Tesco plans are in the spotlight (From This is Hampshire)

Very 1970's car-centric thinking. How far behind the times.
What about other modes of transport? People walking? People on bicycles?

B&DBC (and HCC) must only accept plans that improve safety - especially for children - for all forms of travel, which will also make Basingstoke look & feel better for everyone.

For example, be inspired by:
http://bit.ly/M4XfrE


~Andrew~

Furthermore, their planning application BDB/75056 shows 2 petitions on the go and 136 'against'.

Why not add your thoughts where it matters? Tell the council:
http://bit.ly/IZbygI


~Andrew~

Having followed this from the beginning it's clear that there are many more against than in favour. I'm not sure that everyone has thought the savings through. Many who live in Brighton Hill, South Ham, Buckskin, kempshot Oakley and so on, prefer for whatever reason to shop at tesco. This store will help reduce long trips across town and therefore reduce traffic to a degree. People who don't live on that side of town and therefore not travelling in that direction are more likely to continue using chineham. I would however, question about 350 new jobs. People using the proposed new Brighton Hill store will no longer use chineham so there will be some transferred from there who live in the Brighton Hill area, another few cars travelling less. I'm not saying there won't be more traffic, and changes aren't needed but there is a bigger picture and it does seem to be overlooked. The main traffic issues in Brighton Hill are the commuters in the morning and early evening, and perhaps those caught for a number of hours in the winter snow.

I am still uncertain about just what is proposed for the Brighton Hill Roundabout. But one thing is sure, the traffic there will continue to grow year after year and we have had no help from the County Council nor can we expect any. If Tesco can put money forward and make things easier then I for one welcome them. I am amazed that when so much choice is being made available for shoppers there should be an outcry. I just don not see the point of Councillor Wooldridge campaigning. Do they really want more time for an honest discussion? Or are they just wanting more time to stir up opposition.

Any thing this size is always difficult to understand but it is important to get as wide a view as possible, we have unemployed desperate for work.
Our traffic problems are actually minor in comparison to most towns but locally do cause concerns.

Shop keepers worry but their customers hold the key to their survival.

we need to understand the traffic, evironmental, and economic impacts before the planning meeting so councillors have the publics and applicants views ahead of a 1 hour discussion.

An open presentation to the public and councillors, not a debate or shouting match, is needed Brighton hill School Hall would be the ideal venue for a series of round table presentations .

Seriously, does anyone REALLY think we need another supermarket in the area. Job creation at Tesco means job reduction in the other, already existing supermarkets because they won't be doing the same trade. Tesco in Chineham will need to reduce staff and/or transfer to the new Tesco which isn't really job creation is it ? If the Council allow this to go through then clearly they haven't been doing their homework. I have not had anyone knock on my door or ask me if I want a Tesco and I live quite close to the proposed site. The council see this is a way to fix the roads around BH on the cheap and pretend they are doing it for the good of the town. We do not need another supermarket and I think we all know that. Job creation will not be in the numbers that are being thrown around due to the losses in the other supermarkets. Traffic will increase and there is no getting away from that. Whatever happens at BH roundabout will only move the traffic further down the road. All you would be doing is moving the bottleneck somewhere else. Shame on the Council if they let this through.

Opinions_opinions wrote:
Seriously, does anyone REALLY think we need another supermarket in the area. Job creation at Tesco means job reduction in the other, already existing supermarkets because they won't be doing the same trade. Tesco in Chineham will need to reduce staff and/or transfer to the new Tesco which isn't really job creation is it ? If the Council allow this to go through then clearly they haven't been doing their homework. I have not had anyone knock on my door or ask me if I want a Tesco and I live quite close to the proposed site. The council see this is a way to fix the roads around BH on the cheap and pretend they are doing it for the good of the town. We do not need another supermarket and I think we all know that. Job creation will not be in the numbers that are being thrown around due to the losses in the other supermarkets. Traffic will increase and there is no getting away from that. Whatever happens at BH roundabout will only move the traffic further down the road. All you would be doing is moving the bottleneck somewhere else. Shame on the Council if they let this through.

