Bowyers plans pass first test (From Wiltshire Times)

One more nail in the Cineworld coffin...

So the problem last time was traffic access.... this time it mysteriously isn't an issue?! The terms 'fingers in lots of pies' and 'dodgy handshakes' spring to mind when in comes to planning in Trowbridge!

Betty77 wrote:
So the problem last time was traffic access.... this time it mysteriously isn't an issue?! The terms 'fingers in lots of pies' and 'dodgy handshakes' spring to mind when in comes to planning in Trowbridge!

If you want the site developed you have to overcome the traffic issues - Its not really fair to suggest people are being underhand simply because plans have progressed.

@PCS: I’m curious about something.
I’m not biased in any way for either SSP or Innox, & realise that 2 cinemas probably couldn’t be viable (but that would be their ‘lookout’, as long as we don’t end up with a derelict area again & net job losses if 1 goes bust). Like many others, I just want the town to pick up, jobs & prospects to increase, etc. I do not want to get into that previous bickering match, but why do you like another nail in Cineworld’s coffin? From a brief bit of research, & using Odeon since it’s most local, I would have preferred Cineworld. You run a business I gather, & Cineworld's not a competitor, so why anti Cineworld? Or did I misunderstand, & you would have said the same about Odeon, if they’d targeted Innox?

You are quite right about traffic issues, no matter what businesses arrive at Innox, or indeed at SSP. Unless the town’s traffic is managed particularly well, an increase in businesses will herald longer queues than we currently endure!

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Betty77 wrote:
So the problem last time was traffic access.... this time it mysteriously isn't an issue?! The terms 'fingers in lots of pies' and 'dodgy handshakes' spring to mind when in comes to planning in Trowbridge!

If you want the site developed you have to overcome the traffic issues - Its not really fair to suggest people are being underhand simply because plans have progressed.

But why would the cineworld plans create a traffic issue yet the current proposals do not? It seems like it was used as an excuse when the real reason is that investments had already been made and two cinema's were not wanted in Trowbridge (which I can understand), surely honesty is the best policy.

he of one braincell wrote:
@PCS: I’m curious about something.
I’m not biased in any way for either SSP or Innox, & realise that 2 cinemas probably couldn’t be viable (but that would be their ‘lookout’, as long as we don’t end up with a derelict area again & net job losses if 1 goes bust). Like many others, I just want the town to pick up, jobs & prospects to increase, etc. I do not want to get into that previous bickering match, but why do you like another nail in Cineworld’s coffin? From a brief bit of research, & using Odeon since it’s most local, I would have preferred Cineworld. You run a business I gather, & Cineworld's not a competitor, so why anti Cineworld? Or did I misunderstand, & you would have said the same about Odeon, if they’d targeted Innox?

You are quite right about traffic issues, no matter what businesses arrive at Innox, or indeed at SSP. Unless the town’s traffic is managed particularly well, an increase in businesses will herald longer queues than we currently endure!

I would have been equally anti odeon had they have gone about things the way that prorsus did.

The Council can't afford to turn this down they don't have a great track record with planning appeals and know they will lose hence this delaying tactic. Wouldn't be suprised if the Peter Blacks old site sits and rots for a good decade after this fiasco even it it is demolished, unless they find a developer who knows the secret handshake.

Betty77 wrote:

PCS_Wilts wrote:

Betty77 wrote:
So the problem last time was traffic access.... this time it mysteriously isn't an issue?! The terms 'fingers in lots of pies' and 'dodgy handshakes' spring to mind when in comes to planning in Trowbridge!

If you want the site developed you have to overcome the traffic issues - Its not really fair to suggest people are being underhand simply because plans have progressed.

But why would the cineworld plans create a traffic issue yet the current proposals do not? It seems like it was used as an excuse when the real reason is that investments had already been made and two cinema's were not wanted in Trowbridge (which I can understand), surely honesty is the best policy.

Surely honesty is what you have, the council said no, gave their reasons and confirmed they would like to have talks to resolve the issues. Some issues are resolved ie the cinema. Although I think the traffic issue is still a work in progress. It would be good to see planning consent given with conditions to continue resolving the traffic issues, that way at least the developer could start preparing the site. Maybe get some ground workers in.

Why are Prorsus expected to resolve the triaffic issues in this part of town with extra revenue being given to sort out congestion that will be the result of any development. Yes I agree that cinema or any development on this site is a step in the right direction for the local economy. But Im at a loss as to why SSP was not asked to look at their plans and fund a traffic project that will alliviate the untold congestion that WILL ensue when there 'Leisure complex' is complete. Double dealing? More like on rule for one and one for all the others who dont know the handshake. Please Mr Horner dont give upon the initial plans you are being blackmailed into delaying the appeal for the cineworld plans by planners. The appeal would probably be passed and therefore create extra jobs and a competitor to Odeon, if you have to sort out the traffic for the Gym than do it for the cinema, as far as i can work out nobody really thinks a gym will work out.

planning department..........
..........joke......
..enough said!