400 protestors march through streets of Trowbridge (From Wiltshire Times)

Thankfully the planning inspectorate aren't biased and corrupt, they will do their job and don't have their own scheming agenda.

Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

I must agree if anyone wants to build on Bowyers site and has the money then go ahead. Competition is a good thing for any town and its residents. For too long Tesco have dominated Trowbridge so if Morrissons want to build and bring other attractions then great.

mazzer76 wrote:
Thankfully the planning inspectorate aren't biased and corrupt, they will do their job and don't have their own scheming agenda.

The Planning Inspectorate are timid though - so don't count your chickens eh?

If you want evidence of PINS timidity look no further than their inaction in the face of corruption and bias in public bodies...

http://tiny.cc/d862g
w

http://tiny.cc/d862g
w

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Hey John Fairbrother - I think you need to get a few facts right - firstly the council did not ask morrisons to remove the garage from the plans - Morrisons wanted to demolish the listed buildings at the front of the plot opposite Harleys wine bar. When the council reminded them they would never get permission to demolish listed buildings Morrisons choose to leave the garage out of the plans rather than re-site it. I too would like to see a Morrisons garage if we have to have a Morrisons.

800 signature huh - thats under 3% of Trowbridge population - not taking into account population of surrounding areas which what ever is developed on this site will serve. I don't think anyone is scared John - not L&G not the council and certainly not me. The problem is the sustainability John - not the interests of less than 3% of immediate population - aslo I reckon that if I were to hold a meeting with your 800 signatures and give them ALL relevant facts I could change the minds of a large proportion.

When I went around the town a few weeks back collecting signatures from traders only 3 shops refused - I did collect 76 signatures from traders John - again I seem to hold a majority here.

I also dispute the WT quote of how many people were at the march - surely a rally of that support would have had some nice photos - not even 200 were there at its peak.

Oh and if you want to keep being so personal with me John I'm going to have to insist you take me out to dinner.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Hey John Fairbrother - I think you need to get a few facts right - firstly the council did not ask morrisons to remove the garage from the plans - Morrisons wanted to demolish the listed buildings at the front of the plot opposite Harleys wine bar. When the council reminded them they would never get permission to demolish listed buildings Morrisons choose to leave the garage out of the plans rather than re-site it. I too would like to see a Morrisons garage if we have to have a Morrisons.

800 signature huh - thats under 3% of Trowbridge population - not taking into account population of surrounding areas which what ever is developed on this site will serve. I don't think anyone is scared John - not L&G not the council and certainly not me. The problem is the sustainability John - not the interests of less than 3% of immediate population - aslo I reckon that if I were to hold a meeting with your 800 signatures and give them ALL relevant facts I could change the minds of a large proportion.

When I went around the town a few weeks back collecting signatures from traders only 3 shops refused - I did collect 76 signatures from traders John - again I seem to hold a majority here.

I also dispute the WT quote of how many people were at the march - surely a rally of that support would have had some nice photos - not even 200 were there at its peak.

Oh and if you want to keep being so personal with me John I'm going to have to insist you take me out to dinner.

For a man who said on the previous thread it was his last word on the topic, you do seem to be still going on! ;)
Safe and Sound security did the count of protesters, which was 400. What does 3% of the Trowbridge population actually mean? Does it mean the other 97% don't care or don't have an opinion? Of course it doesn't. Does a 30% turnout at a local election mean the other 70% have a different opinion? 800 is still more than 79 when i last checked though. This is bigger than Trowbridge anyway, it's a catchment area of 250,000 with transport links of dedicated bus hub and train station. Cineworld are just about to build the 3rd multiplex in Swindon, a catchment area of 150,000. I think they know their stuff, profit making rather than Odeon's 70m loss and a fantastic monthly season ticket of £14.99 to go to the cinema as many times as you want.

Cineworld stated today they would still build even is SSP goes ahead (even though work STILL hasn't started yet on SSP!). Thats because they know with a catchment of 250,000, even 2 multiplexes can be supported. They also have the car parking, which is a major factor! Did you see the state of the car parking last week for the veterans day in the park? It was a nightmare, and that is before SSP is even built. Premier Inn also has 80 dedicated and reserved spaces, so the already jam packed mutli storey wont have capacity. As for the rubbish being said about the traffic, how many can remember when we had Bowyers, Waldens AND Ushers all at that side of town? It wasnt bad then and Innox development has a dedicated entrance and exit. As for SSP, the farce tht is the longfield roundabout just wont be able to cope - it didn't last week! WWCC didnt compalin about highways issues when Asda, the shires or the shires gateway went in did they? But then again they didnt want someone to pay for a leisure centre.

Please do go ahead and have your SSP development (even though it wont happen, letters of intent only, no contracts!), but please button it and let the people have the Innox development as well. It was their first, and it's much better!

You forget that the biggest problems were the that Morrisons could not satisfy planning regulations in the 6 or so months they were given after submitting plans.

do get me wrong - I aslo want to see Innox developed - if that means we have to have a Morrisons then even though I think Trowbridge could do without it then so be it - I do not believe a second cinema and another 7 restaurants in addition to the eight at SSP are sustainable - I believe if that were to go ahead you would see units never occupied or abandoned within a short few years - ending up with yet more derelict building. Have your Morrisons but use your common sense and ask for something other than what already on the table .

You got no chance of me buttoning it dude - so don't bother asking again.

I'd like to know how many of your signatures actually know whats being built at SSP and if their opinions would be the same if they knew.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
do get me wrong - I aslo want to see Innox developed - if that means we have to have a Morrisons then even though I think Trowbridge could do without it then so be it - I do not believe a second cinema and another 7 restaurants in addition to the eight at SSP are sustainable - I believe if that were to go ahead you would see units never occupied or abandoned within a short few years - ending up with yet more derelict building. Have your Morrisons but use your common sense and ask for something other than what already on the table .

You got no chance of me buttoning it dude - so don't bother asking again.

I'd like to know how many of your signatures actually know whats being built at SSP and if their opinions would be the same if they knew.

You were the one who said who had finished on the subject, then piped up again! Innox had their plans in first, SSP rushed them through and the council held back IR, end of. I am glad you know building cinema multiplexes better than Cineworld, perhaps you should give them the heads up on their development in Swindon, i am sure they will be chuffed to know it's going to be a non starter. I want the Morrisons AND a profitable Cinema Multiplex chain that gives PROVEN value for money ticket

At the moment, NOTHING is being built at SSP, letters of intent only and no signed contracts. It's all pipe dreams until then. The Morrisons development has signed contracts in place for the Multiplex and restaurants. The only way you will know what people think about SSP is if you ask. Rebecca got off her sofa and got a response. Why don't you start a Facebook group, start a poll, hell even hold a march of your own.

Peeps seem to have short memories - The Red Admiral development which originally got turned down on Paxcroft Mead went to appeal and won, meaning WWC lost half a million fighting a losing battle. Prepare to see it all happen again. It's easy when its someone else money.

You say alot, but don't listen Shaun, which is a shame, because at times you actually sound quite coherent. I bet you quote from Wikipedia too ;)

Let them build it, its the developers choice, the town looks a dump as you arrive by train with the site now looking very run down. If its not done now I can see it staying that way for another 20 years!

Surely any re-development of a brown site for business purposes, or even housing for that matter, has got to be a good thing, way too much of our countryside has been lost in the 22 years I have been in this area. I may be a simpleton where planning laws are concerned, but it just makes sense to me! Personally it will make Trowbridge a more inviting place to come to.

Here here Tugger and Katmando, how many developers do we have wanting to bring 45 million pounds and 450 jobs worth of investment to Trowbridge? WWC are just being anti competitive and just plain stupid!

How many cinemas and restaurants do we actually need? There is a cinema and 8 restaurants being built as we speak at SSP. I took a look the other day and several diggers looked to be a little more than letters of intent to me.

Bath badger you're starting to sound like Mike Baxter - how many identities do you have?

Not sure how quoting from wikipedia is relevant - oh - wait you were attempting to insult me... no? You'll have to do better than that.

All I am saying is that your expected 450 jobs will not exist if you are thinking Trowbridge can sustain 2 cinemas and 8 Restaurants - its absolutely crazy to think it could. I'm half tempted to joins sides with you lot - let you get your silly Cineworld fixation sorted and come back in 5 years just so you can tell me exactly how many jobs you really created.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ANOTHER CINEMA AND RESTAURANTS ON THAT SITE? WHY NOT AN AQUA PARK?

*Trowbridge can sustain 2 cinemas and 16 Restaurants

Lol, why do you refuse to see the facts. Cineworld know it can sustain more than 1 Cinema, look at the FACTS. Or do you know Multiplexes better than them.

Have a cup of coffee, then re-read my post S>L>O>W>L>Y.

They submitted their plans first, so why should have to change what they want to build?

Only one identity here Shaun, but Mr Baxter ha clearly done his research and knows his stuff. He is speaking from a standpoint of both Local authority experience and working in the Multiplex industry. How many years did you do in that arena?

oh and stop using the old yarn of ssp being rushed through and ir held up - I'll repeat.

SSP were complete and satisfied all departments at the point they were handed in.

IR threw incomplete plans into the planning office - they were held up by their own lack of work and effort - just like they need you lot to try and bully their way through the system now - rather than doing their homework and completing the paperwork.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
*Trowbridge can sustain 2 cinemas and 16 Restaurants

How many can West Wilts sustain?

Mike Baxter has a fixation on having a Cineworld in Trowbridge and **** the consequences.

Mike Baxter has a fixation on having a Cineworld in Trowbridge and **** the consequences.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
oh and stop using the old yarn of ssp being rushed through and ir held up - I'll repeat.

SSP were complete and satisfied all departments at the point they were handed in.

IR threw incomplete plans into the planning office - they were held up by their own lack of work and effort - just like they need you lot to try and bully their way through the system now - rather than doing their homework and completing the paperwork.

I repeat it because it's true, and you know it is!

Stop dodging all the other points you fail to address where Innox is superior to SSP - parking, traffic, Cinema operator and grasping at the few straws you have.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Mike Baxter has a fixation on having a Cineworld in Trowbridge and **** the consequences.

Nurse! He's out of bed again! I think perhaps looking a little closer to home about fixations may help?

Miles away on the name front PCS - We actually get on very well, but for the sake of keeping this relationship, I will remain anonymous. Many of the people who signed the TRAM are now starting to look at their actions, this is conversation ongoing every day behind your own back, we are starting to see what the public really want, we are waking up now and realising that this should be embraced.

You clutch at straws at every point, i would say the number was closer to 500 today, as we were entering the County Hall, the march was still passing the Asda roundabout.

Lets talk numbers 400 - 500 people in any march against a planning decision is huge, people have had enough of the stupid decisions being made in the town by the aged and outdated planners.

On the government website (epetitions.direct.g
ov.uk) the largest petition is 156k out of a population of 62m in the UK that is next to nothing, yet its the biggest petition in the UK.

Talking to several planners and developers in the weeks gone by, they have stated that they are baffled as to why it was rejected and rate the chances of a successful appeal very highly.

SSP had no less that 67 conditions set on the site, it can't be sucessfull in its current format - It's unsustaniable. Yet you bang on about a sustainable town centre.

Surely what makes it sustainable is people coming INTO the town and spending money? SSP does not attract people from outside the town, it's a town cinema, based on the towns local transport (bus).

Innox Riverside is a cinema for the whole area the 250000 catchment area, incorporating the Cineworld flagship cinema for the south-west. It's a scheme to bring people into the town.

Two independent reports have shown that the Innox Riverside scheme will bring in between £6 - £9 million extra spend into the town centre, this compares to £1.5 - £3 million on the same report for SSP. Now you do the maths.

Wonder how many people travel to Bristol and Bath from West Wiltshire alone? And frankly neither are nice to drive round or park. The nearest 1 to us is Frome, at lets face it, it could do with a bit of updating! My saturday with the kids would be sorted, catch a film, do a bit of shopping and get something to eat, perfect day to me! However Aqua park? Once done no need to return!

Katmando wrote:
Wonder how many people travel to Bristol and Bath from West Wiltshire alone? And frankly neither are nice to drive round or park. The nearest 1 to us is Frome, at lets face it, it could do with a bit of updating! My saturday with the kids would be sorted, catch a film, do a bit of shopping and get something to eat, perfect day to me! However Aqua park? Once done no need to return!

lol, quite. I'd love to see the march for an Aqua park! Shaun and Jonathan Knee in Mankinis and flip flops ;)

Lets face it - 800 signatures is not going to be enough to get a planning inspectorate to ignore all the regulations that the plans did not meet - are you going to ask the planning inspectorate to order network rail to close of their current entrance too? Who's grasping at straws?

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Lets face it - 800 signatures is not going to be enough to get a planning inspectorate to ignore all the regulations that the plans did not meet - are you going to ask the planning inspectorate to order network rail to close of their current entrance too? Who's grasping at straws?

More than 79 though? Where and who are the Pro SSP group?

76 town centre traders bath badger - that's a lot of traders - I haven't even tried Joe public yet...

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
oh and stop using the old yarn of ssp being rushed through and ir held up - I'll repeat.

SSP were complete and satisfied all departments at the point they were handed in.

IR threw incomplete plans into the planning office - they were held up by their own lack of work and effort - just like they need you lot to try and bully their way through the system now - rather than doing their homework and completing the paperwork.

I repeat it because it's true, and you know it is!

Stop dodging all the other points you fail to address where Innox is superior to SSP - parking, traffic, Cinema operator and grasping at the few straws you have.

deluded - absolutely deluded!

AFK - Out to Lunch ;)

PCS - You sound so desperate....

They do not have to close off the station, that is a desirable condition, it wont stand up in an appeal, as you were at the planning committee you would of heard the councillors stating that.

IR do not own the land to close it off, but they are pro-actively in negotiations with NR, they do not have to do this. As its between NR and the council, this would be something the council should chase up, but IR are doing this on their behalf, hence that will not even matter in an appeal.

You may of noticed the counting strips laid out around the area to gage the traffic numbers, from what I understand, the hold ups are caused by traffic turning into Asda from Stallard street, the new findings should reiterate this. If that is the case, the rejection from a highways prospective will be irrelevant.

Have you ever thought that the reasons Wiltshire Council were so desperate to block this development is because they want the land to themselves (hence very lose legals)? This was reviled yesterday along with the fact that the development company will never sell to the council.

It should be converted to houses, one cinemas enough, why do we require another crap supermarket, we've got plenty of those. Build houses and flats and stop building on green belts.

Unfortunately that wouldn't be sustainable due to the costs of clearing the site, sorting out the contamination.

The same with Peter Blacks - Huge amounts of contamination, a very narrow site and you have the major sewer running under it, it will cost £10m to just sort those two out, without a major anchor, nothing will happen with that site. This is why it's been left rotting since Waitrose pulled out.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
oh and stop using the old yarn of ssp being rushed through and ir held up - I'll repeat.

SSP were complete and satisfied all departments at the point they were handed in.

IR threw incomplete plans into the planning office - they were held up by their own lack of work and effort - just like they need you lot to try and bully their way through the system now - rather than doing their homework and completing the paperwork.

I repeat it because it's true, and you know it is!

Stop dodging all the other points you fail to address where Innox is superior to SSP - parking, traffic, Cinema operator and grasping at the few straws you have.

deluded - absolutely deluded!

and still you refuse to debate the better car parking, better traffic management and profit making cinema. Straight question - would you invest in a company that has doubled it's losses to 70 million in 1 year and sold it's flagship Leicester Square site, or profit making Cineworld? At the end of the day, it's West Wilts. people who will be investing their money here.

And i am still correct on the "work" going on at SSP, They have moved about a bit a rubble. Go to the top of the multi storey and take a look! This has NOT been handed over to the developers, as the sites moving in have only given letters of intent, NOT signed contracts. Until then SSP is still all theoretical!

car spaces at morrisons for morrisons customers. where are cinema and pub people gonna park? even if wilts could sustain 2 cinemas and all those restaurants dont mean we need and want them. youd need to get a few more than 800 people to sign if you wanna convince me. i still think something else would be good.

D@ve wrote:
Unfortunately that wouldn't be sustainable due to the costs of clearing the site, sorting out the contamination.