As I've already stated, I agree there will be less job creation than claimed but there will be new jobs. If there are no new jobs and no new shoppers then there will be no new traffic so that argument kind of cancels itself out. This is a waisted plot of land and needs to start bringing in none domestic rates for the local economy to make money from it. What goes there is for the community to decide but for it to go to waist and earn nothing is not good sence however you look at it. Maybe the way people should fight this is by putting forward an alternative for the site if one exists.

A park ? Why does it have to be a business ? It isn't earning anything now and as you state it is waste ground. So put a park - with facilities for skateboarders, BMX's etc etc. It doesn't have to be a business. There are enough existing empty commercial properties around Basingstoke which are going to cause less traffic and pollution that will create jobs too. Let's get real everyone, Tesco doesn't need to build here, it wants to because it wants to be slap bang in the middle of Sainsbury's, Asda's and Morrison's. This is an attempt by Tesco to dominate and we should not let it happen. It is not because we "need" a Tesco, we clearly don't because we already have one. They deliver too so there doesn't need to be another one in the heart of an already well served community for Supermarkets. Finally, how long and what chaos would it cause putting in an underpass and all the other major roadworks needed to accommodate Tesco ?? Basingstoke Council, if you are listening .. we do not need Tesco in Brighton Hill

"Basingstoke Council, if you are listening..."

The Council will listen to comments sent in on this form (takes a couple seconds to load):

http://bit.ly/IZbygI

Opinions_opinions wrote:
A park ? Why does it have to be a business ? It isn't earning anything now and as you state it is waste ground. So put a park - with facilities for skateboarders, BMX's etc etc. It doesn't have to be a business. There are enough existing empty commercial properties around Basingstoke which are going to cause less traffic and pollution that will create jobs too. Let's get real everyone, Tesco doesn't need to build here, it wants to because it wants to be slap bang in the middle of Sainsbury's, Asda's and Morrison's. This is an attempt by Tesco to dominate and we should not let it happen. It is not because we "need" a Tesco, we clearly don't because we already have one. They deliver too so there doesn't need to be another one in the heart of an already well served community for Supermarkets. Finally, how long and what chaos would it cause putting in an underpass and all the other major roadworks needed to accommodate Tesco ?? Basingstoke Council, if you are listening .. we do not need Tesco in Brighton Hill

I like the thinking. One slight issue, this sight used to earn money. Putting a park with all the trimmings will cost money so where does the money come from with an atmosphere of cuts? I have to admit it is good thinking but I fear, unaffordable. Whatever goes there must pay for itself and a few extra to make up the shortfall.

Objection now raised with Basingstoke. Interestingly, there are 53 in favour of the site for Tesco and 136 against. I wonder if the Council will listen to their voters for a change ?

Opinions_opinions wrote:
Objection now raised with Basingstoke. Interestingly, there are 53 in favour of the site for Tesco and 136 against. I wonder if the Council will listen to their voters for a change ?

We can all hope.

Crack on and get it open. The majority of people want it, the noisy minority will always be the squeaky wheels wanting the oil.

stevemac1970 wrote:

Opinions_opinions wrote:
A park ? Why does it have to be a business ? It isn't earning anything now and as you state it is waste ground. So put a park - with facilities for skateboarders, BMX's etc etc. It doesn't have to be a business. There are enough existing empty commercial properties around Basingstoke which are going to cause less traffic and pollution that will create jobs too. Let's get real everyone, Tesco doesn't need to build here, it wants to because it wants to be slap bang in the middle of Sainsbury's, Asda's and Morrison's. This is an attempt by Tesco to dominate and we should not let it happen. It is not because we "need" a Tesco, we clearly don't because we already have one. They deliver too so there doesn't need to be another one in the heart of an already well served community for Supermarkets. Finally, how long and what chaos would it cause putting in an underpass and all the other major roadworks needed to accommodate Tesco ?? Basingstoke Council, if you are listening .. we do not need Tesco in Brighton Hill

I like the thinking. One slight issue, this sight used to earn money. Putting a park with all the trimmings will cost money so where does the money come from with an atmosphere of cuts? I have to admit it is good thinking but I fear, unaffordable. Whatever goes there must pay for itself and a few extra to make up the shortfall.

