Jobs bonanza as Trowbridge restaurant creates 20 posts

Jobs bonanza as Trowbridge restaurant creates 20 posts

Jobs bonanza as Trowbridge restaurant creates 20 posts

First published in Latest News

More than 20 jobs will be created by new American restaurant Dean’s Diner, which has been confirmed as the latest addition to the St Stephen’s Place Leisure Park in Trowbridge.

Legal & General Property announced this week that it has exchanged contracts on the letting of a further restaurant unit at its town centre leisure development to the 1950s style American diner.

Dean’s Diner, which will occupy a 2,600 sq ft unit on a 25-year lease, is a popular concept first launched by restaurant operator Richoux Group Chatham in July 2010.

Joining Nando’s, Prezzo, Frankie & Benny’s, ODEON and Premier Inn, the diner is the fourth restaurant to have been secured at the £17m complex, which was launched at the end of last year.

Tim Russell, senior asset manager at Legal & General Property, said: “Due to open in July this year, we are excited to welcome to St Stephen’s Place one of the UK’s newest restaurant brands.

“We feel it complements Nando’s, Frankie & Benny’s and Prezzo in offering yet another family-orientated, affordable yet high quality, dining option.

“With ongoing discussions taking place behind the scenes with a number of other popular restaurant operators, we expect to announce the final lettings shortly.”

The restaurant in Trowbridge will be the sixth branch to open in the south of England and will feature a retro jukebox and menu choices ranging from classic hamburgers, hot dogs and milkshakes through to house specials such as Dean’s All Day Brunch.

Last month the St Stephen’s Place Leisure Park picked up the Town Enhancement Award at the Trowbridge’s annual Civic and Town Enhancement Awards ceremony, which was presented at the Mayor’s Civic Dinner.

Edward Standring, managing director of Richoux Group, said: “Popular with all ages, our Dean’s Diner concept has already proved a huge success as a relative newcomer to the UK’s restaurant scene and will continue its wider expansion plans.

“This vibrant 1950s-inspired American diner chain is the perfect accompaniment to an energetic centre of town leisure scheme.

“We look forward to Trowbridge’s summer opening.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:52pm Thu 17 Apr 14

brandx says...

This is yet more good news for Trowbridge. At this rate all the vacant sites at St Stephens will soon be taken up. The question that is increasingly being asked in the town, is what is happening on the old Bowyers site? Have they come up with a revised traffic plan yet?

As I have said a number of times; competition for customers will decide who are the winners, but is the Bowyers site still in the race?
This is yet more good news for Trowbridge. At this rate all the vacant sites at St Stephens will soon be taken up. The question that is increasingly being asked in the town, is what is happening on the old Bowyers site? Have they come up with a revised traffic plan yet? As I have said a number of times; competition for customers will decide who are the winners, but is the Bowyers site still in the race? brandx
  • Score: 10

7:05pm Fri 18 Apr 14

€d says...

Chiquito have a planning application displayed in one of the empty units.
Chiquito have a planning application displayed in one of the empty units. €d
  • Score: 13

2:32am Sat 19 Apr 14

AMVanquish007 says...

Enough of this continual negativity Brand X !!!!!
Yes Bowyers is being built with the Morrisons and the Cinema and the restaurants on it.
I'm sure that any traffic plan is likely to be resolved if any.
One things for sure=when Innox Riverside opens, its the intention of the developer to have all the units on the site fully occupied from Day 1
Enough of this continual negativity Brand X !!!!! Yes Bowyers is being built with the Morrisons and the Cinema and the restaurants on it. I'm sure that any traffic plan is likely to be resolved if any. One things for sure=when Innox Riverside opens, its the intention of the developer to have all the units on the site fully occupied from Day 1 AMVanquish007
  • Score: -11

10:12am Wed 23 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

AMVanquish007 wrote:
Enough of this continual negativity Brand X !!!!!
Yes Bowyers is being built with the Morrisons and the Cinema and the restaurants on it.
I'm sure that any traffic plan is likely to be resolved if any.
One things for sure=when Innox Riverside opens, its the intention of the developer to have all the units on the site fully occupied from Day 1
Intention is one thing - achievement is another - you've already lost Frankie n Benny's and Prezzo ...
[quote][p][bold]AMVanquish007[/bold] wrote: Enough of this continual negativity Brand X !!!!! Yes Bowyers is being built with the Morrisons and the Cinema and the restaurants on it. I'm sure that any traffic plan is likely to be resolved if any. One things for sure=when Innox Riverside opens, its the intention of the developer to have all the units on the site fully occupied from Day 1[/p][/quote]Intention is one thing - achievement is another - you've already lost Frankie n Benny's and Prezzo ... PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 10

4:47pm Wed 23 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

Anyone else seen this petition regarding the Bowyers site?

