips 25 January 2018 I think you should remote your petition for the Malmesbury Lidl proposal. It’s misleading as you don’t make it clear your involved in the development. 25 January 2018 Having survived for many years with only one supermarket we have now had an explosion in supermarkets with one built, one refused and now another one proposed. This is completely against the trend in shopping where more and more shopping is going online. What we need from physical stores is independent shops which offer service and keep more money in the local community rather than drawing it away. The issue in retailing we should be addressing is the monopoly which the co-op had up until recently. The council should have fought for a change of ownership of one of the existing co- op stores which would have brought added competition without the need for unnecessary development. 25 January 2018 May I offer my objection to your proposed new store east of Malmesbury. This is a green field site and should not be built on. The proposed site placement is a poor choice with dangerous access along an already busy by- pass. The traffic has increased dramatically over the years as Dyson has expanded and Waitrose. I walk my dogs and have to negotiate across the roundabout or pedestrian crossing south of the roundabout, and its a very dangerous crossing as cars do not give way to pedestrians at times. If there is development on the east side of the by-pass it slowy ceases to act as a 'by-pass' allowing free smooth movement of traffic around Malmesbury. It would be far better for Lidl to maybe take over the COOP site at the bottom of Tetbury hill. This shop is never busy and they already have another mid size shop in town. This would also serve the newly developed areas in the Filands area. People could walk there and it has slower and less traffic. Another possible site could be south of Burton Hill and the Primary RAPLEYS LLP 2 care centre on the west side of the road. There is a disused wooded area. I do not see how anyone will walk from the west and north of Malmesbury, where development is, all the way to your proposed site and carry their shopping back. The impact on the local environment will therefor be effected by even more car journeys. We have also seen an increase in litter in the fields on the east side from Waitrose. Do we want more litter in our countryside? Greenfield sites should only be changed if there is absolutely no other way or if there is a specific need to increase or improve the infrastructure of the area (school, hospital, fire, Police etc..). I do not see how another super market in such a poor location is so 'essential' that you need to place it on a greenfield site. Regards I wish to remain anonymous (my email address should be kept private please and not shared) 25 January 2018 1. Do we need another supermarket? A Lidl store would draw custom away from current Malmesbury supermarkets- in particular the Co-op at the bottom of Tetbury Hill. If this Co-op loses customers, in addition to those it has already lost to Waitrose, it may close. This closure would leave many residents (in the most heavily populated part of Malmesbury) who do not drive without a store within walking distance. 2.The position of the new store on a Greenfield site on the least populated side of the town is not ideal. 3.The position of the store at the opposite side of A429 from Waitrose means that this part of road would become even more tricky to negotiate.