The same with Peter Blacks - Huge amounts of contamination, a very narrow site and you have the major sewer running under it, it will cost £10m to just sort those two out, without a major anchor, nothing will happen with that site. This is why it's been left rotting since Waitrose pulled out.

Didnt know there was that much contamination - considering the sites you'd not have thought that was an issue would you?

Cinephile wrote:
car spaces at morrisons for morrisons customers. where are cinema and pub people gonna park? even if wilts could sustain 2 cinemas and all those restaurants dont mean we need and want them. youd need to get a few more than 800 people to sign if you wanna convince me. i still think something else would be good.

Where does it say they are dedicated? You also have the underused Shires Car park?

Do you think they want to invest 45 million on a whim? They have don't research and if Swindon with it's 150,000 catchment can support 3 Multiplexes, why can't West Wilts?

Insteas of another Cinema perhaps a bingo hall could be built. I know lots of people who travel to Devizes Swindon Sailsbury and Frome to play Bingo. A bingo Hall and ten pin bowling alley would be good

car park space will soon be dedicated to morrisons as soon as they get letters from customers moaning nowhere to park. plenty of car spaces around ssp too - no difference.

i think aquapark and tenpin bowling would be amazeballs!

people going to cinema might be prepared to walk from diff car parks but people going to morrisons are not gonna want to have to carry shopping. as soon as that happens morrisons will change the rules.

Cinephile

If you look at the planning documents there is dedicated parking for both aspects.

Spoke to a clearance worker Friday and they're only clearing and not building for months. They got problems with paperwork and plans. Not going smooth as some people think. Maybe Odeon pulling out?

Cinephile wrote:
car park space will soon be dedicated to morrisons as soon as they get letters from customers moaning nowhere to park. plenty of car spaces around ssp too - no difference.

i think aquapark and tenpin bowling would be amazeballs!

Where? Multi-storey from Monday to Saturday is choc a bloc, and if you went to the Armed Forces event last weekend parking was a nightmare - and that is even before SSP has been built with 80 dedicated spaces for Premier Inn!

Cinephile wrote:
people going to cinema might be prepared to walk from diff car parks but people going to morrisons are not gonna want to have to carry shopping. as soon as that happens morrisons will change the rules.

Which Car parks? WWC have built housing on the old Bus Station car park and now the charges have gone through the roof, peoplhave been put off from parking in Council run car parks? Do we just force more long term parking on those living on the Longfield estate?

Just park in Longfield estate it's free.

the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

I'd like to point out that over the last couple of weeks I've taken my daughter to town park twice and there has been a digger working on the SSP site both times, for anyone saying that nothing has started yet...

When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter.

And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side.

I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema.

Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end.

Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board.

I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

BathBadger wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
car spaces at morrisons for morrisons customers. where are cinema and pub people gonna park? even if wilts could sustain 2 cinemas and all those restaurants dont mean we need and want them. youd need to get a few more than 800 people to sign if you wanna convince me. i still think something else would be good.

Where does it say they are dedicated? You also have the underused Shires Car park?

Do you think they want to invest 45 million on a whim? They have don't research and if Swindon with it's 150,000 catchment can support 3 Multiplexes, why can't West Wilts?

You mention parking being an issue for SSP - do you really think people are going to be bothered about making the 5ish minute walk to SSP from the under-used Shires car park that you just mentioned? I support BOTH sites, and think people should think back to when you called for SSP to be developed LONG BEFORE BOWYERS SHUT, that site has been derelict for 18 years, Bowyers only shut in 2007. So, we are getting what we asked for, and I'm grateful.

Anyway, congratulations on the success of the march to the organisers, I would have attended but I was away. I hope the Planning Inspectorate see sense and approve the plans as I think both SSP and IR will be huge assets and beneficial for everyone in the town.

I truly want to see Bowyers developed and soon - if that means having yet another supermarket aswell - well Morrisons would be my first choice - But to say the town can sustain 2 cinemas after all these years of having none is ludicrous - have Morrisons - lobby Morrisons to include a petrol station without demolishing listed buildings BUT PLEASE CONSIDER OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE REST OF THE SITE

Cinephile wrote:
the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

Exactly my point, it was rammed as it was every Saturday and every weekday. Thanks for confirming. The point being is no-one uses the Council run Car parks because of the charges, why will that change IF SSP goes ahead? Tesco has a time limit on their Car park and you seriously advocate people parking residentially on Longfield and Dursley Road? If you missed the congestion on Saturday, then frankly i am stunned! If you propose building a development, you should supply parking to support it.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter.

And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side.

I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema.

Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end.

Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board.

I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

BathBadger wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

Exactly my point, it was rammed as it was every Saturday and every weekday. Thanks for confirming. The point being is no-one uses the Council run Car parks because of the charges, why will that change IF SSP goes ahead? Tesco has a time limit on their Car park and you seriously advocate people parking residentially on Longfield and Dursley Road? If you missed the congestion on Saturday, then frankly i am stunned! If you propose building a development, you should supply parking to support it.

So lets see - the PROFFESIONAL guys that we pay to manage these things - i.e the highways department - they didn't flag any issues with SSP??? So what make you think any different? In my view both will get busy but people will manage - the problem with IR is not spaces but ACCESS!!! I think this could be resolved but I still think 2 cinemas and 15 or 16 restaurants is UNSUSTAINABLE! So did the council planning departments. I heed their opinion more than anyone's and even a planning inspectorate will have to take note of the various reasons for refusal not just the access problem an sustainability.

18Years wrote:
I'd like to point out that over the last couple of weeks I've taken my daughter to town park twice and there has been a digger working on the SSP site both times, for anyone saying that nothing has started yet...

One digger for site clearance for Legal and General. Not for work on the Cinema or hotel as no contracts are in place.

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter.

And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side.

I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema.

Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end.

Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board.

I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

But Odeon and Premiere Inn have applied for and been granted licenses to trade by the council - how is that a letter if intent? You seem to mistake me for a fool - please refrain as it only serves to enforce my FACTS OVER YOUR OPINION.

Like I said - they read a letter from Cineworld - is it as true as the letter sent to the council stating a deal had been struck with network rail?

BathBadger wrote:

18Years wrote:
I'd like to point out that over the last couple of weeks I've taken my daughter to town park twice and there has been a digger working on the SSP site both times, for anyone saying that nothing has started yet...

One digger for site clearance for Legal and General. Not for work on the Cinema or hotel as no contracts are in place.

Ill post a photo on your ir support site that shows more than A digger

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

Exactly my point, it was rammed as it was every Saturday and every weekday. Thanks for confirming. The point being is no-one uses the Council run Car parks because of the charges, why will that change IF SSP goes ahead? Tesco has a time limit on their Car park and you seriously advocate people parking residentially on Longfield and Dursley Road? If you missed the congestion on Saturday, then frankly i am stunned! If you propose building a development, you should supply parking to support it.

So lets see - the PROFFESIONAL guys that we pay to manage these things - i.e the highways department - they didn't flag any issues with SSP??? So what make you think any different? In my view both will get busy but people will manage - the problem with IR is not spaces but ACCESS!!! I think this could be resolved but I still think 2 cinemas and 15 or 16 restaurants is UNSUSTAINABLE! So did the council planning departments. I heed their opinion more than anyone's and even a planning inspectorate will have to take note of the various reasons for refusal not just the access problem an sustainability.

The same guys that put in the farce that is Longfield roundabout? The same guys who put in the traffic island and lights for the shires gateway?

What was it like Shaun when Bowyers were operation from there, with only one entrace and shared exit for Lorries? What was it like when we had Waldens and Ushers a that end of town? It was fine!

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter.

And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side.

I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema.

Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end.

Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board.

I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

But Odeon and Premiere Inn have applied for and been granted licenses to trade by the council - how is that a letter if intent? You seem to mistake me for a fool - please refrain as it only serves to enforce my FACTS OVER YOUR OPINION.

Like I said - they read a letter from Cineworld - is it as true as the letter sent to the council stating a deal had been struck with network rail?

Ok, so you don't know what a letter of intent is then!

You can apply for licences to trade without making a purchase of any land or lease - it's the first thing you would do before you made any lease agreement. You wouldn't be able to think of trading otherwise. Just like you ask for planning permission before you build a house. A little more water with your lunch next time Shaun, Surely and entrepreneur of your standing would know that? Your argument has more holes than your string vest :)

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

Exactly my point, it was rammed as it was every Saturday and every weekday. Thanks for confirming. The point being is no-one uses the Council run Car parks because of the charges, why will that change IF SSP goes ahead? Tesco has a time limit on their Car park and you seriously advocate people parking residentially on Longfield and Dursley Road? If you missed the congestion on Saturday, then frankly i am stunned! If you propose building a development, you should supply parking to support it.

So lets see - the PROFFESIONAL guys that we pay to manage these things - i.e the highways department - they didn't flag any issues with SSP??? So what make you think any different? In my view both will get busy but people will manage - the problem with IR is not spaces but ACCESS!!! I think this could be resolved but I still think 2 cinemas and 15 or 16 restaurants is UNSUSTAINABLE! So did the council planning departments. I heed their opinion more than anyone's and even a planning inspectorate will have to take note of the various reasons for refusal not just the access problem an sustainability.

The same guys that put in the farce that is Longfield roundabout? The same guys who put in the traffic island and lights for the shires gateway?

What was it like Shaun when Bowyers were operation from there, with only one entrace and shared exit for Lorries? What was it like when we had Waldens and Ushers a that end of town? It was fine!

They didn't have the extra 250 cars per hour that is predicted - unless you're saying Morrisons don't expect anyone to attend their site - how many would you make it?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

18Years wrote:
I'd like to point out that over the last couple of weeks I've taken my daughter to town park twice and there has been a digger working on the SSP site both times, for anyone saying that nothing has started yet...

One digger for site clearance for Legal and General. Not for work on the Cinema or hotel as no contracts are in place.

Ill post a photo on your ir support site that shows more than A digger

Can you post a picture of the contracts too? ;)

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
the multi storey was rammed as it is every saturday but for the armed service days people were using the county hall without problems. no congestion i didnt see any nightmare. If you worked in building trade you would know that ssp is being prep for construction not clearing. carparks lets see. within a ten minute walk people could park at asda, morrisons, gateway, lovemead and tesco. and oh yeah longfield and dursley road.

Exactly my point, it was rammed as it was every Saturday and every weekday. Thanks for confirming. The point being is no-one uses the Council run Car parks because of the charges, why will that change IF SSP goes ahead? Tesco has a time limit on their Car park and you seriously advocate people parking residentially on Longfield and Dursley Road? If you missed the congestion on Saturday, then frankly i am stunned! If you propose building a development, you should supply parking to support it.

So lets see - the PROFFESIONAL guys that we pay to manage these things - i.e the highways department - they didn't flag any issues with SSP??? So what make you think any different? In my view both will get busy but people will manage - the problem with IR is not spaces but ACCESS!!! I think this could be resolved but I still think 2 cinemas and 15 or 16 restaurants is UNSUSTAINABLE! So did the council planning departments. I heed their opinion more than anyone's and even a planning inspectorate will have to take note of the various reasons for refusal not just the access problem an sustainability.

The same guys that put in the farce that is Longfield roundabout? The same guys who put in the traffic island and lights for the shires gateway?

What was it like Shaun when Bowyers were operation from there, with only one entrace and shared exit for Lorries? What was it like when we had Waldens and Ushers a that end of town? It was fine!

They didn't have the extra 250 cars per hour that is predicted - unless you're saying Morrisons don't expect anyone to attend their site - how many would you make it?

250 per hour over what time span, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? How to you benchmark to what was there when Bowyers, Ushers and Walden's were in operation? Back in the day when we had 9 Petrol stations in Trowbridge as well! 250 cars with proper traffic management shouldnt be an issue should it? If it is, how will SSP cope with it?

If you take the 1.25 million expected visitors stated by morrisons themselves per year - divide that by 52 weeks then that gives you 24,00 per week - we'll divide by 7 days = 3400 per day - most people shop in the most popular 8 hours of the day - 10am to 6pm - we'll halve the 3400 assuming people shop in pairs to give you the amount of cars = 1700 - divide by 8 hours gives you 214 CARS AN HOUR - I can do math me - from your own figures too - clever boy huh!

Oh and my definition - sourced from wiki is that a "visitor" is not a "local" person and we haven't even accounted from them yet have we?

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you take the 1.25 million expected visitors stated by morrisons themselves per year - divide that by 52 weeks then that gives you 24,00 per week - we'll divide by 7 days = 3400 per day - most people shop in the most popular 8 hours of the day - 10am to 6pm - we'll halve the 3400 assuming people shop in pairs to give you the amount of cars = 1700 - divide by 8 hours gives you 214 CARS AN HOUR - I can do math me - from your own figures too - clever boy huh!

So you have already lost 36 cars in one post! Keep going ;)

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Oh and my definition - sourced from wiki is that a "visitor" is not a "local" person and we haven't even accounted from them yet have we?

and how will SSP support these extra visitors?

like I said - we haven't taken into account local people yet have we ;)

SSP has always been to serve local people - not spouting suggested numbers to bolster ridiculous claims on plans that are half cocked and incomplete.

Next...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
SSP has always been to serve local people - not spouting suggested numbers to bolster ridiculous claims on plans that are half cocked and incomplete.

Next...

So no extra visitors then? Sounds very sustainable. Hence the 70m loss.

Like shooting fish in barrel :)

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
SSP has always been to serve local people - not spouting suggested numbers to bolster ridiculous claims on plans that are half cocked and incomplete.

Next...

So no extra visitors then? Sounds very sustainable. Hence the 70m loss.

Like shooting fish in barrel :)

Get a grip - you lost that argument - that you so proudly put forward yourself - who's grasping at straws?

If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

PCS your a daft sod. just because morrissons want to build it doesn't mean everyone is going to leave the already superstores. Yes, they'll try it but then probably go back as reward schemes in tesco or sainsbury people will want to continue that. The train station has taxi's in and out at all hours and customers already parking there, yes there is a massive car park there already from old bowyers. SSP is tiny area and cannot withhold so many cars as you predict. Even old tesco struggled with its car parking let alone adding a cinema in the area as well. With the extra shops or cafes, you might as well close the market now. West wilts could easily sustain 2 cinemas. Bath has only one,Odeon and people are turned away due to popular films. Vue and Showcase are kept busy, albeit bigger city but it'll be interesting to see the actual dimensions and how many seats this amazing (tiny) Odeon really has!!! I'm sure the council will decide whats best but wouldn't like the idea of voters not voting for them in the future.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

and Waldens and Ushers?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
SSP has always been to serve local people - not spouting suggested numbers to bolster ridiculous claims on plans that are half cocked and incomplete.

Next...

So no extra visitors then? Sounds very sustainable. Hence the 70m loss.

Like shooting fish in barrel :)

Get a grip - you lost that argument - that you so proudly put forward yourself - who's grasping at straws?

I think you are starting so many different threads and not answering the arguments you know you can't win, you are losing the plot old chap. Sorry, i meant "dude" :)

Ok - I think I already asked for the next argument as in

Next...

Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
SSP has always been to serve local people - not spouting suggested numbers to bolster ridiculous claims on plans that are half cocked and incomplete.

Next...

So no extra visitors then? Sounds very sustainable. Hence the 70m loss.

Like shooting fish in barrel :)

Get a grip - you lost that argument - that you so proudly put forward yourself - who's grasping at straws?

I think you are starting so many different threads and not answering the arguments you know you can't win, you are losing the plot old chap. Sorry, i meant "dude" :)

i actually think pcs has got you on a ten count here "dude"

jigsaw 5 wrote:
PCS your a daft sod. just because morrissons want to build it doesn't mean everyone is going to leave the already superstores. Yes, they'll try it but then probably go back as reward schemes in tesco or sainsbury people will want to continue that. The train station has taxi's in and out at all hours and customers already parking there, yes there is a massive car park there already from old bowyers. SSP is tiny area and cannot withhold so many cars as you predict. Even old tesco struggled with its car parking let alone adding a cinema in the area as well. With the extra shops or cafes, you might as well close the market now. West wilts could easily sustain 2 cinemas. Bath has only one,Odeon and people are turned away due to popular films. Vue and Showcase are kept busy, albeit bigger city but it'll be interesting to see the actual dimensions and how many seats this amazing (tiny) Odeon really has!!! I'm sure the council will decide whats best but wouldn't like the idea of voters not voting for them in the future.