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/wi
ltshire-council-buil
d-a-bowling-alley-an
d-ice-rink-in-trowbr
idge
Anyone else seen this petition regarding the Bowyers site? http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/wi ltshire-council-buil d-a-bowling-alley-an d-ice-rink-in-trowbr idge PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 8

12:44am Thu 24 Apr 14

AMVanquish007 says...

As always PCS-you are totally ill informed.
The companies that own the brands F and B and Prezzo do have other restaurants in their portfolios and are continuing to talk to the development team at Innox Riverside.
As for the petition--utter nonsense and a waste of time.
Whats been passed at the appeal will happen along with the petrol filling station
Demolition starts in May with a lot of information to follow.
Just watch the Wiltshire Times, Facebook and the upgraded website in due course
As always PCS-you are totally ill informed. The companies that own the brands F and B and Prezzo do have other restaurants in their portfolios and are continuing to talk to the development team at Innox Riverside. As for the petition--utter nonsense and a waste of time. Whats been passed at the appeal will happen along with the petrol filling station Demolition starts in May with a lot of information to follow. Just watch the Wiltshire Times, Facebook and the upgraded website in due course AMVanquish007
  • Score: -8

7:43am Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

In the coming weeks you will see how ill informed I am indeed.

The point of the petition is that it shows plenty of people do not want another cinema. Over 600 signatures in just a few days.

As for all units being operational from day one on the Bowyers site- surely this will only serve to delay opening - as with the St Steven's Place development you can clearly see that different companies move at different paces. Although at the speed Prorsus are moving at the moment the restaurants could be stood outside the gates waiting to get in. Lets face it - demolition could have started as soon as planning was given for the "reserve" application last July - 9 Months ago.
In the coming weeks you will see how ill informed I am indeed. The point of the petition is that it shows plenty of people do not want another cinema. Over 600 signatures in just a few days. As for all units being operational from day one on the Bowyers site- surely this will only serve to delay opening - as with the St Steven's Place development you can clearly see that different companies move at different paces. Although at the speed Prorsus are moving at the moment the restaurants could be stood outside the gates waiting to get in. Lets face it - demolition could have started as soon as planning was given for the "reserve" application last July - 9 Months ago. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 4

12:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

D@ve says...

PCS –

It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you.

- The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works.
- The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly.
- The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved.
- The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground.
- The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site.
- The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development.
- The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR.

As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site??

Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?!
PCS – It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you. - The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works. - The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly. - The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved. - The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground. - The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site. - The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development. - The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR. As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site?? Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?! D@ve
  • Score: -2

12:29pm Thu 24 Apr 14

D@ve says...

PSC - As you used to bang on about numbers, lets play you at your own game.

What is 600 people compared to the population of Trowbridge 1.4%?? Let alone the catchment area?? You'd need 2,500 to hit just 1%

Anyway, would love to talk more, but just noticed a 1987 re-run of Strike It Lucky is on!
PSC - As you used to bang on about numbers, lets play you at your own game. What is 600 people compared to the population of Trowbridge 1.4%?? Let alone the catchment area?? You'd need 2,500 to hit just 1% Anyway, would love to talk more, but just noticed a 1987 re-run of Strike It Lucky is on! D@ve
  • Score: -2

1:29pm Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

D@ve wrote:
PSC - As you used to bang on about numbers, lets play you at your own game.

What is 600 people compared to the population of Trowbridge 1.4%?? Let alone the catchment area?? You'd need 2,500 to hit just 1%

Anyway, would love to talk more, but just noticed a 1987 re-run of Strike It Lucky is on!
My point Dave is that the 650 signatures gained in just a few days is very comparable to the 125 marchers and 1000 signatures gained to support "a" cinema in the town by your own Innox Road supporters.