I would have thought that Morrisons, Asda and Sainsburys would contribute to the relatively low cost of doing something like this.

radders19 wrote:

stevemac1970 wrote:

Opinions_opinions wrote: A park ? Why does it have to be a business ? It isn't earning anything now and as you state it is waste ground. So put a park - with facilities for skateboarders, BMX's etc etc. It doesn't have to be a business. There are enough existing empty commercial properties around Basingstoke which are going to cause less traffic and pollution that will create jobs too. Let's get real everyone, Tesco doesn't need to build here, it wants to because it wants to be slap bang in the middle of Sainsbury's, Asda's and Morrison's. This is an attempt by Tesco to dominate and we should not let it happen. It is not because we "need" a Tesco, we clearly don't because we already have one. They deliver too so there doesn't need to be another one in the heart of an already well served community for Supermarkets. Finally, how long and what chaos would it cause putting in an underpass and all the other major roadworks needed to accommodate Tesco ?? Basingstoke Council, if you are listening .. we do not need Tesco in Brighton Hill

I like the thinking. One slight issue, this sight used to earn money. Putting a park with all the trimmings will cost money so where does the money come from with an atmosphere of cuts? I have to admit it is good thinking but I fear, unaffordable. Whatever goes there must pay for itself and a few extra to make up the shortfall.

I would have thought that Morrisons, Asda and Sainsburys would contribute to the relatively low cost of doing something like this.

It's not just the cost, the site is lost revenue, nobody can say that is a good thing unless there is an endless pit of money. These stores pay a vast amount in none domestic rates, can anyone honestly say that the economy can afford to turn it away?

So we are putting money before people ? The question should be "do we need another supermarket" not "should we ignore the voters". Can anyone honestly say that Basingstoke needs 2 Tesco stores ? I am not even counting the little Tesco express stores. We clearly do not need it and if the key factor is that Basingstoke can make money from it, then that is really sad. It hasn't made money for years so why is it all so important it makes some now ? Obviously the council have been managing without the revenue for some years now along with all the other lost revenue from other businesses that are closing every month. Focus the development where it is "needed" and not where it is just a cash generator for the council. There will not be the jobs created that the spin suggests once you have taken everything into account. And as for KCAC and whatever other aliases he uses, my opinion .. your an idiot who only posts to cause a storm. How sad your life must be.

I find this incredible. I live in the centre of Brighton Hill and was not informed of this consultation on Saturday. It was obviously only for those people that voted for the deadly duo. 12%. I think they need to ask more people no alienate the rest of us. Labour are so useless

Well it is true that the site hasn't made money for years, but it's been a long time since the last double dip recession too. I'm neutral on it but I know a good many people who are in favour because it will bring jobs to that side of the town and can't afford to travel for work, I know others who are against it because of traffic and I know far more with a straight NIMBY attitude. My main thought is that while we all say yes or no, we need to think of all the effects on the wider community and not just those that we think are good for now. Another thought would be that Basingstoke needs many many more homes and so perhaps that is where the new custom will come from. If I was making the decisions then I would listen to all and act on what will benefit the majority as apose to the few that come out to say yes or no. Less than 200 say something out of many thousands it effects both directly and indirectly. Good luck to the poor so and so that's left with the tasks of pleasing all the people all of the time.