I think the council members already stated at the planning meeting that they won't allow their own ambitions of being re-elected get in the way of making the RIGHT decision.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Ok - I think I already asked for the next argument as in

Next...

Ok, 70million loss making Cinema chain, or one that's in profit?

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

A relatively small supermarket, hence the move to the old Brown street swimming pool. It also had 100% dedicated parking for the Supermarket, no car parking charges for the other council car parks and only the then Gateway as any sort of competition.

jigsaw 5 wrote:
you'll be surprised what council elected members will do. Mary pearce and 5 others backhanded funds and got caught lol

Prepared to put your accusations in writing under your own name are you? You know all internet traffic is traceable don't you?!

Don't try to bring the reputation of council members into disrepute over your own desires to have a sodding Cineworld in the town you cretin. We could all suggest the same on both sides - try to keep it adult huh.

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

A relatively small supermarket, hence the move to the old Brown street swimming pool. It also had 100% dedicated parking for the Supermarket, no car parking charges for the other council car parks and only the then Gateway as any sort of competition.

still not relevant...

Next...

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

jigsaw 5 wrote:
you'll be surprised what council elected members will do. Mary pearce and 5 others backhanded funds and got caught lol

Prepared to put your accusations in writing under your own name are you? You know all internet traffic is traceable don't you?!

Don't try to bring the reputation of council members into disrepute over your own desires to have a sodding Cineworld in the town you cretin. We could all suggest the same on both sides - try to keep it adult huh.

They went to court Shaun, it was public record.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

A relatively small supermarket, hence the move to the old Brown street swimming pool. It also had 100% dedicated parking for the Supermarket, no car parking charges for the other council car parks and only the then Gateway as any sort of competition.

still not relevant...

Next...

How is it not relevant Shaun?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

jigsaw 5 wrote:
you'll be surprised what council elected members will do. Mary pearce and 5 others backhanded funds and got caught lol

Prepared to put your accusations in writing under your own name are you? You know all internet traffic is traceable don't you?!

Don't try to bring the reputation of council members into disrepute over your own desires to have a sodding Cineworld in the town you cretin. We could all suggest the same on both sides - try to keep it adult huh.

They went to court Shaun, it was public record.

They may well have done but Jigsaw5 was inferring something - we all know that.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

A relatively small supermarket, hence the move to the old Brown street swimming pool. It also had 100% dedicated parking for the Supermarket, no car parking charges for the other council car parks and only the then Gateway as any sort of competition.

still not relevant...

Next...

How is it not relevant Shaun?

Not relevant to Today thats how - you can stand at Longfield roundabout any day and see that the only congestion caused is by those silly traffic lights which in my view should be on during rush hour and switched off the rest of the day. Site access to SSP is not any where near under stress today - therefore it can cope with additional traffic without extra work needing to be done - the same cannot be said for Stallards Street!

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
If you want to take into account "visitors" - lets not forget that SSP used to be a supermarket and people happily managed to gain access to the site then - when Bowyers was Bowyers it would not have had anywhere near the constant amounts of traffic flooding in and out that you hope the IR site will have so there's no point using that argument really is there.

A relatively small supermarket, hence the move to the old Brown street swimming pool. It also had 100% dedicated parking for the Supermarket, no car parking charges for the other council car parks and only the then Gateway as any sort of competition.

still not relevant...

Next...

How is it not relevant Shaun?

Not relevant to Today thats how - you can stand at Longfield roundabout any day and see that the only congestion caused is by those silly traffic lights which in my view should be on during rush hour and switched off the rest of the day. Site access to SSP is not any where near under stress today - therefore it can cope with additional traffic without extra work needing to be done - the same cannot be said for Stallards Street!

Lol, but there is nothing at SSP now to make anyone go there. IF you get it developed is everyone really going to walk there? How is Stallards st any different to Longfield, again with silly traffic lights?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

Anyway - off to play with some sane adults for the rest of today...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Anyway - off to play with some sane adults for the rest of today...

Give John and Tino my love x

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

erm - just in case you are not familiar with Facebook - its at the comments on the right hand side of the page if you go directly to the group... I was using a computer, but now your comment makes me believe you are a crapple user - how lame. If you aren't then you will appreciate the fact I use a HTC ONE X - THE BOMB and if you want to dis android that's a totally different argument I'm willing to discuss but if you want a heads up you can see here what apple will be providing in IOS Version 32

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=VuC0i4xTy
rI

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

erm - just in case you are not familiar with Facebook - its at the comments on the right hand side of the page if you go directly to the group... I was using a computer, but now your comment makes me believe you are a crapple user - how lame. If you aren't then you will appreciate the fact I use a HTC ONE X - THE BOMB and if you want to dis android that's a totally different argument I'm willing to discuss but if you want a heads up you can see here what apple will be providing in IOS Version 32

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=VuC0i4xTy

rI

lol, you really do bite easily :)

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

erm - just in case you are not familiar with Facebook - its at the comments on the right hand side of the page if you go directly to the group... I was using a computer, but now your comment makes me believe you are a crapple user - how lame. If you aren't then you will appreciate the fact I use a HTC ONE X - THE BOMB and if you want to dis android that's a totally different argument I'm willing to discuss but if you want a heads up you can see here what apple will be providing in IOS Version 32

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=VuC0i4xTy

rI

Got it, nice one. And just confirms there are peeps in clearing the site as there has been for the last couple of weeks. No building yet, as no-one has signed any contracts. I remember when they went in and cleared Mount Crushmore a few years ago, we all got out hopes up then.

whats the facebook group called??

http://www.facebook.
com/ShowYourSupportF
orTheInnoxRiversideD
evelopment

It's a group for Support for IR, But Shaun has decided to hijack it! We now know that SSP is the only choice along with Android phones. I think he wants to change his name to John Connor too ;)

It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

erm - just in case you are not familiar with Facebook - its at the comments on the right hand side of the page if you go directly to the group... I was using a computer, but now your comment makes me believe you are a crapple user - how lame. If you aren't then you will appreciate the fact I use a HTC ONE X - THE BOMB and if you want to dis android that's a totally different argument I'm willing to discuss but if you want a heads up you can see here what apple will be providing in IOS Version 32

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=VuC0i4xTy


rI

Got it, nice one. And just confirms there are peeps in clearing the site as there has been for the last couple of weeks. No building yet, as no-one has signed any contracts. I remember when they went in and cleared Mount Crushmore a few years ago, we all got out hopes up then.

I think you'll find it's called preparation - something Morrison's and Prorsus could take a leaf out of the

"L&G Book of how to Purchase land, plan and develop a site with council planning permission"

BathBadger wrote:

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

YAWN YAWN YAWN BAXTER

BathBadger wrote:
http://www.facebook.

com/ShowYourSupportF

orTheInnoxRiversideD

evelopment

It's a group for Support for IR, But Shaun has decided to hijack it! We now know that SSP is the only choice along with Android phones. I think he wants to change his name to John Connor too ;)

Hijack? - bit of an over statement Mike - take a look at the "group" on facebook - how many of your "followers" have anything to actually say - maybe thats a lack of knowledge yet profound trust in your groups words to "please like our page". God D.a.m.n!

BathBadger wrote:

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

Swindon is NOT Trowbridge - at this rate we might aswell handover the County Town Status.

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

Thank you - Thank you - Thank you!

jigsaw 5 wrote:
whats the facebook group called??

hahahahahahaha - in touch then Jigsaw.... lmfao

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Explain the relevancy of Waldens and Ushers and I might think you have some sort of argument...

We had Waldens and Ushers as well as Bowyers, hence there was alot more traffic then. We don't have them now. So surely traffic will only be going back up to those levels?

But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that and now have new developments which are relevant to TODAYS ISSUES.

Do you want to bring traffic figures for the year 1442 into account too? That might help your cause.

You brought up the 250 extra cars per hour Shaun! And again thanks for backing me "But Trowbridge spent alot of years without those and so times move on - Trowbridge adapted to that" couldnt have put it better myself. It will adapt again, won't it?

Not without work - which is all the council are asking for DUDE! But in 6 months they did erm NONE!

Guess you might say it mirrors whats going on at SSP - i.e. No work! lol.

Arguments getting thin now i think?

Any luck with the photo upload onto the Facebook group?

Photo has been up for about an hour DUDE

Pop the link up, it's not showing. Are you using a dodgy Android phone?

erm - just in case you are not familiar with Facebook - its at the comments on the right hand side of the page if you go directly to the group... I was using a computer, but now your comment makes me believe you are a crapple user - how lame. If you aren't then you will appreciate the fact I use a HTC ONE X - THE BOMB and if you want to dis android that's a totally different argument I'm willing to discuss but if you want a heads up you can see here what apple will be providing in IOS Version 32

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=VuC0i4xTy


rI

lol, you really do bite easily :)

I gave you that one for free - yet another chance to boast my factually based knowledge over your weaning opinion.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
http://www.facebook.


com/ShowYourSupportF


orTheInnoxRiversideD


evelopment

It's a group for Support for IR, But Shaun has decided to hijack it! We now know that SSP is the only choice along with Android phones. I think he wants to change his name to John Connor too ;)

Hijack? - bit of an over statement Mike - take a look at the "group" on facebook - how many of your "followers" have anything to actually say - maybe thats a lack of knowledge yet profound trust in your groups words to "please like our page". God D.a.m.n!

It's not Mike, but you can call me that if you wish. I could use the word "Troll" then if you like. 400 had "something" to day on Saturday, with 800 signatures. It's a positive Facebook group, in support of a development, no where does it say it's anti SSP. Perhaps start a pro SSP group Shaun?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

Swindon is NOT Trowbridge - at this rate we might aswell handover the County Town Status.

Lol, I'll give you that, Swindon is not Trowbridge. You really have missed the whole point! Perhaps not best to post after a night on the pop old bean! ;)

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Anyway - off to play with some sane adults for the rest of today...

Give John and Tino my love x

I'm not one for calling people names so I'm going to give you a jeopardy clue here - _ _ _ _ _!

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

Swindon is NOT Trowbridge - at this rate we might aswell handover the County Town Status.

Lol, I'll give you that, Swindon is not Trowbridge. You really have missed the whole point! Perhaps not best to post after a night on the pop old bean! ;)

A night on the pop? How would you ever know my business? - step back Baxter - I am not fooled by this pseudonym.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

Wilts_Resident wrote:
It's clear to see that Trowbridge could never sustain two multiplex cinemas's, Swindon's population is over 150,000 and it has two multiplexes, even they are struggling so how would Trowbridge with a population of 30,000 sustain two? - With both schemes in place in 5 years time the likelihood is that Trowbridge would be back to zero cinema's again after they drive each other out of business.

I prefer the Bowyers proposition out of the two, much stronger especially with it's proximity to the Train station making it more attractive to other nearby towns, what I don't understand is why that scheme can't go ahead with a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink or Leisure Centre/Swimming Pool or Indoor Water Park like Oasis in Swindon.

Ideally the Morrisons proposal would have a Petrol Station too, Tesco for too long have over inflated their petrol prices due to no competition, you only have to look at nearby Frome or Melksham to see what supermarket competition has done to their fuel prices, on average Trowbridge is 5p per litre more than Frome.

WR, Swindon is about to get it's 3rd - Cineworld.

IR is a proposition for West Wilts, a catchment area of 250,000.

I think that's where the SSP and IR propositions differ greatly.

IR already has Cineworld signed up, and as they have a very popular monthly season ticket offer of £14.99 per month, watch all you want, I firmly believe this would win over Odeon. As stated, Cineworld run at a profit, Odeon at a 70 Million loss.

They also have 45 million to invest in the scheme they have put forward. No Ice rink or aqua park providers have come forward, perhaps because they are not as profitable a business as a Multiplex?

Swindon is NOT Trowbridge - at this rate we might aswell handover the County Town Status.

Lol, I'll give you that, Swindon is not Trowbridge. You really have missed the whole point! Perhaps not best to post after a night on the pop old bean! ;)

A night on the pop? How would you ever know my business? - step back Baxter - I am not fooled by this pseudonym.

All rather easy Shaun. And i assure you I am not Mike, but the fosters is skewing your judgement. Believe what you will. Get yourself your hot milk and i'll read you Peter Jones's big book of bedtime entrepreneurs ;)

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
http://www.facebook.



com/ShowYourSupportF



orTheInnoxRiversideD



evelopment

It's a group for Support for IR, But Shaun has decided to hijack it! We now know that SSP is the only choice along with Android phones. I think he wants to change his name to John Connor too ;)

Hijack? - bit of an over statement Mike - take a look at the "group" on facebook - how many of your "followers" have anything to actually say - maybe thats a lack of knowledge yet profound trust in your groups words to "please like our page". God D.a.m.n!

It's not Mike, but you can call me that if you wish. I could use the word "Troll" then if you like. 400 had "something" to day on Saturday, with 800 signatures. It's a positive Facebook group, in support of a development, no where does it say it's anti SSP. Perhaps start a pro SSP group Shaun?

A troll is a definition of someone who anonymously tries to goad someone - I am not anonymous and I thought we lived in a world of free speech.

This only confirms my belief that you do not wish your followers to know ALL THE FACTS.

One question - 400 people - 800 signatures - are you counting Surname and Christian name? That's not how its done Angus ;)

I'll keep trying with the names - its as hapless as your attempts to "Troll" me such as I am l33t

Oh my tipple is Bud cheers dude, bring one up with the bed time story will you... no touching mind!

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
http://www.facebook.




com/ShowYourSupportF




orTheInnoxRiversideD




evelopment

It's a group for Support for IR, But Shaun has decided to hijack it! We now know that SSP is the only choice along with Android phones. I think he wants to change his name to John Connor too ;)

Hijack? - bit of an over statement Mike - take a look at the "group" on facebook - how many of your "followers" have anything to actually say - maybe thats a lack of knowledge yet profound trust in your groups words to "please like our page". God D.a.m.n!

It's not Mike, but you can call me that if you wish. I could use the word "Troll" then if you like. 400 had "something" to day on Saturday, with 800 signatures. It's a positive Facebook group, in support of a development, no where does it say it's anti SSP. Perhaps start a pro SSP group Shaun?

A troll is a definition of someone who anonymously tries to goad someone - I am not anonymous and I thought we lived in a world of free speech.

This only confirms my belief that you do not wish your followers to know ALL THE FACTS.

One question - 400 people - 800 signatures - are you counting Surname and Christian name? That's not how its done Angus ;)

I'll keep trying with the names - its as hapless as your attempts to "Troll" me such as I am l33t

Keep going Shaun, this could be fun. Trolls don't have to be anonymous.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Oh my tipple is Bud cheers dude, bring one up with the bed time story will you... no touching mind!

Could you ask Jonathan to move over a bit though ;)

Ha Ha - shows how much you know Sergio

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Ha Ha - shows how much you know Sergio

Didn't he direct the Good the bad and the ugly? I'm the good, which one are you?

So - seeing as you are now attempting to corrupt my character - can we take that as you have accepted defeat and have no further relevant argument to the topic in hand?

PCS_Wilts wrote:
So - seeing as you are now attempting to corrupt my character - can we take that as you have accepted defeat and have no further relevant argument to the topic in hand?

The good wasn't just the one person Shaun? Watch the paranoia, that's gonna be another cracking hangover! You left the topic long ago, once i reeled you in.

I'll leave it there - you just said everything I needed you too.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I'll leave it there - you just said everything I needed you too.

You said that last time and still whittered on!

Bit of bedtime watching for you Shaun, positive and food for thought.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=dDPfnS48X
BE&

I have one for you too...

http://www.trowbridg
ecinema.co.uk/

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I have one for you too...

http://www.trowbridg

ecinema.co.uk/

Yes, it's great Shaun, i'm happy to have both schemes. I just want a profit making Cineworld Chain, not a loss making Odeon one. Perhaps that's where we differ?

GP & JK GOT IT WRONG wrote:
Bath Badger AKA AMVanquish AKA Mike Baxter AKA DI**HEAD .

What a very well constructed argument, you are a credit to the SSP cause. Would you care to expand on why, or do i have to wait for the medication to kick in?