Therefore you can implement your own figures to your own signatures achieved and come out with an extremely close equivalent can't you.
[quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PSC - As you used to bang on about numbers, lets play you at your own game. What is 600 people compared to the population of Trowbridge 1.4%?? Let alone the catchment area?? You'd need 2,500 to hit just 1% Anyway, would love to talk more, but just noticed a 1987 re-run of Strike It Lucky is on![/p][/quote]My point Dave is that the 650 signatures gained in just a few days is very comparable to the 125 marchers and 1000 signatures gained to support "a" cinema in the town by your own Innox Road supporters. Therefore you can implement your own figures to your own signatures achieved and come out with an extremely close equivalent can't you. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 5

1:38pm Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

D@ve wrote:
PCS –

It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you.

- The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works.
- The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly.
- The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved.
- The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground.
- The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site.
- The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development.
- The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR.

As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site??

Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?!
So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer.

As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe.
[quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS – It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you. - The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works. - The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly. - The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved. - The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground. - The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site. - The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development. - The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR. As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site?? Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?![/p][/quote]So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer. As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 6

3:19pm Thu 24 Apr 14

AMVanquish007 says...

Your response PCS is just 'same old same old'
D@ve has spelt it out to you quite well. As far as I read it the petition is to request from the council to provide or agree to a bowling alley and ice rink from this young lady in Trowbridge.
It does not appear to be directed against Innox Riverside at all which you PCS have decided to jump on the bandwagon with to imply that a second cinema isn't needed again.
Whilst her intentions are no doubt admirable and I support the idea in principle ,as D@ve said , a bowling operator would have come here and shown interest if the space was sufficient.
Bowling Alleys are voluminous buildings needing length and width unlike cinemas with stadium seating that can be squeezed into small footprints.
As for your remarks about the cinema, it has now been proven to be one of the most successful 7 plexes in the country and yet it is under screened by at least 4 screens. Several films have had TV advertising which have not even shown in Trowbridge and have been advertised on screen yet did not come here.
It's not Odeons fault the lack of screens it has - an 8 plex would have helped. That said Cineworlds entrance will resolve these issues which you may find hard to contemplate or accept - but in my experience it will.
Your response PCS is just 'same old same old' D@ve has spelt it out to you quite well. As far as I read it the petition is to request from the council to provide or agree to a bowling alley and ice rink from this young lady in Trowbridge. It does not appear to be directed against Innox Riverside at all which you PCS have decided to jump on the bandwagon with to imply that a second cinema isn't needed again. Whilst her intentions are no doubt admirable and I support the idea in principle ,as D@ve said , a bowling operator would have come here and shown interest if the space was sufficient. Bowling Alleys are voluminous buildings needing length and width unlike cinemas with stadium seating that can be squeezed into small footprints. As for your remarks about the cinema, it has now been proven to be one of the most successful 7 plexes in the country and yet it is under screened by at least 4 screens. Several films have had TV advertising which have not even shown in Trowbridge and have been advertised on screen yet did not come here. It's not Odeons fault the lack of screens it has - an 8 plex would have helped. That said Cineworlds entrance will resolve these issues which you may find hard to contemplate or accept - but in my experience it will. AMVanquish007
  • Score: -3

4:16pm Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

Same Old Same? POT? KETTLE?

I think you will find Dave was re-iterating a statement I made to you guys a long time ago. As he said - I'm so fond of the figures...

As for the petition - I'm not jumping on any bandwagon - I have signed it but that would be extent of my involvement. I simply asked if people had seen it.
Same Old Same? POT? KETTLE? I think you will find Dave was re-iterating a statement I made to you guys a long time ago. As he said - I'm so fond of the figures... As for the petition - I'm not jumping on any bandwagon - I have signed it but that would be extent of my involvement. I simply asked if people had seen it. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 5

4:50pm Thu 24 Apr 14

D@ve says...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
D@ve wrote:
PCS –

It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you.

- The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works.
- The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly.
- The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved.
- The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground.
- The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site.
- The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development.
- The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR.

As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site??

Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?!
So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer.

As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe.
How on earth is it poor planning when the council rejected their original application, only for a planning inspector to overturn it?

It's a similar pattern to KFC. KFC was rejected by the council only for it to be won on appeal. Turnaround from original application to opening - 3 Years.

Opening will be a little longer for IR as it's a lot bigger site and bigger build, but in principle, the lead-times are in line with the general process of planning.