Does it really matter who owns the shop? Who cares if lots of shops are under the Tesco umbrella? It should mean lower prices but they charge a higher price for convenience, the same as Sainsbury's local etc.
The bigger issue is does that part of town need a fourth supermarket? Would we still have the same issues if Waitrose wanted to build there? Yes. Can the roads take it, especially if the football ground is sold to retail? No.
Will Tesco stay in Chineham if they get this bigger store? Maybe, maybe not.
As for not knowing about the consultation, ask your councilor or the opposition version if you like, to keep you informed. That is what they are for, supporting the locals who elected them.
The land used to bring in revenue for the council and in the current climate it would be very welcome, but it should not be allowed for just that reason. However, if the scheme gets the go-ahead for the correct reasons, then we will all benefit from the extra choice and the rivalry that will bring

I have it on good authority that Tesco's in Chineham has asked on quite a few occassions to increase the size of the store there and every time it has been refused by the council, so I guess they are fed up with keep asking.

The _right_stuff wrote:
I have it on good authority that Tesco's in Chineham has asked on quite a few occassions to increase the size of the store there and every time it has been refused by the council, so I guess they are fed up with keep asking.

I do believe you're right, maybe if Brighton Hill people don't want it, they should campaign for the chimeham store to get an extension.

The roads around the Chineham store are pretty good with the dual carriage way too.

Perhaps it's something to explore anyway.

They get just as snarled up as anywhere else in rush hour as I discovered a few days ago, but being in a Tory heartland, it's going to be a tough one to get through.

The _right_stuff wrote:
I have it on good authority that Tesco's in Chineham has asked on quite a few occassions to increase the size of the store there and every time it has been refused by the council, so I guess they are fed up with keep asking.

Could you please ask your source to point me in the right direction for these refusals? There appears to be no planning applications of this nature on the councils planning website. In fact, the extensions applied for have been granted.

I will get back to you when my neihbour is in....they actually work there.

Hopefully get the info by tonight.

Don't pay any attention to 'a_bit_duff'. His information is usually fantasy, having no basis in fact and of the 'bloke_down_the_pub_
says' quality.

The Council website, which details all planning applications in recent history, is somewhat of a more reliable source and as pointed out, there are no refusals for large scale extensions.

Let's crack on and get this built in Brighton Hill. Let's give consumers more choice without the need to travel across town to use Tesco, let's get that land earning money and paying council tax. Time to cut the c**p and get on with it.

Really KCACMV.

Fantasy.... :) What was it 'Jon Harris' from Hatch warren...you small child.

Bored tonight are you ?

By the way... are you 100% sure i'm a 'he'...where have I ever said that ?

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. 'Quality'.

O.k. so my neibhour is home. I have asked them about enlarging the Tesco store in Chineham.


On four occasions over the last 7 years tesco has 'asked' to enlarge their 'footprint of the store' their words not mine.

So essentially to make it bigger. Most of these plans Tesco had apparently have revolved around putting an extension on to the staff entrance near to blockbuster (look across from block buster store and you will see a door...the staff entrance) and to expand into the carpark at the end of the store.


So. KCACMV and alter ego BNE are right........ sort of.
There have been no formal planning applications for these extensions, as much like Wates have done with the reserved kempshott site, the Tesco's agent, on behalf of Tesco's have put forward on those four occasions a pre-application enquiry to the council.
The council at these meetings have said that they will not allow Tesco's to increase their footprint.
The pre-application enquirys are arranged with the council as Tesco isn't going to spend huge ammounts of money on plans, agents etc. knowing that they will not get planning permission, so they test the water before they do. It's a normal commercial process (and that is exactly what Wates are doing for the Kempshott reserve site right now).

So, as they weren't likely to to get permission to expand their footprint i.e. make the Tesco store bigger
Tesco recently carried out the instore store expansion i.e. moving walls, reducing the staff area, moving thimngs round, adding the instore toilets etc. etc.


KCACMV / BNE. You funny things. Have another look at the Tesco's planning applications and what they are for....all within the current 'footprint' of the Tesco store or at the petrol station.
Tesco has asked for various things at the petrol station i.e Jet wash Facility, ATM, car wash and plant room.

The others applications for the Chineham store have been for 'Erection of a scissor lift enclosure for home shopping canopy, new canopy for a home delivery, erection of a covered marshalling yard, erection of a single storey external extension for ATM's (never carried out) etc. ALL WITHIN THE CURRENT TESCO's FOOTPRINT.