Just wondering why your hiding behind BathBadger, MIKE

It's not Mike, and I'm not hiding, but you can call me Mike if you want to, failing that Jenny or Margaret will do.

Why do you hide behind "GP & JK GOT IT WRONG"?

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Well said!
PCS please be a man of your word and do not comment further.
You said you would not comment on this subject and frankly im bored with all of your comments
Many thanks

Ok MIKE .I am a SSP Supporter but also would love to see IR developed, but i cant get excited about ANOTHER supermarket and ANOTHER cinema . Variation not duplication with the petrol station back on site .Anyway Im bored off this thread now and for that reason IM OUT . Thanks MIKE.

Time for my contribution and PCS- no I am not Bath Badger, who along with others, has been admirable in stating the facts which you continue to skirt and are staring at you in the face.
Now we are going back to school PCS --are you listening!!!!
This is the current state of play .
Take a map of Wiltshire and Somerset -using Trowbridge as the epicentre draw a circle of a radius 25 miles.
Leaving Swindon,Salisbury and Bath out of this with their Odeon 8 plex and 2 screen Cityscreen arts cinema (soon to be a third with the balcony of the Beau Nash)--how many cinemas can you find in that area.
West Wiltshires district- 5 towns-NONE
The old district of Kennet-1 in Devizes(253 seats)
The old district of North wilts-a 2 screen Reel in Chippenham.(204 + 204)
Mendip District-2 cinemas-Wells 28 miles/Yeovil-37 miles.
Now take the population of these
areas
West Wiltshire-89100
Kennet-80400
North Wilts-125372(62000 potential)
Mendip-112940(56000 potential)
For North Wilts and Mendip within that 25 mile ring you can cut those population stats in half as in the brackets but they still encompass towns like Bruton/Shepton Mallet/Frome/Radstoc
k and Midsomer Norton.
So what are you left with -thats right a possible population of 287,000 within the area and Trowbridge is at the epicentre.
Realistically 250,000 is the catchment.
A 7 plex of 1230 seats needs a minimum of 100000 for it to get an annual admissions figure of 400000 plus-but with a 250000 catchment there is a wide enough area to draw from.This catchment is one of the reasons why Cineworld are confident of building their 1440seater 8 plex in Trowbridge and know that they can also survive.
The difference is that the location of one cinema is better than the other.Both companies have different philosophies.And both companies are almost tying on a weekly basis for the top market share position.
We are one of the last underscreened areas in the whole country.Naturally the top 6 cinema companies would fight to build here and the 2 top ones Cineworld and Odeon have decided to fight it out.
Those crass remarks that they will fight it out to the death and that we will lose one or both are totally unreal.No new multiplex has ever shut even faced with a competitor down the road. If they did shut it was to build at a new location in the town or city and that is rare.Single screen cinemas may shut in the face of a multiplex but in the case of Frome and Devizes -these cinemas are town cinemas and are still capable of surviving with new digital technology.
In fact unlike 25 years ago these cinemas were barred by the likes of Odeon and ABC circuits from having first run products. They can now pick and choose the top film of the weeks releases and survive.
And just to confirm, I contacted Crispin Lilly , Cineworlds Property Director and Vice President of Business Affairs, the day before the march and he confirmed and was pleased for me to report to the public on the day that they want to build and they will build as and when the planning inspectorate gives clearance.
The best thing to do Shaun is just zip it and accept that 2 multiplexes are looking to be a part of the landscape of Trowbridge.
No Aquapark/SportsHub or Campus is going to be added or cinema is going to be removed from the Innox Riverside. You are just going to have to accept it I'm afraid pal.
Incidentally after the march i went into town-chatted to a few traders and I have to say everything in the garden isnt as rosy as you claim regarding their support of you.i really must chat to each one of those traders over a coffee or something stronger and you'll find back tracking on a scale that will leave you isolated.
On the subject of the restaurants on SSP -just who has signed up so far?
Finally your statement that whats written on here goes far on the internet.
It most certainly does.
Odeon and Premier Inn must be reading these blogs (as I am sure they do) and wondering after this march, just what the hell is going on that has merited the people of Trowbridge to come out in support of another development.
I never got another letter or reaction after my response to Odeon letter getting at me in last Septembers Wiltshire Times. They must have done a check and suddenly realized I was a decent hard working man of multiplex experience, integrity and honesty and quite frankly -knew a hell of a lot about the industry.
As i have said before to you again and again-HAD IT JUST BEEN AN ODEON CINEMA ON THAT SITE WITH A COUPLE OF RESTAURANTS WITH 300-400 DEDICATED BARRIERED CAR SPACES-I WOULD NOT BE COMPLAINING--BUT ITS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
And as i have said, which Odeon must surely appreciate, I really feel for them, for the losses they are suffering and the position they are in at SSP.
The thing now is to make it work for them but as i have pointed out with you, the innox Riverside will ease the intolerable car parking pressures they endure.
As for somebody saying that people will use Longfield, Dursley Road or Tescos-multiplexes are not built to inflict car parking problems on to residents. The single or double yellow line will rear its head and permit parking will be on the agenda. Trowbridge residents dont need that.
And as for Tescos- what will happen there is that they will get cameras in -reduce the parking time-and catch people with number plate recognition-instant £60 fine for cinema users encroaching on their land and a barrier put up late saturday night -i can see it now.
Anyway the balls rolling for the appeal to be heard asap as Angus Horner said on saturday-so no more to be said now-is there PCS

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote: When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter. And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side. I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema. Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end. Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board. I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

Check your facts SSP have exchanged with Odeon and Premier Inn.

GP & JK GOT IT WRONG wrote:
Ok MIKE .I am a SSP Supporter but also would love to see IR developed, but i cant get excited about ANOTHER supermarket and ANOTHER cinema . Variation not duplication with the petrol station back on site .Anyway Im bored off this thread now and for that reason IM OUT . Thanks MIKE.

Agreed, if you can't say anything constructive, don't say anything at all is the best policy. Well done GP & JK GOT IT WRONG.

ABCD28 wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote: When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter. And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side. I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema. Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end. Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board. I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

Check your facts SSP have exchanged with Odeon and Premier Inn.

Only PRE-LET Contracts, which mean nothing - check your facts please.

As as stated by the knowledgeable Vanquish, what restaurants have signed up to SSP? - NONE.

From their own website: "Marketing of the restaurant units has commenced and we have received very positive initial feedback."

Somebody told me they liked my shirt on Saturday - it doesnt mean they want to buy it!

BathBadger wrote:

ABCD28 wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote: When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter. And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side. I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema. Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end. Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board. I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

Check your facts SSP have exchanged with Odeon and Premier Inn.

Only PRE-LET Contracts, which mean nothing - check your facts please.

As as stated by the knowledgeable Vanquish, what restaurants have signed up to SSP? - NONE.

From their own website: "Marketing of the restaurant units has commenced and we have received very positive initial feedback."

Somebody told me they liked my shirt on Saturday - it doesnt mean they want to buy it!

The SSP website is a wonderful resource for giving you the picture from both L & G and Odeon.

The L & G statement: "Legal & General Property announces that it has exchanged contracts with Odeon and Premier Inn at St Stephens Place"

followed by the Odeon one:

Ken Taylor, Property Director for ODEON UCI Cinemas, added:
“We are fully committed to this dynamic, well designed scheme and are delighted that with PRE-LET contracts in place work can now start on site immediately."

Can you spot the difference?

Yes, "Pre-Let Contracts" is the difference.

It's worth noting that Odeon would have had to have signed off the marketing quotes on the web site and press releases, they obviously felt it important that the words "Pre-let" were left in.

There is quite a bit of chicken counting going on. It's by no means a "done deal".

You can bet your bottom dollar no actual construction work will happen before Odeon see the outcome of the IR appeal, but perhaps others can get a statement from them confirming otherwise?

And just to reiterate, i am not anti-SSP, i'd happily have both as evidence has been presented it's sustainable. Another Supermarket, providing competition to keep prices low and a profitable Cineworld chain with value for money ticket options for West Wilts, not just Trowbridge - god knows we need the extra footfall for the traders in Trowbridge.

Bowers-peterblack-te
scos wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Well said!
PCS please be a man of your word and do not comment further.
You said you would not comment on this subject and frankly im bored with all of your comments
Many thanks

Hey guys guys guys I said that was it for last night.

Do you really think I'd give you free ball to spout lies, twist truths and invent your own versions to suit.

No chance - I'll ignore the attempts to assassinate my character and keep on topic.

So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site, that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead - this was purely the opinion of Mike Baxter purportedly reading a letter from Cineworld which frankly holds as much water as the letter Prorsus sent to the council saying they had struck a deal with Network rail which they hadn't. Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade.

Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP.

Now that we're back upto speed what would you like to discuss next?

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Bowers-peterblack-te

scos wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Well said!
PCS please be a man of your word and do not comment further.
You said you would not comment on this subject and frankly im bored with all of your comments
Many thanks

Hey guys guys guys I said that was it for last night.

Do you really think I'd give you free ball to spout lies, twist truths and invent your own versions to suit.

No chance - I'll ignore the attempts to assassinate my character and keep on topic.

So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site, that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead - this was purely the opinion of Mike Baxter purportedly reading a letter from Cineworld which frankly holds as much water as the letter Prorsus sent to the council saying they had struck a deal with Network rail which they hadn't. Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade.

Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP.

Now that we're back upto speed what would you like to discuss next?

lol, love the caveat that it only applied to last night! And you have the gall to acuse others of lying! But you have history of this as you said on the last thread would be your last word on the subject, then continued on.

Hope the hangover isnt too bad.

As usual, you seem to like to talk, but don't listen, all the points in your latest post were covered and debated yesterday, putting your fingers in your ears doesn't make them go away.

"So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site" - no you didn't - and are "we" speaking in the plural now?

"that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead "
- now a matter of public record as it went in the paper and on the Youtube video of the March, but i can't move you from your conspiracy theories.

"Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade." - again covered yesterday, you have to have this WHATEVER business you intend to start up, just like getting planning permission before building a house!

"Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP."

You did, and thanks for that, and it does confirm that the ground work Contractor has commenced work, this is not the construction contractor though - do i have to explain the difference on that one as well?

At least you are true to form PCS avoiding everything thats fact and the truth
Ive given you the name of Crispin Lilly - the main man at Cineworld dealing with Trowbridge.
THEY WANT TO BUILD HERE-PERIOD!!!!!
Contact him -them come back to me-I wont accept anything less than a full apology from you on this one and neither will Angus Horner.

AMVanquish007 wrote:
At least you are true to form PCS avoiding everything thats fact and the truth
Ive given you the name of Crispin Lilly - the main man at Cineworld dealing with Trowbridge.
THEY WANT TO BUILD HERE-PERIOD!!!!!
Contact him -them come back to me-I wont accept anything less than a full apology from you on this one and neither will Angus Horner.

He wont contact them Vanquish, but perhaps some of his TRAM puppet masters may do. Expect a comment about, "it's not my job to do PR for Angus and his mob, they should be telling the people of Trowbridge in writing" blah de blah, witter, witter.

He loves the arguing too much to bother with facts.

AMVanquish007 wrote:
At least you are true to form PCS avoiding everything thats fact and the truth
Ive given you the name of Crispin Lilly - the main man at Cineworld dealing with Trowbridge.
THEY WANT TO BUILD HERE-PERIOD!!!!!
Contact him -them come back to me-I wont accept anything less than a full apology from you on this one and neither will Angus Horner.

But Mike - the point is that I don't believe the letter holds any truth - whether it exists or not is irrelevant - I'm only going on past experience - You do remember the letter Angus sent to the council that turned out to be a lie don't you?

Sorry if I offended you Mike but my point is that its not fact is it? Had Crispin Lilly been at the meeting - well - that would have carried some weight.

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Bowers-peterblack-te


scos wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Well said!
PCS please be a man of your word and do not comment further.
You said you would not comment on this subject and frankly im bored with all of your comments
Many thanks

Hey guys guys guys I said that was it for last night.

Do you really think I'd give you free ball to spout lies, twist truths and invent your own versions to suit.

No chance - I'll ignore the attempts to assassinate my character and keep on topic.

So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site, that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead - this was purely the opinion of Mike Baxter purportedly reading a letter from Cineworld which frankly holds as much water as the letter Prorsus sent to the council saying they had struck a deal with Network rail which they hadn't. Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade.

Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP.

Now that we're back upto speed what would you like to discuss next?

lol, love the caveat that it only applied to last night! And you have the gall to acuse others of lying! But you have history of this as you said on the last thread would be your last word on the subject, then continued on.

Hope the hangover isnt too bad.

As usual, you seem to like to talk, but don't listen, all the points in your latest post were covered and debated yesterday, putting your fingers in your ears doesn't make them go away.

"So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site" - no you didn't - and are "we" speaking in the plural now?

"that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead "
- now a matter of public record as it went in the paper and on the Youtube video of the March, but i can't move you from your conspiracy theories.

"Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade." - again covered yesterday, you have to have this WHATEVER business you intend to start up, just like getting planning permission before building a house!

"Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP."

You did, and thanks for that, and it does confirm that the ground work Contractor has commenced work, this is not the construction contractor though - do i have to explain the difference on that one as well?

Dude - I did say I was summing up - so to sum up was to summarise what we had spoken about yesterday... I hope that make sense now.

I thought you summed accurately with "I'll leave it there".

You really are in denial-Say anything more and it will appear to people just how much you look like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.
It doesnt matter whether Crispin Lilly was there or not. I know this man personally --even on a Saturday a family man needs a life as he is travelling all over the country dealing with other projects.
He was at both the council meetings if you remember where he said that they were committed to build and will do so regardless of Odeon.He confirmed that commitment to me and Angus Horner on friday.
Do you honestly think Im going to stand up in front of 400 people and in front of BBC Points West-BBC Wiltshire Radio and the Wiltshire Times and tell a pack of lies?
You are deluded to the point of it being laughable

Id be interested to see what ticket sales for cinema is like before committing to cinema as a form of entertainment anyway.

OhThisIsFun wrote:
Id be interested to see what ticket sales for cinema is like before committing to cinema as a form of entertainment anyway.

Could you clarify what you mean please?

UK ticket sales, or the prices for tickets?

The commitment will come from the developers based on the research they perform.

And just to clarify, no developers have any operators offering Bingo, Aqua parks or Leisure Centres. So i think it's a "pick what you want" scenario.

IR has offered Trowbridge 40 million with 400+ Jobs for the Supermarket, Multiplex and restaurants.

BathBadger wrote:

OhThisIsFun wrote:
Id be interested to see what ticket sales for cinema is like before committing to cinema as a form of entertainment anyway.

Could you clarify what you mean please?

UK ticket sales, or the prices for tickets?

The commitment will come from the developers based on the research they perform.

And just to clarify, no developers have any operators offering Bingo, Aqua parks or Leisure Centres. So i think it's a "pick what you want" scenario.

IR has offered Trowbridge 40 million with 400+ Jobs for the Supermarket, Multiplex and restaurants.

That should of course say:

So i DON'T think it's a "pick what you want" scenario.

Apols.

BathBadger wrote:

ABCD28 wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote: When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter. And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side. I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema. Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end. Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board. I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

Check your facts SSP have exchanged with Odeon and Premier Inn.

Only PRE-LET Contracts, which mean nothing - check your facts please. As as stated by the knowledgeable Vanquish, what restaurants have signed up to SSP? - NONE. From their own website: "Marketing of the restaurant units has commenced and we have received very positive initial feedback." Somebody told me they liked my shirt on Saturday - it doesnt mean they want to buy it!

I beleive they have legally exchanged on an agreement for lease. more than happy if you can explain to me why this is less legally binding than the agreement that Ciniworld have signed.......

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Bowers-peterblack-te

scos wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
Well done to the people of Trowbridge and the supporting towns.

I have been very quiet over the months reading all of the comments posted about the scheme and I now think its time to post my comments.

As my user name says, I to am a local trader in the town centre, who fully supports this development 110% I noticed footfall increase from Sainsbury's and this development will only do the same.

PCS and upnunder have many times tried to get me on board with their TRAM and no matter what they say the majority of this area are in overwhelming support for this development. This was hugely highlighted today in the protest march and I fully commend all those that have taken part.

