|
|
S.O.S!Arguments
The Planners will argue: That the proposal is environmentally friendly, as a local supermarket will save on total mileage travelled. SOS says - The majority of people moving into the proposed 320 new houses cannot work, or obtain work, locally and will therefore need to travel a greater distance back to their workplace every single day. Where is the saving, as most journeys to a supermarket are once a week? The Planners will argue: That 320 new low cost houses will enable young people to afford to live and remain in the area. SOS says - There are currently over 8 low cost houses for sale on the main road between Scissett and Clayton West and numerous others on side estates. There are more than enough affordable houses than there are people to buy them already. The Council will argue: That the people of Scissett are taking a "Not In My Back Yard" attitude and other villages favour a supermarket. SOS says - True! But our message to surrounding villages is this: if the proposal goes ahead, Scissett residents will still be able to walk to their supermarket. When your local shops have closed, what will your old people and those without a car do? This is not just about Scissett! A lot of people pass through on their way to work and it's about road congestion caused by a traffic roundabout; a possible 300+ extra vehicles; and probably pedestrian controlled traffic lights. The Developers will argue: That the proposed supermarket will bring extra jobs to the area; increase price competition; and give greater convenience. SOS says - Every study has concluded that out-of-town supermarkets reduce the number of local food shops. Some of our local villages only have one food shop, at the most two. If these close, this supermarket will be in a monopoly position. It has been proved that such national chains increase their prices where there is little competition. Our local food shops open from 8.00am to 9.30pm seven days a week and on Bank Holidays. Will this supermarket provide this level of convenience? The Council will argue: The area will obtain a new swimming baths at no cost. SOS says - What other less intrusive avenues have been explored for replacing the building? What about a Lottery grant; a E.U. grant; or a Private Finance Initiative? The Planners will argue: That villages cannot stagnate but must be rejuvenated and allowed to expand in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the community. SOS says - True! But even an amateur can see that introducing in excess of 1,000 people into a village community of 1,600 in such a short timescale is a little extreme. This surely calls into question the professional competence of the Council's Planning Department in even contemplating such a scheme. The Planners will argue: That the district of Kirklees has to cater for an expanding population and therefore requires additional housing. SOS says - True! Kirklees is expanding - but at the rate of between 600 to 900 people each year. Why is it necessary for a small village like Scissett to take two years expansion all on its own? |