Oh and the other applications are for aluminated signs and what not.
Have a look...I did.

So, would you like to know now what my neibhour does in the store... you guessed it, they ain't a shelf stacker.

and I did say ask....not apply for : )

Just waiting for the shoot down and for KCACMV to out class me ; ) (You remember that right ?)

he,he....illuminated
...not aluminated :)

And I was just reminded, if you believe this is fantasy.....use the FOI act to ask the council and planning depratment about the info above. They will have a record of these 'pre application meetings' somewhere.

Oh dear, you are having a little spat - that is funny :-) You need to get some help with that stress problem you have.

I can't help the fact that you are gullible and believe any old rubbish your 'neighbour' tells you.

You are aware of Basingstoke & Deane's planning search online?

http://bit.ly/MmHYCN


Please feel free to go back to 1982 and show us where these applications are. Good luck with that.

Ain't it a shame that facts get in the way of a good ole' village idiot rumour?

Keep_Calm_And_Commen
t wrote:
Oh dear, you are having a little spat - that is funny :-) You need to get some help with that stress problem you have.

I can't help the fact that you are gullible and believe any old rubbish your 'neighbour' tells you.

You are aware of Basingstoke & Deane's planning search online?

http://bit.ly/MmHYCN



Please feel free to go back to 1982 and show us where these applications are. Good luck with that.

Ain't it a shame that facts get in the way of a good ole' village idiot rumour?

Anyone who believes that companies don't spend thousands on research and lobbying to see if planning will be accepted before they even get to a planning application clearly doesn't understand how things work. These companies spen money to understand what a council will accept long before they employ people to actually apply for planning. Most proposals fall before the planning application stage and this is what I am sure is being referred to. Are there any applications for Manydown?No. Do we know there are developers looking to build houses? Yes.... Will they apply? No. So planning is beaten long before an application is drawn up for consideration. It's the way planning is, don't be fooled into thinking they haven't tried on occasions and failed, they often fail long before its a matter of public record.

You'll be suggesting black ops and funny helicopters next.

I'm sure that some research is undertaken - that' s going to be natural if you come to put a major plan together, but it does not amount to a planning meeting or application.

A_bit_duff is talking bull and making things up. There is no evidence or citation to support the claims. I know it is inconvenient, but the world requires it when trying to establish or prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

The B&DBC council state on their website:
http://bit.ly/JJVfTk


"You can seek advice and help from the Council prior to the submission of planning applications through the Council's Duty Planning Service or by making a Written Submission."

It was suggested above to use the FOI system; however my councillor told me this when I once tried: "Councillors are told that pre-application discussions are confidential so we are not even allowed to know with whom the Officers are having discussions."

~Andrew~

Keep_Calm_And_Commen
t wrote:
You'll be suggesting black ops and funny helicopters next.

I'm sure that some research is undertaken - that' s going to be natural if you come to put a major plan together, but it does not amount to a planning meeting or application.

A_bit_duff is talking bull and making things up. There is no evidence or citation to support the claims. I know it is inconvenient, but the world requires it when trying to establish or prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

Don't claim to be an authority on facts - facts indicate you're not an authority on anything.

Funny, these cowardly insults from someone who hides behind empty threats and a silly username.

KCACMV. Not stressed and not having a spat.

It's up to you whether it's fantasy or not.

I told you what my neibhour said.