No matter what Shaun Clarke (PCS) and his little club think, you have to be honest with yourselves, rather than writing what can only be described as desperate and self centred, the majority of Trowbridge and west Wiltshire want the Bowyers scheme brought to reality in its current form - With the garage.

Yes I know we have a cinema being built, and let that continue, If Cineworld still see the desire to open here then why stop them, what are L&G / Odeon scared of, Cineworld are not scared, or maybe like the majority of the town, is it because they know it's the better scheme.

I understand that over 800 signatures have now been gathered in support of this scheme and the appeal process has started.

I wish all the best for this development and look forward to a brighter future for Trowbridge, myself and many traders are right behind you.

Well said!
PCS please be a man of your word and do not comment further.
You said you would not comment on this subject and frankly im bored with all of your comments
Many thanks

Hey guys guys guys I said that was it for last night.

Do you really think I'd give you free ball to spout lies, twist truths and invent your own versions to suit.

No chance - I'll ignore the attempts to assassinate my character and keep on topic.

So yesterday I think we proved there was an access issue to the IR Site, that Cineworld have not said they intend to trade in Trowbridge even if Odeon goes ahead - this was purely the opinion of Mike Baxter purportedly reading a letter from Cineworld which frankly holds as much water as the letter Prorsus sent to the council saying they had struck a deal with Network rail which they hadn't. Letter of intent? well premiere inn and odeon have both been granted licenses to trade by the council. Sounds like intention to trade.

Oh I posted you guys a photo showing the progress of ground prep at SSP.

Now that we're back upto speed what would you like to discuss next?

PCS you have hijacked this forum as you have every other please move on an let others have their say.
You have said more than enough on this subject now move along.

ABCD28 wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

ABCD28 wrote:

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote: When it comes to letters of intent I notice there wasn't actually a representative from Cineworld at your march - just the opinion of Mike Baxter. And again - letters of intent - how can you trust the words of Angus Horton when he sent a letter to the council saying they had reached a deal with network rail and had to admit at the planning meeting that this was infact not true. I wouldn't trust a word of it - signed contracts my back side. I'm not desperate D@ve - frustrated at your little groups blinkered efforts to screw this town over for the sake of a Cineworld cinema. Once I get confirmation that an appeal has actually been lodged I'll get my soap box out and see how many signatures I can achieve shall we. I still don't believe half of what comes out of the Morrisons Camp - we've still yet to see a representative from Morrison's speak anywhere near publicy. Your little arrangement with the Wilts Times can only go so far and I'm thinking your march publicity is probably the start of the end. Seems to me that Angus Horner is the one who is desperate to keep his job and pulling out as many stunts as he can - with you silly buggers on board. I don't hold any credence with your 800 signatures as I believe (as you guys have done from the start) that you have only told these people what is convenient for them to know before obtaining their signatures - like I said before - how many of these people actually know what's going on at SSP - did you bother to tell them?

Do you know what a letter of intent is Shaun? "A letter of intent is not a contract and cannot be enforced, it is just a document stating serious intent to carry out certain business activities." Which is all Legal and General have from Odeon and Premier inn. Compare to what Morrisons and the Developer of IR have. It's poles apart. Angus Horner was present at the March (along with Mike Baxter and 4 Councillors) and read out a statement from the Property director of Cineworld stating that they will develop regardless of whether SSP goes ahead or not. He also confirmed an appeal had been lodged, as it says in the main article above.

Check your facts SSP have exchanged with Odeon and Premier Inn.

Only PRE-LET Contracts, which mean nothing - check your facts please. As as stated by the knowledgeable Vanquish, what restaurants have signed up to SSP? - NONE. From their own website: "Marketing of the restaurant units has commenced and we have received very positive initial feedback." Somebody told me they liked my shirt on Saturday - it doesnt mean they want to buy it!

I beleive they have legally exchanged on an agreement for lease. more than happy if you can explain to me why this is less legally binding than the agreement that Ciniworld have signed.......

I wasn't comparing it to IR, that can go ahead without planning consent anyway.

I have simply lifted details from the SSP's own website, which states it's Pre-Let agreements.

Pre-Let agreements have T & C's relating to the conditions of delivery from the developer, liquidated damages, penalties for non delivery etc etc. A pre-let agreement is not a lease. Their own website says it's not a lease.

Good luck on getting a copy of it though.

PCS -

You spoke earlier in the thread accusing me of being a named trader in the town, even though you couldn't be further from the truth, actually particually not being to nice about this person, who we both know - John.

And yet you go on about people on here of defamation of character. Pot calling the kettle black?

Again, I think this shows your desperation on the matter.

Trow-Trader wrote:
PCS -

You spoke earlier in the thread accusing me of being a named trader in the town, even though you couldn't be further from the truth, actually particually not being to nice about this person, who we both know - John.

And yet you go on about people on here of defamation of character. Pot calling the kettle black?

Again, I think this shows your desperation on the matter.

Read it again - I made no comment to Johns Character what so ever - I did make one comment about him being so personal - maybe you should read his remarks on the facebook group to get a handle on that - Just because you lot know who I am don't think you can try and bully me - This website is for the use of everyone and hijacking is not what you would call freedom of speech - You lot know I can crush any pathetic attempt to convince anyone who doesn't know any better and I'm the biggest thorn in your side - you would love nothing better than to get rid of me. Just another pathetic attempt to slate me and all it serves to do is prove how weak you all are.

I'll be hear for as long as it takes - get used to it.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
PCS -

You spoke earlier in the thread accusing me of being a named trader in the town, even though you couldn't be further from the truth, actually particually not being to nice about this person, who we both know - John.

And yet you go on about people on here of defamation of character. Pot calling the kettle black?

Again, I think this shows your desperation on the matter.

Read it again - I made no comment to Johns Character what so ever - I did make one comment about him being so personal - maybe you should read his remarks on the facebook group to get a handle on that - Just because you lot know who I am don't think you can try and bully me - This website is for the use of everyone and hijacking is not what you would call freedom of speech - You lot know I can crush any pathetic attempt to convince anyone who doesn't know any better and I'm the biggest thorn in your side - you would love nothing better than to get rid of me. Just another pathetic attempt to slate me and all it serves to do is prove how weak you all are.

I'll be hear for as long as it takes - get used to it.

Lol, to be fair aren't too hot on the names front are you Shaun?!

As for hijacking, what do you call posting pro SSP propaganda on a Facebook page supporting IR?

"You lot know I can crush any pathetic attempt to convince anyone who doesn't know any better" - Do we have to strat calling you Darth Shaun now? This wouldn't be out of place over the top of a video of the Nuremberg rally!

I think you have delusions of grandeur old son, your 79 is rapidly depleting the more you spout off and vent anger - especially when you get on the Fire Water!

The IR supporters on here, know they are but small cogs in a much bigger wheel, not a one man crusade.

You aren't far off th underpants on the head, pencils in the nose, saying "wibble" stage.

Watch that blood pressure, and save your powder for when L & G want to redevelopment the Market ;)

BathBadger - This is bigger than Trowbridge anyway, it's a catchment area of 250,000

and of those 250,000 you got 800 people. thats not "great support"

Beardy Mike wrote:
BathBadger - This is bigger than Trowbridge anyway, it's a catchment area of 250,000

and of those 250,000 you got 800 people. thats not "great support"

I didn't get any Mike, it wasn't my march.

800 was from a petition start less than 4 weeks ago and a march organised in 3, pretty good start i think.

Does a 30% turnout for a local election mean the other 70% don't care or don't have an opinion? No it just means we know what 30% think.

Of the 250,000, how many are against it or pro SSP. We don't know, as no-one has bothered to ask.

Perhaps a campaign you might like to champion?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Trow-Trader wrote:
PCS -

You spoke earlier in the thread accusing me of being a named trader in the town, even though you couldn't be further from the truth, actually particually not being to nice about this person, who we both know - John.

And yet you go on about people on here of defamation of character. Pot calling the kettle black?

Again, I think this shows your desperation on the matter.

Read it again - I made no comment to Johns Character what so ever - I did make one comment about him being so personal - maybe you should read his remarks on the facebook group to get a handle on that - Just because you lot know who I am don't think you can try and bully me - This website is for the use of everyone and hijacking is not what you would call freedom of speech - You lot know I can crush any pathetic attempt to convince anyone who doesn't know any better and I'm the biggest thorn in your side - you would love nothing better than to get rid of me. Just another pathetic attempt to slate me and all it serves to do is prove how weak you all are.

I'll be hear for as long as it takes - get used to it.

Lol, to be fair aren't too hot on the names front are you Shaun?!

As for hijacking, what do you call posting pro SSP propaganda on a Facebook page supporting IR?

"You lot know I can crush any pathetic attempt to convince anyone who doesn't know any better" - Do we have to strat calling you Darth Shaun now? This wouldn't be out of place over the top of a video of the Nuremberg rally!

I think you have delusions of grandeur old son, your 79 is rapidly depleting the more you spout off and vent anger - especially when you get on the Fire Water!

The IR supporters on here, know they are but small cogs in a much bigger wheel, not a one man crusade.

You aren't far off th underpants on the head, pencils in the nose, saying "wibble" stage.

Watch that blood pressure, and save your powder for when L & G want to redevelopment the Market ;)

As always you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what you know and what you think you know.

With your now childish manner and attempts to assassinate my character rather than dealing with the topic in hand (mostly because you tried and failed yesterday) I would say you've pretty much killed this thread with your own idiotic remarks.

Roll on Thursday...

Lol, I and others have torn your every point to shreds Shaun, leaving you to keep going off on tangets. Go back and re-read.

You really are just making yourself look even sillier.

Yep, Thursday will be fun! See your 79 and raise it!

If you too, would like to join Shaun on Thursday, here are the details from the facebook page (and just a reminder, this is a Pro Innox Riverside event, not an Anti-SSP one):

Rebecca Millard says:
"As many of you are aware, I will be presenting the petition to the Council at the Trowbridge area board meeting on Thurs 12th July at 7pm and then will address the area board for the 3 minutes I have been allocated!.....I will be there at 6:45pm, its up to you whether you all decide to turn out in your hundreds again! I have read emails that some of the councillors are getting a little concerned that there will be a large gathering, like there was for the march on Saturday!

I will be handing the petition to Cllr Payne who has said that if there is a large turn out, he will be happy to receive the petition at the entrance to the Civic centre before the meeting. We won't all be able to go into the Council chamber due to capacity issues but a representative or a small number of representatives will be invited into address the members.

I look forward to seeing you there, if you would like to come along!"

BathBadger wrote:
Lol, I and others have torn your every point to shreds Shaun, leaving you to keep going off on tangets. Go back and re-read.

You really are just making yourself look even sillier.

Yep, Thursday will be fun! See your 79 and raise it!

I'm not so sure anyone has made me look silly - just you keep ranting that I am silly after I made you realise yesterday that Morrisons own figures conclude the same findings that the highways office conclude. Don't worry - I have thick skin and can take your remarks in jest.

You seem to forget what I'm about and what my points are - the same points for which the planning application was originally refused.

I wish you guys all the luck in the world because I still do not believe the application in its current form is right - I hope that councillors who had the courage to stand for what they thought was also not right continue with their courage and will again refuse to accept your application based on what it is.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
Lol, I and others have torn your every point to shreds Shaun, leaving you to keep going off on tangets. Go back and re-read.

You really are just making yourself look even sillier.

Yep, Thursday will be fun! See your 79 and raise it!

I'm not so sure anyone has made me look silly - just you keep ranting that I am silly after I made you realise yesterday that Morrisons own figures conclude the same findings that the highways office conclude. Don't worry - I have thick skin and can take your remarks in jest.

You seem to forget what I'm about and what my points are - the same points for which the planning application was originally refused.

I wish you guys all the luck in the world because I still do not believe the application in its current form is right - I hope that councillors who had the courage to stand for what they thought was also not right continue with their courage and will again refuse to accept your application based on what it is.

Your fingers are firmly in your ears Shaun, and there is nowt i can do about that.

I just wish someone with such drive as you, had channelled it into what they originally intended to do - get a poll on W Times organised, speak to the public and gauge opinion about SSP and take your findings to Morrisions on alternative schemes.

You are all talk I'm afraid, but i sincerely hope you prove me wrong and get out and do something.

I skipped many parts of the 160 comments but i can see good points from both sides. A second cinema will be sustainable due to the surrounding areas and the less hassle of travelling to Bath/Bristol, but why do we need yet another supermarket in a town centre which already boasts 4 already! I feel no need to walk into Trowbridge town centre due to the awful quality of shops,it's the county town of Wiltshire so where's the Debenhams,John Lewis, the bigger chained shops. You spend a total of 2-3 hours at a cinema watching a film, surely shops will bring more revenue to this awful example of a town centre!

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
Lol, I and others have torn your every point to shreds Shaun, leaving you to keep going off on tangets. Go back and re-read.

You really are just making yourself look even sillier.

Yep, Thursday will be fun! See your 79 and raise it!

I'm not so sure anyone has made me look silly - just you keep ranting that I am silly after I made you realise yesterday that Morrisons own figures conclude the same findings that the highways office conclude. Don't worry - I have thick skin and can take your remarks in jest.

You seem to forget what I'm about and what my points are - the same points for which the planning application was originally refused.

I wish you guys all the luck in the world because I still do not believe the application in its current form is right - I hope that councillors who had the courage to stand for what they thought was also not right continue with their courage and will again refuse to accept your application based on what it is.

Your fingers are firmly in your ears Shaun, and there is nowt i can do about that.

I just wish someone with such drive as you, had channelled it into what they originally intended to do - get a poll on W Times organised, speak to the public and gauge opinion about SSP and take your findings to Morrisions on alternative schemes.

You are all talk I'm afraid, but i sincerely hope you prove me wrong and get out and do something.

I can listen but choose to disagree, I have on this very site asked WT to hold a public poll 9numerous times) about what they would like to see on the Bowyers Site - unfortunately the WT from the start have chosen to take sides with the IR site - they have given next to no coverage of the SSP dealing and are as bias as your own camp. I will wait to see what happens this week and we'll go from there.

you seem to think that as only 3% signed in favour of IR that 97% are against it. I agree that WT should be impartial and hold a poll. Would you still bang on if it was proved that most of the poll was for IR? I think that SSP v IR poll would back the IR plans. I also think that BOTH cinemas are sustainable and it would be interesting to see which one people would use if both are built (what can we put in the odeon one when it shuts?)

The idea some way back that housing should be built on the site, just who is going to be living in these houses, the local economy is shedding jobs at a alarming rate and no one can afford a new house/flat without the jobs to sustain the economy. Trowvegas is going downhill fast and is in need of investment and new thinking to reverse this situation and breath new life into the town centre and other sites. I think that SSP and IR could co-exist and be good for the town just 16 restaurants is too many what about 4 on each site?

Sustanability is about safe guarding the today for the benefit of the next generation not strangulation of the economy of one town and its potential.

See this is the point - in just a few sentences you ask what can we put in the odeon when it shuts - so you don't believe 2 cinemas are sustainable do you - it is just a load of clap trap that the IR camp are spouting - just so they can get what they want.

Who's going to invest in Trowbridge if investors see councillors ruining investments based on unsustainable planning applications being granted.

So you see by letting Morrison's plan go through now, it would kill any possibility of other sites being developed and we end up with empty units again.

Well Done.

On JUST the Cinema element of the developments Shaun, if it was your money your were investing, would you invest in Odeon a loss making chain, or Cineworld a profit making one? Which looks more sustainable?

Well - the real point everyone seems to forget is that it is L&G who are investing - and they have been given planning permission.

This investment has already been secured - I'm not just concerned about the cinema element I also don't believe 15 or 16 restaurants will survive for long - again empty units. I really don't see why so many of you find this so hard to believe.

But what would be your answer to my question please?

What a laugh .. Empty units! Look at how long Peter Black and the old Tesco site has been empty..
Let the investment come, regenerate the IR site, And people will come, they might even spend some money in the town center.

Odeon are building-Cineworld want to and should be given every chance to do so for competitive reasons and for choice.But in the back of your minds, now that the big cities have been saturated with these big multiplexes and about 80% of market towns have too, the three words that figure large in the mindset of the top three operators Cineworld/Odeon and Vue is
NATIONAL MARKET SHARE.
You can draw your own conclusions as I am sure PCS you will and you will be way off kilter.When one cinema constructs it is to cater for a market-when two want to construct there is a bigger ball game to consider-difference is as i said before-we have the catchment around us for both operators to survive.I am going to leave it at that for the time being. So look,learn and listen as developments unfold in the future.