Has KCAC ever agreed with anything he has posted about ? I haven't been on here for long, but every post he makes is an inflammatory one in which he hopes to press peoples buttons. He is obviously bored/unemployed/ret
ired and has nothing else better to do with his time that start a storm. We should all pity him and treat his comments with the contempt they deserve. He lights the touchpaper and sits back reveling in the firestorm he creates. He is so quick to abuse people who dare to post an opinion without accepting that it is allowed to be different from his. What a sad life he must have. We should all feel sorry for him and just ignore his comments only responding to those which are of a more mature tone. If we ignore him, hemay even go away , but I doubt it. There is nothing else in his life :)

Keep_Calm_And_Commen
t wrote:
You'll be suggesting black ops and funny helicopters next. I'm sure that some research is undertaken - that' s going to be natural if you come to put a major plan together, but it does not amount to a planning meeting or application. A_bit_duff is talking bull and making things up. There is no evidence or citation to support the claims. I know it is inconvenient, but the world requires it when trying to establish or prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

All you need to do is realise that the so called research takes a long time compared to all the areas of planning and public consultation put together. Some years ago, I was chairman of a local residents group involved in the planning application for the ridgeway centre. Before the plans went in there was money ready for them stupid roundabouts the council wanted and nobody else did, the underpass to go and a land deal with a nod and a wink to pull down a grade one listed building and put flats up, all arranged before any papers went into the planning department. But as it has rightly been said, all conversations are private and so you would never know unless you knew someone involved prepared to say. And before anyone says its rubbish, the grade one listed building was witting reading rooms and 2 years before someone local applied for permission to make a change to the road leading to it so to make it a residence, and surprise surprise it was refused because it was "grade 1 listed".

As KCACMV has pointed out he/she is your neighbour, not neibhour. Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours, with a little love and understanding you can find you perfect friend...

GC31. Sorry about my spelling.

I've always had a problem with spelling neighbours though.

Love the 'Neighbours' theme though, it made me chuckle :)

Thank you.

Opinions_opinions wrote:
Has KCAC ever agreed with anything he has posted about ? I haven't been on here for long, but every post he makes is an inflammatory one in which he hopes to press peoples buttons. He is obviously bored/unemployed/ret

ired and has nothing else better to do with his time that start a storm. We should all pity him and treat his comments with the contempt they deserve. He lights the touchpaper and sits back reveling in the firestorm he creates. He is so quick to abuse people who dare to post an opinion without accepting that it is allowed to be different from his. What a sad life he must have. We should all feel sorry for him and just ignore his comments only responding to those which are of a more mature tone. If we ignore him, hemay even go away , but I doubt it. There is nothing else in his life :)

Agreed. Although he's easy to wind up, which is fun.

So filtering out all the rubbish, a_bit_duff was talking - as usual - out of it's backside.

No evidence at all to support his multi post ranting.

Sam_Walker5 wrote:

Keep_Calm_And_Commen t wrote: You'll be suggesting black ops and funny helicopters next. I'm sure that some research is undertaken - that' s going to be natural if you come to put a major plan together, but it does not amount to a planning meeting or application. A_bit_duff is talking bull and making things up. There is no evidence or citation to support the claims. I know it is inconvenient, but the world requires it when trying to establish or prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

Don't claim to be an authority on facts - facts indicate you're not an authority on anything. Funny, these cowardly insults from someone who hides behind empty threats and a silly username.

Why did I say this when I spend all my time hiding behind empty threats an a silly user name myself? Sorry!

Sam_Walker123456 wrote:

Sam_Walker5 wrote:

Keep_Calm_And_Commen t wrote: You'll be suggesting black ops and funny helicopters next. I'm sure that some research is undertaken - that' s going to be natural if you come to put a major plan together, but it does not amount to a planning meeting or application. A_bit_duff is talking bull and making things up. There is no evidence or citation to support the claims. I know it is inconvenient, but the world requires it when trying to establish or prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

Don't claim to be an authority on facts - facts indicate you're not an authority on anything. Funny, these cowardly insults from someone who hides behind empty threats and a silly username.

Why did I say this when I spend all my time hiding behind empty threats an a silly user name myself? Sorry!

See, I knew he fancied me - he's even trying to be me!

Desperate times, eh?

KCACMV.

I think he fancies me too. You know what they say, anger is only a few letters from love. xx

The extra jobs would be good.
At the moment with the mess that all these stupid politicians are getting us in to. ANY JOBS WOULD BE A BONUS.

The extra jobs, and consumer choice, would be welcome.

It's illogical to argue that 'traffic' may increase. This is the main A30 passing through our town, if it is not able to cope we need to ask WTF the council have been doing all these years with regard to town expansion - something they were only too keen to welcome during the late 60's & 70's.

davescorpio0 wrote:
The extra jobs would be good.
At the moment with the mess that all these stupid politicians are getting us in to. ANY JOBS WOULD BE A BONUS.

Would there really be extra jobs ? If Tesco say they are going to create x number of jobs and the population of B'stoke is pretty much static, then that means the existing supermarkets will not be selling the same volumes. Which in turn could mean job reductions. Tesco Chineham would certainly not need the same amount of staff, as those that do travel there from the West of town will no doubt use the "new" Tesco. So job creation is not one that can be proved one way or the other as all the existing supermarkets would likely be making cuts to staff. Build council houses on there if the council want to make money. They would get guaranteed revenue from council tax and the new arrivals would then be spending their money in Basingstoke and not in some other town. I just really don't believe we should believe all this hype about jobs until we all consider the knock on effect of the businesses already trading so close to this site.

Opinions_opinions wrote:

davescorpio0 wrote: The extra jobs would be good. At the moment with the mess that all these stupid politicians are getting us in to. ANY JOBS WOULD BE A BONUS.

Would there really be extra jobs ? If Tesco say they are going to create x number of jobs and the population of B'stoke is pretty much static, then that means the existing supermarkets will not be selling the same volumes. Which in turn could mean job reductions. Tesco Chineham would certainly not need the same amount of staff, as those that do travel there from the West of town will no doubt use the "new" Tesco. So job creation is not one that can be proved one way or the other as all the existing supermarkets would likely be making cuts to staff. Build council houses on there if the council want to make money. They would get guaranteed revenue from council tax and the new arrivals would then be spending their money in Basingstoke and not in some other town. I just really don't believe we should believe all this hype about jobs until we all consider the knock on effect of the businesses already trading so close to this site.

I've used all the main supermarkets in Basingstoke and they are all very busy so they can afford to have some custom go to rivals. As for static Basingstoke, has it slipped past that Basingstoke is having a huge argument where to put an MDA with goodness knows how many properties and has lime parks, Beggarwood, the new houses in Buckskin and such places not added to the numbers. Hate to say it but the numbers are growing and set to do so, the need is there but while the need is, the capacity isn't, like roads, buses, and many other things that I'm sure we've all forgotten. Spreading things out and duplicating shops does help to reduce the traffic as people travel less, busses need to be looked at and maybe a new rail station to the west would be a thought. All this would reduce traffic and that seems to be the big concern for most in the area and all would mean new jobs, even if it isn't in the numbers claimed.

stevemac1970 and opinions_opinions.

I agree with parts of both.

It is a nightmare with no thought to traffic whichever side of town is used or whether Tesco's building a new store or using that area for housing, with the potential for about 8,000 houses (families) from now till 2027 is going to be a great idea.

i think i would also question how many jobs would be created and for who.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether a new Tesco is a good idea or bad to be honest, but Tesco should still look at increasing the size of the Chineham one again.
I might shop there more often then if it was bigger (with more choice...and tesco points) although it's a bit of a travel in the car.

blimey. sorry i must have been half asleep when I wrote the suff above. I've had another go : )

stevemac1970 and opinions_opinions.

I agree with parts of both.

It is a nightmare with no thought to traffic whatsovere through the borough, let alone the west side of town.
Whether Tesco build a new store or use that area for housing, with the potential for about 8,000 houses (families) from now till 2027 extra in the borough, the road network and infrastructure just won't cope without some serious design and budget.

I think i would also question how many jobs would be created and for who.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether a new Tesco is a good idea or bad to be honest, but Tesco should still look at increasing the size of the Chineham once again.
I might shop at Tesco's chineham more often then if it was bigger (with more choice...and do like the tesco points) although it's a bit of a travel in the car

I know it's still poor gramatically...but i really am tired.

Hopefully you know what I mean and once again sorry for the poor comment.