BathBadger wrote:
But what would be your answer to my question please?

The question is irrelevant is the answer as planning has already been given for Odeon to be built hasn't it. Odeon are still trading are they not? Should Odeon fail in the years to come - another operator could take over. Isn't that what Mike Baxter already suggest?

With regards Peter Blacks - sites like this will remain empty for years to come if this application is accepted in its current form. Your precious new Bowyers site will soon become dilapidated and run down soon enough.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
But what would be your answer to my question please?

The question is irrelevant is the answer as planning has already been given for Odeon to be built hasn't it. Odeon are still trading are they not? Should Odeon fail in the years to come - another operator could take over. Isn't that what Mike Baxter already suggest?

With regards Peter Blacks - sites like this will remain empty for years to come if this application is accepted in its current form. Your precious new Bowyers site will soon become dilapidated and run down soon enough.

The question was very relevant, but you still chose not to answer it.

I will give you the caveat that you can answer outside of the context of either SSP or IR.

"if it was your money your were investing, would you invest in Odeon a loss making chain, or Cineworld a profit making one? Which looks more sustainable in the long term?"

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

BathBadger wrote:
But what would be your answer to my question please?

The question is irrelevant is the answer as planning has already been given for Odeon to be built hasn't it. Odeon are still trading are they not? Should Odeon fail in the years to come - another operator could take over. Isn't that what Mike Baxter already suggest?

With regards Peter Blacks - sites like this will remain empty for years to come if this application is accepted in its current form. Your precious new Bowyers site will soon become dilapidated and run down soon enough.

The question was very relevant, but you still chose not to answer it.

I will give you the caveat that you can answer outside of the context of either SSP or IR.

"if it was your money your were investing, would you invest in Odeon a loss making chain, or Cineworld a profit making one? Which looks more sustainable in the long term?"

But its not my money - and it is irrelevant because Odeon are backing themselves - you aren't - the council aren't...

So its Odeon's risk not anyone else's therefore your question is irrelevant.

Again you don't answer what I have actually asked Shaun, have you thought about a career in politics? I wanted your answer outside of the context of SSP and IR. I want your opinion please.

It would depend on a few different factors - for example is the loss making company making a loss because of lack of investment, is the profit making business hiding any debts? what is the profit making companies commitment to shareholders etc etc - so not a simple question to answer.

Cinephile wrote:
It would depend on a few different factors - for example is the loss making company making a loss because of lack of investment, is the profit making business hiding any debts? what is the profit making companies commitment to shareholders etc etc - so not a simple question to answer.

Theres your answer /\ /\ /\
cheers Cinephile

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Cinephile wrote:
It would depend on a few different factors - for example is the loss making company making a loss because of lack of investment, is the profit making business hiding any debts? what is the profit making companies commitment to shareholders etc etc - so not a simple question to answer.

Theres your answer /\ /\ /\
cheers Cinephile

lol, no not an answer and you are choosing to hide behind semantics. And you still haven't answered Shaun, with your opinion.

The loss making Cinema is Odeon, and the profit making one is Cineworld.

I wasn't planning on providing full company reports for both, and my question was from a holistic view, which you knew very well it was.

Not that I am am expecting to get an answer, as you don't give those do you?

But your refusal to dodge this does show alot.

Same sort of dodge as you guys accepting that Morrisons's own quoted figures for expected visitors brought to the town do infact confirm the finding of the highways office, the same findings which were one of the reasons for refusal.

Also - I was correct about the secretary of state making the final decision on appeals - the inspectorate mediates and makes recommendations. I would also like to quote from the planning inspectorates National Planning Policy Framework Annex A Paragraph 3 - I think L&G could have something to say to the inspectorate.

It is necessary for Inspectors to have addressed their minds to the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in appeals and call-ins, to consider whether any topic specific policies relied on have been altered by the Framework and to consider what action to take in the interests of fairness to the parties.

Neither of which points I brought up! And another example of how you dodge a question I asked you, by referring to answers from different questions!

It must be fun asking you something simple like "what would you like for your tea".

Some answers aren't straight forward, how many businesses have appeared to look solvent and then suddenly disappear - I take nothing at face value.

Also I have just remembered that in a post on WT a few months back we and Mike Baxter had conversations about how the town could not support 2 cinemas - do you remember? It was before SSP was approved. When I get time I'll see if I can find them.

Found it - hers the link

http://www.wiltshire
times.co.uk/news/iny
ourtown/trowbridgene
ws/9330203.Odeon_sig
ns_up_for_Trowbridge
_leisure_park/

And here is the quote:

AMVanquish007 says...

In reply to cght36-I am sorry to have to inform you but Trowbridge is not big enough to support 2 cinemas.Sooner or later one will close and its more likely to be the St Stephens place site. Both sites will be showing the same product as they will be looking for the bread and buttter films to play. You may get only one screen with a different film in each of the cinemas but as i have said before the film distributor will be loathe to place 2 prints in a small town knowing that its rate of rental return for both will not justify its advertising spend.

Hahahahahaha

This just goes to show how the IR camp will say whatever they can to get WHAT THEY WANT - Rather than what is right for the town.

Don't worry I have downloaded a copy of the whole page - just in case it suddenly disappears.

I think the planning inspectorate might like a copy of Mike's previous quotes to go along with the latest - he can choose for himself which is expertise and which is opinion.

Hey Bathbadger, I'm gonna go grab a cold bottle of budweiser, care to join me?

So lets sum up and make your own mind up as to whether or not The IR Camp is credible or not?

1: Angus Horner sends a letter to the council saying they have struck a deal with network rail - he admits at the planning meeting that this is a lie.

2: Our local so called Cinema expert categorically and goes to some length in explaining why Trowbridge cannot sustain 2 cinemas in October 2011 - Yet on Saturday 7th July 2010 he gives a speech on the steps of county hall saying it can.

3: One of the reasons the council refused the plans was due to access problems for the expected increase in volumes of traffic. I have demonstrated on this very thread that figures for increased visitor traffic given by Morrisons themselves in fact concurs with the highways office - yet they still dispute it.

Lets have a Morrisons - with a petrol station and as Mike Baxter suggested on the link I provide above an 18-24 lane ten pin bowling/bingo hall.

Lets stop messing around Councillor Payne, Mike Baxter & Co. Stop wasting Council money and time and get on with what is right.

Who is with me?

Now Mike Wilkinson of the Wiltshire Times - will you please hold an unbiased poll for the people of Trowbridge and surrounding areas to have their say and make some suggestions as to what they would like to see on IR - Giving them the facts about what has already been given planning consent - licenses issued and construction started at SSP.

I can't be any clearer than that. Maybe an idea to have the replies sent to a neutral camp - no offence but I did mention the word unbiased.

Yes it is absolutely true that I did say that at the time. And that is still the case that Trowbridge cannot support 2 cinemas but the catchment of West Wiltshire and outside the area can.Its just that Trowbridge being the epicentre of this catchment is the town that has been chosen.
Would we be having this conversation if Odeon decided to site in Melksham and Cineworld in Trowbridge?. I dont think so-the situation is the same- it will be drawing from the same huge pot.
Also at the time of that post if you read on you will see that we were advised that Odeon, so L and G claimed, were going to provide us with a cinema of 8 screens with only 800 seats --totally unsustainable and unrealistic.
You will also see that I suggested that they go back to the drawing board to provide something better which they did in the form of a 7 plex with 1230 seats which was better and more viable.
Since Christmas you will see and have read that I have not been anti two cinemas merely the location of them and the car parking. I have since asked colleagues in the industry about the costings of new digital tecnology and alternative content. These changes have led me to believe that it can be sustainable to have two cinemas in close proximity with the catchment.
Since I left the industry a few years back, technology has moved at very fast rate.
The huge cost of 35mm print has been removed and nearly 80% of cinemas in the UK will be digital by the end of this year, Cinemas will be utilising this digital technology even more so over the next 12 months bringing a new consistent profit line into cinema revenues, that of alternative content.It is true that I said that a distributor may be loathe to place 2 prints in a town but this has now changed-i had based this on the use of 35mm prints. By the time either the Odeon and Cineworld opens next year or in 2014 -distributors will provide digital copies of films to two cinema operators in close proximity but with increased rentals or they might share films out between the two companies. With film rentals at the levels that they are and with these changes I can determine that Cineworld and Odeon can sit in this town with the catchment thats out there. If Cineworld want to build and be here along with Odeon that should be telling you something. They have worked out the costings and the catchment.As regards advertising the spread is now more defined across the internet-ipads-iphon
es and orange wednesdays as well as tv/satellite/cable and radio.Not forgetting Facebook/YouTube and Twitter which has increased the cinema footfall over the past 2 years for all cinema companies.
A reinventing of cinema has happened but the general principles of cinema exhibition are the same.
I have in fact said in recent posts that the 2 cinemas can sit together although what might happen is that the Odeon will become a town cinema and that Cineworld will become the one that draws from the wider catchment. but the pricing policy and parking issues will dictate how each company sits in the market place.

I quote "Also at the time of that post if you read on you will see that we were advised that Odeon, so L and G claimed, were going to provide us with a cinema of 8 screens with only 800 seats --totally unsustainable and unrealistic."

But 15 screens are?

I think you'll find its down to credibility now Mike - where do you see this appeal going? You're handing it in to the Town Council who can do nothing with it because councillor Payne already pulled it to area board (which was before he got promoted which at the time he thought was a smart move - but I bet he kicked himself after he became chairman - although the fact he is spear heading the campaign would not really be seen to be viewing the plans with an impartial and fair mind would it?) - so this handing it to the town council meeting is nothing but a publicity stunt.

Can we really trust anything you guys say?

AMVanquish/ Mike Baxter will say absolutely everthing or anything to get cineworld into this town , its been going on for months but most people see through him . Well done PCS for bringing it to the attention off EVERYONE .

Well I can certainly tell you this Shaun and all my friends will confirm and back me up on this-i am so confident about this area that had Cineworld or Odeon not even built anything here--had I come into a vast sum of money-I would most definitely build a 12- 14 plex cinema here.When I worked at Warner Village prior to it being Vue and before the Odeon Bath opened i knew the vast numbers of people that were coming from the West Wiltshire
area and beyond.
You would be amazed at the number of cinema operators who have added and built extra screens to multiplexes when they realized they underestimated the catchment because demand was so high.This has been the same of Vue and other operators.
Both Odeon and Cineworld possibly knew that Trowbridge was going to be in their gameplans way back into last year maybe even back as far as 2010-who knows.Either way they both know there is a catchment and something else has changed the goalposts in the last 6 weeks-Vue has bought the Apollo circuit. This puts Vue in a situation where they are knocking on the door of being up there as the No1 operator. They have more openings planned for this and next year so they will eat into the market share of others. Odeon protective of Bath will not want to give up anything that sends people to Longwell Green or Cribbs. Neither will Cineworld want to think that the 3rd operator is going to encroach on their patch-hence the fact that it is such a serious chunk of catchment here that both Odeon and Cineworld will find ways of sustaining themselves. Things like technology, market share, etc all these things change weekly.
On BBC Wiltshire radio I was asked about a town supporting 2 cinemas and I said 'its not unthinkable and to some it may seem unwise' but when you look at what the bigger picture is and the politics of cinema-to be No1 -these companies will fight it out to claw every person into their cinemas. This could prove to be very exciting for Trowbridge. If and when Cineworld build and there is no reason to assume that they wont find a site other than IR if it doesnt get planning consent-our town could become a very interesting guinea pig and a test case for the still untapped areas in the UK.

Exposed AMVanquish for what you are .

Come on Wiltshire Times, open a proper forum so this discussion can be followed more easily.
In the meantime perhaps the participants could lay off the lengthy and indulgent essays and repeated quotation thereof.

UpnUnder-I wanted Vue(my previous employer) here in 2008 and they would have come here, had Modus not gone to the wall and they would have built it on land by the East wing of County Hall but with dedicated car parking spaces.
And secondly I asked Odeon 3 times over a 12 year period if they were thinking of Trowbridge-on the first occasion it was-we're not interested -the second-its not in our demographic and third was --we have a cinema in Bath so its not a consideration any more.
There has been no favouritism but if Cineworld came in on the right location and with the car parking and Odeon goes in with a hotel on a site denying it car parking spaces -which one do you think is going to tick the boxes?

But Mike its all ifs and buts I know this and I know that. Sir please be aware I do not feel you have done anything but follow your heart - unfortunately your heart is not directed in what is best for Trowbridge as the county town of Wiltshire. Come on sir. Please ask for Morrisons to give plans that have a petrol station included and something that could make us proud of our county town aswell as draw people from far a field.

Do you not think an aqua park would draw people to Trowbridge?

Lets face it - SSP is going ahead with Odeon on board - details or no details to your liking it is happening. Can we not ask for something we can sustain and give us pride - if what you say is true and Odeon are unstable then if they do fold in the years to come I will stand side by side with you and lobby for the operator you choose to take over that unit.

Please re-consider.

In terms of Modus they were only out to make a quick buck - they did not have funding and we have had this conversation before. They thought they could steam in - aquire funding based on an idea - screw it up and run off with the money - end of.

Odeon would not have been interested on their own - but to use your phrase - with an anchor (ie L&G funding the surrounding) they are now interested to the point they have signed.

Mike - we can talk in person if you like - you know where to find me and there will be no animosity I assure you.

Can i join you you and listen to the cra&p that comes out of AMVanquish mouth as and when it suits him in the cause of cineworld

Parlay Mike Parlay...

Thanks to PCS wilts for looking back to expose AMVanquish 007 as someone who you would trust at you peril

Isn't evolution fun!

The IR site is the better location, And when the appeal is eventually won building for Trowbridge can start

Im sorry UpnUnder and GP and JK--If I was talking crap and I have been on here now since August and I know that I am being read by quite a few individuals high up in the film industry-why have I not been sued or taken to court.
Does knowledge and experience count for nothing in your eyes?
The film industry especially exhibition and distribution is quite incestuous and secretive in its workings.
I have imparted knowledge on here that most would not know about.
The thing is that I do answer questions to the best of my experience and knowledge and based on evidence i have seen and witnessed.
I show no favouritism to Cineworld -had it been Vue, Empire, Showcase or any other operator big or small on Innox Riverside I would have chosen those instead.It really is all down to the location and parking at the end of the day which a modern multiplex must have.
If I am being 'exposed as someone you would trust at your peril' I suggest you ring up any one of these cinema companies and ask them what their criteria is for siting anywhere where a catchment is that would be operationally beneficial.
I also suggest you ask why Odeon decided to come here but I can give you that one for free-ive already explained that above. Cineworld decided to come here-Odeon were worried that it would hit their Bath and Salisbury sites because they know the vast numbers that come from West Wiltshire and beyond by checking their credit card records.I'm not daft you know!!!

AMVanquish007 wrote:
Well I can certainly tell you this Shaun and all my friends will confirm and back me up on this-i am so confident about this area that had Cineworld or Odeon not even built anything here--had I come into a vast sum of money-I would most definitely build a 12- 14 plex cinema here.When I worked at Warner Village prior to it being Vue and before the Odeon Bath opened i knew the vast numbers of people that were coming from the West Wiltshire area and beyond. You would be amazed at the number of cinema operators who have added and built extra screens to multiplexes when they realized they underestimated the catchment because demand was so high.This has been the same of Vue and other operators. Both Odeon and Cineworld possibly knew that Trowbridge was going to be in their gameplans way back into last year maybe even back as far as 2010-who knows.Either way they both know there is a catchment and something else has changed the goalposts in the last 6 weeks-Vue has bought the Apollo circuit. This puts Vue in a situation where they are knocking on the door of being up there as the No1 operator. They have more openings planned for this and next year so they will eat into the market share of others. Odeon protective of Bath will not want to give up anything that sends people to Longwell Green or Cribbs. Neither will Cineworld want to think that the 3rd operator is going to encroach on their patch-hence the fact that it is such a serious chunk of catchment here that both Odeon and Cineworld will find ways of sustaining themselves. Things like technology, market share, etc all these things change weekly. On BBC Wiltshire radio I was asked about a town supporting 2 cinemas and I said 'its not unthinkable and to some it may seem unwise' but when you look at what the bigger picture is and the politics of cinema-to be No1 -these companies will fight it out to claw every person into their cinemas. This could prove to be very exciting for Trowbridge. If and when Cineworld build and there is no reason to assume that they wont find a site other than IR if it doesnt get planning consent-our town could become a very interesting guinea pig and a test case for the still untapped areas in the UK.

AMVanquish - You seem so confident and informed on your view point of two cinemas being sustainable, could you, based on your vast experience, suggest a couple of examples of similar sized towns (and catchments) supporting two multi screen cinemas located approx. 1/2 mile apart????

But in October 2011 Mike Baxter used his 20 years experience to tell us in great depth how Trowbridge could not sustain 2 cinemas - Along comes Angus Horner and some well timed reports and Mike's 20 years experience goes out the window and we now can sustain 2 cinemas - something about the catchment area that apparently didn't exist in October 2011.

I thought you had over slept Shane

trow paint wrote:
I thought you had over slept Shane

Busy listening to the radio station announcing the petition being handed into tonight's Area board meeting.

Hahahahaha

Well done!
Im sure it all helps.

trow paint wrote:
Well done!
Im sure it all helps.

The fact its being handed into the Town Council Meeting tomorrow... I'm sure it does help.

Im happy to see you coming around to our side lol

I don't think you get it do you?

The radio station are announcing the wrong meeting on the wrong day...

That's radio for you.. Im sure the IR supporters will have the correct day..
Still welcome to the IR camp lol

lol indeed - have a good day.

PCS -you have not read what I said above. I have always used the word catchment. A modern multiplex even 2 cannot survive by itself or themselves on just Trowbridge alone but the huge catchment that we have which encompasses 5 towns not being served by one cinema at all and what is across the somerset border past Southwick needs to be taken into account as well as across to Devizes.
You all seem to be focused on Trowbridge and Trowbridge alone which is where you are all failing in your arguments
The population ofWest Wilts alone is 89100 (2001) but the way things are going its probably now risen to 95000 on the figures of 2011 Census yet to be released.
A good example of where 2 cinemas sit is Basingstoke pop 82913-Vue 10 screens- Odeon 10 screens-both profitable
Swindons urban population is 89500(total 105000 inc outer) that has a 7 screen Cineworld, 12 screen Empire with another Cineworld 6 plex being built .
Weston Super Mare-(80000) Odeon 4 plex with a VUE 8 plex under construction
Worcester(98000) yes a city but the population is as near to West Wiltshires population.That has an Odeon 7plex and a Vue 6 plex not half a mile apart and both very successful.
It simply does not matter as i have said that if there is the catchment and its drawing from an area does it really matter if a Cineworld or Odeon is both in Trowbridge. They could be in Melksham or Trowbridge but they will still draw on the catchment. With new technology and alternative content these cinemas can exist together but only with the vast catchment of 250,000 as i have mentioned 3 days back.You can twist a persons words as much as you like to suit your conclusions but if Cineworld want to build here too-what does that tell you?
Just an example of new profitability for you-the Odeon Bath screened the Wimbledon final on Sunday in 3D-my friend went and confirmed that it was well supported. After paying the tv distributor Odeon would have made a comfortable profit on the deal or else they wouldnt have screened it.

Don't come that rubbish - simply copied and pasted your own words and put the link up so people could see for themselves. In October 2011 your 20 years of experience were saying the complete opposite of what you are saying today - I use your own words to conclude this - no twisting needed. Bang to rights Mike you have u-turned on sustainability in the last 6 months because that argument now suits your cause - where as you considered it did not in October 2011.

So your thinking is PCS that I dont know what a multiplex is and what its requirements are--is that it?
Why dont you call Cineworld and ask them why they want to build here as well as Odeon?
Go on--- RING THEM!!!!!
Things have changed in terms of technology and alternative content in just a year even. And to be sure that i was on the right page, I asked questions at recent film trade conventions about conversion from 35mm to digital download technology (something you of all people should know when it comes to computers and that you should be familiar with). Ive made sure that what i have said is correct and up to date.
And you know better! Of course you do. We'll all listen to you now wont we -the font of all knowledge.

there are more than 1 coffee shop, hairdressers, clothes and furniture stores in Trowbrige, its called competiton, and helps to keep prices down, you just have to look at what Tescos charge here compared to other stores due to lack of competition. I belive that West Wilts can support 2 cinemas and the different assortment of resturants, more choice leads to better service and cheaper deals, so we all benefit. But if you want 1 of everything fine; now which computer shop shall we keep eh PCS

Computer Shop??

Isn't that Ebuyer and SVP

I love competion in my field as I'm primarily service based - It gives people something to gauge me on. A new company has just opened on Stallards St. I embrace it. Over the years I've seen many come and go. The trouble with cinemas is that they are purpose built buildings which are expensive to convert. If one vendor fails due to it being unsustainable you will find it near on impossible to get another operator to take it over. Thus as a result you end up back to square one with dilapidated buildings - Competition is good but there is also a thing called over saturation - it can be a fine line.

AMVanquish007 wrote:
So your thinking is PCS that I dont know what a multiplex is and what its requirements are--is that it?
Why dont you call Cineworld and ask them why they want to build here as well as Odeon?
Go on--- RING THEM!!!!!
Things have changed in terms of technology and alternative content in just a year even. And to be sure that i was on the right page, I asked questions at recent film trade conventions about conversion from 35mm to digital download technology (something you of all people should know when it comes to computers and that you should be familiar with). Ive made sure that what i have said is correct and up to date.
And you know better! Of course you do. We'll all listen to you now wont we -the font of all knowledge.

No Mike I'm saying you change your mind about what is sustainable to suit your need.

How much has changed since October 2011?

I'm not saying I know better Mike - we look to you for your opinion - but in 9 months you seem to have changed your mind and now that you've been caught out you are desperately trying to make it someone else's fault.

Nice try but no cigar.

trow paint wrote:
Computer Shop??

Isn't that Ebuyer and SVP

They along with mainline, dabs, and overclockers are just online box shifters - no local service involvement at all.

Do you want me to recommend any more cheap online "shops" Trow paint?

No thanks .. I have loads .

I guess Im lucky because my son has a masters in computer science.

But fair comment

PCS--Methinks you are getting confused with the old 30's cinemas of the high street.Only these old dinosuar builds have shut because of concrete pillars denying conversion and H as S/disabled access requirements could not be fulfilled. New multiplexes have shut the older cinema but its primarily been the same company that built a new multiplex and the cinema was never Grade 2 or heritage listed
A new multiplex cinema starts off as a 4 box shell-The internals are constructed so as to be taken down in the event of conversion but as quite a few cinema companies have taken each other over , over the last 15 years hardly any have closed and have been maintained and rebranded.
Yes competition is good but there is no saturation here yet.
So I repeat again ring Cineworld up and, ask them why they want to build along with Odeon?
I already know what the answer is but you just dont want to accept it.

But you explain in some length as to why Trowbridge cannot sustain 2 cinemas - so are you now advocating that the council ignore the National Policy Framework set out by the home office regards sustainable development? After all SSP is being built as we speak and IR is just an idea scribbled on a bit of paper.

Progress

http://s1156.photobu
cket.com/albums/p569
/pcs_wilts/?action=v
iew&current=IMAG1332
.jpg

And

http://s1156.photobu
cket.com/albums/p569
/pcs_wilts/?action=v
iew&current=20120711
_092850.jpg

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Progress

http://s1156.photobu

cket.com/albums/p569

/pcs_wilts/?action=v

iew¤t=IMAG1332
.jpg

And

http://s1156.photobu

cket.com/albums/p569

/pcs_wilts/?action=v

iew¤t=20120711
_092850.jpg

A lot to Squeeze into this space!

Let me know when they start building, as it means nothing as it is. Even if they do have a road entrance its still far from a cinema.

Will anything be built at SSP before IR's appeal comes back??

I DOUBT IT!!

So which out of the two Odeon or Cineworld is more committed to giving Trowbridge what it needs?

SSP is not a done deal until they build!
May I remind you PCS that we have been told a cinema will be built at SSP since Tesco's closed it down (Ground works mean nothing).

MrG wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Progress

http://s1156.photobu


cket.com/albums/p569


/pcs_wilts/?action=v


iew¤t=IMAG1332
.jpg

And

http://s1156.photobu


cket.com/albums/p569


/pcs_wilts/?action=v


iew¤t=20120711
_092850.jpg

A lot to Squeeze into this space!

Let me know when they start building, as it means nothing as it is. Even if they do have a road entrance its still far from a cinema.

Will anything be built at SSP before IR's appeal comes back??

I DOUBT IT!!

So which out of the two Odeon or Cineworld is more committed to giving Trowbridge what it needs?

SSP is not a done deal until they build!
May I remind you PCS that we have been told a cinema will be built at SSP since Tesco's closed it down (Ground works mean nothing).

So your appeal which hasn't even been lodged yet will take atleast 3-6 months to be sorted.

Do you think these guys are being paid to mill around for 6 months - I'll keep updating you on the progress.

PCS_Wilts wrote:

MrG wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Progress

http://s1156.photobu



cket.com/albums/p569



/pcs_wilts/?action=v



iew¤t=IMAG1332
.jpg

And

http://s1156.photobu



cket.com/albums/p569



/pcs_wilts/?action=v



iew¤t=20120711
_092850.jpg

A lot to Squeeze into this space!

Let me know when they start building, as it means nothing as it is. Even if they do have a road entrance its still far from a cinema.

Will anything be built at SSP before IR's appeal comes back??

I DOUBT IT!!

So which out of the two Odeon or Cineworld is more committed to giving Trowbridge what it needs?

SSP is not a done deal until they build!
May I remind you PCS that we have been told a cinema will be built at SSP since Tesco's closed it down (Ground works mean nothing).

So your appeal which hasn't even been lodged yet will take atleast 3-6 months to be sorted.

Do you think these guys are being paid to mill around for 6 months - I'll keep updating you on the progress.

"Do you think these guys are being paid to mill around for 6 months - I'll keep updating you on the progress."

What guys?
The ground workers?

Thats right MrG - Ground workers preparing the site ready for construction to begin.

You can keep swimming up De Nile if you like but I'm sure the picture will become a little clearer over the next 6 months or so.

Before you start making remarks (predictable) about them not actually building anything - You should take note that planning and preparation prevents pitiful performance - It is down too scrupulous planning and preparation that has got L&g this far - and no matter how you gauge that - its still further ahead than Prorsus.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Thats right MrG - Ground workers preparing the site ready for construction to begin.

You can keep swimming up De Nile if you like but I'm sure the picture will become a little clearer over the next 6 months or so.

Before you start making remarks (predictable) about them not actually building anything - You should take note that planning and preparation prevents pitiful performance - It is down too scrupulous planning and preparation that has got L&g this far - and no matter how you gauge that - its still further ahead than Prorsus.

I would like to point out that I am for all facility's that improve Trowbridge,
be it SSP/(IR the better of the 3) or The Campus if they get it right and listen.
I just still don't believe that Odeon are as committed as Cineworld, maybe I am wrong PCS but until I see the building work start, the groundwork means nothing to me and it is probably the same for many others to.

Answer to your question: Ground works will not need to mill around, just as the title suggests and you seem to understand ground workers do the ground works then there job is complete. Once this has been done the contractors for the building work turn up on site.
No one is left to mill around even if it takes 2 years to start building as their part of the job is complete (levelling and getting the site READY).
This does not mean the contractors for the building work will be there straight away!
And Yes it is further ahead then the IR site its now flattened ground. Good job Ground works!!

Sorry,
Answer to your question: Ground workers

Well like I said I'll keep you posted with progressive pics now and again.

so any news on wilts times running a poll

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I love competion in my field as I'm primarily service based - It gives people something to gauge me on. A new company has just opened on Stallards St. I embrace it. Over the years I've seen many come and go. The trouble with cinemas is that they are purpose built buildings which are expensive to convert. If one vendor fails due to it being unsustainable you will find it near on impossible to get another operator to take it over. Thus as a result you end up back to square one with dilapidated buildings - Competition is good but there is also a thing called over saturation - it can be a fine line.

So basically your argument there is we should be stuck with the first cinema operator that gets permission to build in Trowbridge because we can not sustain 2 cinemas, Financially out of the 2 cinemas which do you think is more stable? I know councillors can not take this into account, but it would make me laugh to see the Odeon go down in a few years time leaving Trowbridge without a cinema again. Do you then think Cineworld would take over the complex or build new? I think build new... and there you have it an empty building again with as you say a near impossible task of finding someone to use the facility.
I only wish both were given planning permision together, then the operators would have had to think about their true commitment to Trowbridge in opening a cinema.
By the way would you object to me opening a computer stall in the market and seeing as you embrace competition so much perhaps you could even help me out with some trade advice, names of suppliers and even give me some free stock to sell!!!

In reply to Snazzle

quote
So basically your argument there is we should be stuck with the first cinema operator that gets permission to build in Trowbridge because we can not sustain 2 cinemas, Financially out of the 2 cinemas which do you think is more stable? I know councillors can not take this into account

Answer
You are factually incorrect - The national framework policy set by the secretary of state requires that sustainability is taken into account - to comply would mean to take into account any businesses that already either exist or have been given planning consent.

Quote
it would make me laugh to see the Odeon go down in a few years time leaving Trowbridge without a cinema again. Do you then think Cineworld would take over the complex or build new? I think build new... and there you have it an empty building again with as you say a near impossible task of finding someone to use the facility.

Answer
Councillors do not hold the powers to see into the future and so have to take things into account as they see them today. As funny as you think you would find it I could say it would also be funny if I awoke tomorrow to hear on the news that cineworld had folded - but that wouldn't hold any factual context either. If what you predict happens and Odeon fold then would cineworld need to build a new building? if they felt they could not take over the now empty ex odeon cinema then they would be back to where we are today - find a plot - find funding and acquire planning consent. I only said it would be near impossible to find another operator to take over an abandoned cinema complex in the context that there would be 2 cinemas in the town - please take that in the context of which it was clearly stated.

Quote
By the way would you object to me opening a computer stall in the market and seeing as you embrace competition so much perhaps you could even help me out with some trade advice, names of suppliers and even give me some free stock to sell!!!

Answer
There are two rules to success
1: Never reveal everything you know

I actually made the comments above in the name of cinephile on a friends computer - forgetting he was signed in.

But I would like to take full credit - *bows* thank you!

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I actually made the comments above in the name of cinephile on a friends computer - forgetting he was signed in.

But I would like to take full credit - *bows* thank you!

Rumbled I think ;)

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I actually made the comments above in the name of cinephile on a friends computer - forgetting he was signed in.

But I would like to take full credit - *bows* thank you!

Rumbled I think ;)

Rumbled?

BathBadger wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I actually made the comments above in the name of cinephile on a friends computer - forgetting he was signed in.

But I would like to take full credit - *bows* thank you!

Rumbled I think ;)

Oh - you didn't think it was possible for me to have friends and now you think I'm lying?

Haha - what ever bathbadger - seems obvious to me that you are a bit like superman and vanquish is clarke kent - you never see the 2 together.

Cinephile is a friend of mine and can speak for himself of which he has.

You can make some sort of problem with that rather than address your own credibility issues if you like.

Lol, too late to back track old son! Yes I often post on friends computers at 1.20am! Most laughable thing is you have been having conversations with yourself! Are you going to own up to being upnunder and gp and Jk got it wrong too?

No credibility issues here Shaun, why would anyone be sad enough to need multiple logins to fake support?

Say what you want to try and divert from your mess up!

Back track what? - I've just been looking through and cinephile says next to nothing - so what is your point?

multiple logins and fake support - lmao you guys really will grab onto anything won't you.

If you want fake support - go count the heads in your precious video.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
Back track what? - I've just been looking through and cinephile says next to nothing - so what is your point?

multiple logins and fake support - lmao you guys really will grab onto anything won't you.

If you want fake support - go count the heads in your precious video.

That old chestnut. It's not my video, or my group Shaun. You won't believe the video, you won't believe the WT, you won't believe Points West and you won't believe the stewards who marshalled. All that's missing is a lone gunman and a grassy knoll for the ultimate conspiracy.

You seem to be forgetting the 400 on the march and the 1000 signature petition was organised by one woman, not some shady shadow corporation with evil intent on world domination! And this is all a pro IR campaign, not a slag off SSP one. Rebecca didn't wait for a poll in the WT's, she got out and did something and seems to have found a groundswell of support. If you and the like minded people you know/have spoken to, want something different on IR, then please do get out there and gauge opinion and provide some feedback - don't wait for the WT's. Setting up a Facebook group or by using tools like surveymonkey shouldn't take you too long and will get you a much bigger audience, and you can still vent your spleen on here as well if if you do seem to have more personalities than Mike Yarwood.

I hear you - but you're slightly behind - In view of WT's bias towards IR and lack of will to inform locals of all relevant facts I have sought help.

Watch this space.

I wasn't going to say anymore here - but this is too good.

Upon reading the Property Week International today I find an article all about our little planning dispute.

Can I give you just a short extract.

"Cineworld committed to Innox, pending planning permission, but when Property Week contacted Stephen Weiner (CEO of Cineworld) to verify his comments he said he "did not recognise" the remarks in the letter attributed to him."

What Letter Shaun?

Bit of "misreporting" perhaps?, as Mike was referring to Crispin Lilly , Cineworlds Property Director and Vice President of Business Affairs, not Stephen Weiner.

Erm Let me think... what letter do you think?

The whole article is a fantastic read - take a look.

Subscriber content only Shaun, i don't know if WH Smiths have a paper copy?

And still don't know what letter you mean?

Do you mean when Mike was reading his speech at the march referring to Crispin Lilly , Cineworlds Property Director and Vice President of Business Affairs, not Stephen Weiner?

I have seen these comments from Construction Enquirer, which does have a comment from Stephen Weiner:

Steve Wiener, Founder and Chief Executive of Cineworld, said: “I have been actively seeking to open a cinema in Trowbridge for many years and having seen other schemes flounder, I am convinced of Innox Riverside’s great quality and excited about opening in 2013.”

Mark Chappell, Development Executive for Morrisons said: “Wiltshire is a key area of expansion for Morrisons in our move from national to nationwide.

“We are therefore delighted to be one of the principal anchors for Innox Riverside and look forward to bringing our unique retail offer to Trowbridge."

http://www.randstadc
pe.com/news/Trowbrid
ge-site-set-for-plan
ning-application-576
.aspx

http://www.construct
ionenquirer.com/2011
/10/12/morrisons-com
mit-to-trowbridge-tr
ansformation/

I'll post the whole article for you Mike - You'll understand which letter and the context then.



Trowbridge scheme hangs in balance as row between rivals rages. Sarah Stewart reports for the Property Week 13-07-12

Two rival developers, one quiet town and a whole load of mud-slinging. Trowbridge, Wiltshire’s county town, is the scene of one of the¬ firercest development battles in the UK today.¬ Supermarket Morrisons’ development arm, Optimisation Developments, with London-based developer Prorsus, has locked horns with Legal & General Property Unity Trust over attempts to develop near-identical leisure schemes within a mile of each other. As one developer starts on site, the other goes back to the drawing board and the industry has been left battered by a trail of confusing press releases and alleged smear campaigns. The saga began in June 2009, when L&G bought a 3.5 acre former Tesco store site from receivers. L&G wanted to create a leisure scheme with an estimated investment cost of £20m, called St Stephen’s Place. While L&G was working with local regeneration group Transforming Trowbridge and Wiltshire Council to produce a scheme, it was approached by Prorsus, which enquired into the viability of opening a Morrisons store at the scheme. The discussions never reached an advanced stage. Undeterred by what one source close to the matter viewed as “at best a time-wasting exercise and at worst a reconnaissance tour to pick up an insight into St Stephen’s Place”, L&G pressed ahead with a plan to create a 90,000 sq ft development that would comprise a seven-screen cinema, six restaurants and an 80-room hotel. Prorsus denies this, saying the events were unrelated. Before L&G submitted its plans to Wiltshire Council, Prorsus and Optimisation announced they had bought the former Bowyers pork pie factory site (above) — one mile away from St Stephen’s — and that they planned to develop a rival leisure scheme, called Innox Riverside. Innox Riverside would consist of a 77,000 sq ft Morrisons store and an eight-screen cinema. A raft of restaurant units was also planned, taking the proposed development to 155,000 sq ft. Prorsus and Optimisation overtook L&G, submitting a planning application of 6 October 2011 — a month before L&G’s on 18 November. In response to L&G’s planning application, a letter was sent to Wiltshire Council head planner Kenny Green, and department members Mike Wilmott and Judith Dale. The letter was sent from planner and development economist Roger Tym & Partners on behalf of its client, Optimisation. The letter lodged opposition to the L&G scheme on the basis that: “Despite claims by Legal & General that the St Stephen’s Place scheme is ‘fully funded and deliverable’, this is not the case.” The letter also claimed: “The main national restaurant occupiers are not prepared to open in the St Stephen’s Place development.” Following the submission of Roger Tym’s letter, a supporting letter was submitted by Prorsus to the council. The developer attached an informal leasing update from Innox’s agents, CWM — intended for internal use only — that cited nine occupiers that were in support of the scheme over L&G’s, among them Frankie & Benny’s, Gondola and Tragus, which owns Bella Italia, Strada and Café Rouge. It also suggested the view of CEO of Cineworld, Stephen Wiener, as being that SSP was “less appealing, in functional and design terms, than Innox Riverside, being set around the focal point of a car park”. Cineworld committed to Innox, pending planning permission, but when Property Week contacted Wiener to verify his comments, he said he “did not recognise” the remarks in the letter attributed to him, supporting CWM’s view that its letter was an informal note intended for internal purposes only. Despite this opposition, L&G signed Odeon for its scheme and was subsequently granted planning permission on 21 February 2012. Innox Riverside was still under consideration by the council. Nonetheless, it proceeded with a £4m site clearance in anticipation of a favourable outcome. The council’s planning committee held a meeting to examine the scheme in May, at which it voted to defer a decision to give the developers time to rework four aspects of the application: establishing an agreement with Network Rail about the railway station that abuts the proposed scheme; devising a highways solution; agreeing heads of terms for the section 106 agreement; and other conditions that had not been satis¬ ed. However, as soon as the deferral was announced, a press release was issued on behalf of Prorsus that con¬ dently asserted: “Innox Riverside … is going ahead after Wiltshire councillors voted last week to grant planning permission for the regeneration of this historic brown¬ eld site in the centre of the town.” Prorsus claims responsibility for the error lies with PR company Camargue, which issued the release, and was not part of a plan to hype up the scheme. James Anderson, account executive at Camargue, says: “We issued a release following the 9 May committee, when members were minded to approve the application. When we issued it, the minutes had not been uploaded on to site. When they were, the committee’s decision was recorded differently to how the meeting happened.” On 20 June, when the committee met again, Wilmott stood up and said he understood several members had received letters stating that Prorsus had come to an agreement with Network Rail. Wilmott had contacted Network Rail to check and said that no such agreement had been reached. That night, the application was rejected. Network Rail says it was approached by Prorsus but that no agreement had been reached: “We had concerns about the development, such as the closure of access to the station via the A363, which would ensue if the development went ahead. We raised this with the council,” says a spokeswoman. “No agreement had been reached before the meeting on 20 June. We are working with the developer to work on things they might be able to incorporate into a new plan.” Angus Horner, chief executive of Prorsus, is equally determined that, with an appeal, Innox Riverside will go ahead. “We retain the commitment of Morrisons and the other occupiers who signed up to 85% of the scheme. We are taking further legal advice and appealing the decision. We have a strong indication from councillors that there will be resolution to approve when we appeal. South-west “The suggestion that we neglected to complete the necessary planning procedures is incorrect. The documents submitted were comprehensive. “It is such a strong scheme that local people have come out in their thousands and will be holding a march.” A protest march, “Yes to Innox Riverside”, led by mother-of-two Rebecca Millard, took place last Saturday, 7 July. Local reports put the turnout at somewhere between 200 and 400 people. Horner continues: “I think that it was di cult for the committee to cope with processing and understanding two schemes in the same town.” Peter Fuller, chairman of the planning committee, says: “I cannot comment on the views of an individual about the competency of the planning committee, especially as the application is subject to an appeal.” But Horner’s suspicions do not end there: “I think that there has been a suggestion that the council itself might want our site for a council sports hub. That may be one of the motivations for rejecting Innox Riverside.” A council spokeswoman responds: “At this stage, no sports hub is planned for this site.” Despite Prorsus’s allegations, Tim Russell, senior asset manager at Legal & General Property, would like to see a revised planning application for Innox Riverside. “I hope a constructive dialogue will now start between Prorsus/Morrisons and Wiltshire Council to redevelop the Bowyers site with uses that will be of benefit to Trowbridge, and protect the vitality and viability of the town centre,” he says. L&G has the advantage that it is already developing its scheme, but if Innox Riverside were granted consent, it would provide it with a close rival. Prorsus and Optimisation are determined their scheme is valid and, with the prospect of an appeal, there may be more battles ahead.

PCS_Wilts wrote:
I'll post the whole article for you Mike - You'll understand which letter and the context then.



Trowbridge scheme hangs in balance as row between rivals rages. Sarah Stewart reports for the Property Week 13-07-12

Two rival developers, one quiet town and a whole load of mud-slinging. Trowbridge, Wiltshire’s county town, is the scene of one of the¬ firercest development battles in the UK today.¬ Supermarket Morrisons’ development arm, Optimisation Developments, with London-based developer Prorsus, has locked horns with Legal & General Property Unity Trust over attempts to develop near-identical leisure schemes within a mile of each other. As one developer starts on site, the other goes back to the drawing board and the industry has been left battered by a trail of confusing press releases and alleged smear campaigns. The saga began in June 2009, when L&G bought a 3.5 acre former Tesco store site from receivers. L&G wanted to create a leisure scheme with an estimated investment cost of £20m, called St Stephen’s Place. While L&G was working with local regeneration group Transforming Trowbridge and Wiltshire Council to produce a scheme, it was approached by Prorsus, which enquired into the viability of opening a Morrisons store at the scheme. The discussions never reached an advanced stage. Undeterred by what one source close to the matter viewed as “at best a time-wasting exercise and at worst a reconnaissance tour to pick up an insight into St Stephen’s Place”, L&G pressed ahead with a plan to create a 90,000 sq ft development that would comprise a seven-screen cinema, six restaurants and an 80-room hotel. Prorsus denies this, saying the events were unrelated. Before L&G submitted its plans to Wiltshire Council, Prorsus and Optimisation announced they had bought the former Bowyers pork pie factory site (above) — one mile away from St Stephen’s — and that they planned to develop a rival leisure scheme, called Innox Riverside. Innox Riverside would consist of a 77,000 sq ft Morrisons store and an eight-screen cinema. A raft of restaurant units was also planned, taking the proposed development to 155,000 sq ft. Prorsus and Optimisation overtook L&G, submitting a planning application of 6 October 2011 — a month before L&G’s on 18 November. In response to L&G’s planning application, a letter was sent to Wiltshire Council head planner Kenny Green, and department members Mike Wilmott and Judith Dale. The letter was sent from planner and development economist Roger Tym & Partners on behalf of its client, Optimisation. The letter lodged opposition to the L&G scheme on the basis that: “Despite claims by Legal & General that the St Stephen’s Place scheme is ‘fully funded and deliverable’, this is not the case.” The letter also claimed: “The main national restaurant occupiers are not prepared to open in the St Stephen’s Place development.” Following the submission of Roger Tym’s letter, a supporting letter was submitted by Prorsus to the council. The developer attached an informal leasing update from Innox’s agents, CWM — intended for internal use only — that cited nine occupiers that were in support of the scheme over L&G’s, among them Frankie & Benny’s, Gondola and Tragus, which owns Bella Italia, Strada and Café Rouge. It also suggested the view of CEO of Cineworld, Stephen Wiener, as being that SSP was “less appealing, in functional and design terms, than Innox Riverside, being set around the focal point of a car park”. Cineworld committed to Innox, pending planning permission, but when Property Week contacted Wiener to verify his comments, he said he “did not recognise” the remarks in the letter attributed to him, supporting CWM’s view that its letter was an informal note intended for internal purposes only. Despite this opposition, L&G signed Odeon for its scheme and was subsequently granted planning permission on 21 February 2012. Innox Riverside was still under consideration by the council. Nonetheless, it proceeded with a £4m site clearance in anticipation of a favourable outcome. The council’s planning committee held a meeting to examine the scheme in May, at which it voted to defer a decision to give the developers time to rework four aspects of the application: establishing an agreement with Network Rail about the railway station that abuts the proposed scheme; devising a highways solution; agreeing heads of terms for the section 106 agreement; and other conditions that had not been satis¬ ed. However, as soon as the deferral was announced, a press release was issued on behalf of Prorsus that con¬ dently asserted: “Innox Riverside … is going ahead after Wiltshire councillors voted last week to grant planning permission for the regeneration of this historic brown¬ eld site in the centre of the town.” Prorsus claims responsibility for the error lies with PR company Camargue, which issued the release, and was not part of a plan to hype up the scheme. James Anderson, account executive at Camargue, says: “We issued a release following the 9 May committee, when members were minded to approve the application. When we issued it, the minutes had not been uploaded on to site. When they were, the committee’s decision was recorded differently to how the meeting happened.” On 20 June, when the committee met again, Wilmott stood up and said he understood several members had received letters stating that Prorsus had come to an agreement with Network Rail. Wilmott had contacted Network Rail to check and said that no such agreement had been reached. That night, the application was rejected. Network Rail says it was approached by Prorsus but that no agreement had been reached: “We had concerns about the development, such as the closure of access to the station via the A363, which would ensue if the development went ahead. We raised this with the council,” says a spokeswoman. “No agreement had been reached before the meeting on 20 June. We are working with the developer to work on things they might be able to incorporate into a new plan.” Angus Horner, chief executive of Prorsus, is equally determined that, with an appeal, Innox Riverside will go ahead. “We retain the commitment of Morrisons and the other occupiers who signed up to 85% of the scheme. We are taking further legal advice and appealing the decision. We have a strong indication from councillors that there will be resolution to approve when we appeal. South-west “The suggestion that we neglected to complete the necessary planning procedures is incorrect. The documents submitted were comprehensive. “It is such a strong scheme that local people have come out in their thousands and will be holding a march.” A protest march, “Yes to Innox Riverside”, led by mother-of-two Rebecca Millard, took place last Saturday, 7 July. Local reports put the turnout at somewhere between 200 and 400 people. Horner continues: “I think that it was di cult for the committee to cope with processing and understanding two schemes in the same town.” Peter Fuller, chairman of the planning committee, says: “I cannot comment on the views of an individual about the competency of the planning committee, especially as the application is subject to an appeal.” But Horner’s suspicions do not end there: “I think that there has been a suggestion that the council itself might want our site for a council sports hub. That may be one of the motivations for rejecting Innox Riverside.” A council spokeswoman responds: “At this stage, no sports hub is planned for this site.” Despite Prorsus’s allegations, Tim Russell, senior asset manager at Legal & General Property, would like to see a revised planning application for Innox Riverside. “I hope a constructive dialogue will now start between Prorsus/Morrisons and Wiltshire Council to redevelop the Bowyers site with uses that will be of benefit to Trowbridge, and protect the vitality and viability of the town centre,” he says. L&G has the advantage that it is already developing its scheme, but if Innox Riverside were granted consent, it would provide it with a close rival. Prorsus and Optimisation are determined their scheme is valid and, with the prospect of an appeal, there may be more battles ahead.

So the missing bit is "supporting CWM’s view that its letter was an informal note intended for internal purposes only."

But thanks for posting - although i would watch out for copyright issues on posting the article in it's entire format.

Oh, and i am not Mike! Although i did meet him for the first time last night :)

A good balance and well written article, nothing to shout about on it. This all happens in planning every day.

As pointed out above, the letter that Stephen Weiner and comments he "did not recognise" are around CWM’s note about restaurant chains and as stated it was for internal purposes.

Nothing bad or revealing in that article. It's all old news and you could of read this months ago in the planning portal.