Sainsbury’s took almost 4 years from inital ap!!
[quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS – It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you. - The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works. - The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly. - The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved. - The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground. - The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site. - The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development. - The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR. As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site?? Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?![/p][/quote]So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer. As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe.[/p][/quote]How on earth is it poor planning when the council rejected their original application, only for a planning inspector to overturn it? It's a similar pattern to KFC. KFC was rejected by the council only for it to be won on appeal. Turnaround from original application to opening - 3 Years. Opening will be a little longer for IR as it's a lot bigger site and bigger build, but in principle, the lead-times are in line with the general process of planning. Sainsbury’s took almost 4 years from inital ap!! D@ve
  • Score: -2

4:57pm Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

D@ve wrote:
PCS_Wilts wrote:
D@ve wrote:
PCS –

It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you.

- The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works.
- The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly.
- The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved.
- The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground.
- The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site.
- The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development.
- The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR.

As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site??

Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?!
So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer.

As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe.
How on earth is it poor planning when the council rejected their original application, only for a planning inspector to overturn it?

It's a similar pattern to KFC. KFC was rejected by the council only for it to be won on appeal. Turnaround from original application to opening - 3 Years.

Opening will be a little longer for IR as it's a lot bigger site and bigger build, but in principle, the lead-times are in line with the general process of planning.

Sainsbury’s took almost 4 years from inital ap!!
Planning was given for the "reserve" application 9 months ago...
[quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS – It’s a bit silly comparing sites to one another. That would be like me comparing your market site to a PC World store. The constraints on Bowyers mean that it will take a bit longer to actually see diggers on site. Let me explain this in some simple terms that may not confuse you. - The SSP site took an initial 18 months form its first application to demolition works. - The SSP site was already fully cleared when L&G purchased it ready for building work to start instantly. - The SSP site does not have a public footpath running through the middle of the site. This needs to be diverted and approved. - The SSP site did not have asbestos contamination in the buildings and contamination in the ground. - The SSP site does not have the main sewer line running through the development site. - The SSP site does not contain multiple listed buildings which need to be protected and restored throughout the development. - The SSP site is also a lot smaller in size and does not contain as many challenges and logistical planning as IR. As for your petition for bowling, it’s a total non starter. That’s like petitioning for shops to open. If a operator / owner does not want to open in the town, it simply can’t and will not happen. It’s not up to the council, land owners or developers. It’s entirely up to the operators of that complex. If a bowling operator was so keen, it would of happened. Cradle Bridge is a prime site sat there, perfect location, next to an existing leisure complex – So it begs the question. Why has a bowling operator never built or shown interest with a developer to transform and open on this site?? Finally – For someone who take such a huge interest in St Stephens Place. One would of thought you would get the spelling correct? St Steven's Place?![/p][/quote]So given the fact the original planning application was handed in during the last quarter of 2011 we can see this as being another example of the lack of proper planning and preparation by the developer. As for the new petition I agree the sentiment is a tad too late and will do nothing to change the plans. Albeit a little late it will demonstrate that the desire for a second cinema in the town is not as popular as you would like people to believe.[/p][/quote]How on earth is it poor planning when the council rejected their original application, only for a planning inspector to overturn it? It's a similar pattern to KFC. KFC was rejected by the council only for it to be won on appeal. Turnaround from original application to opening - 3 Years. Opening will be a little longer for IR as it's a lot bigger site and bigger build, but in principle, the lead-times are in line with the general process of planning. Sainsbury’s took almost 4 years from inital ap!![/p][/quote]Planning was given for the "reserve" application 9 months ago... PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 4

4:58pm Thu 24 Apr 14

PCS_Wilts says...

L&G did all their reports BEFORE handing their application in...
L&G did all their reports BEFORE handing their application in... PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 4

5:29pm Thu 24 Apr 14

brandx says...

Let's not argue about the past and how long it took to get planning. The fact is that planning for IR is now in place and a temporary wall is around the site. The issue uis now for demolition and decontamination work to start; then to get the cranes on site and the new build to start. It won't be an easy project especially with conversion work for the listed buildings.

As for the Bowling Alley. Do you reckon we are in line for another march on County Hall? Is John King going to get on this bandwagon?

Does anybody know who has put the winning bid in for the old Peter Black site? Probably a good idea that Wiltshire Council didn'y enter into a bidding battle there. More important that they get to grips with the East Wing Bythesea site for the long promised Trowbridge Campus.
Let's not argue about the past and how long it took to get planning. The fact is that planning for IR is now in place and a temporary wall is around the site. The issue uis now for demolition and decontamination work to start; then to get the cranes on site and the new build to start. It won't be an easy project especially with conversion work for the listed buildings. As for the Bowling Alley. Do you reckon we are in line for another march on County Hall? Is John King going to get on this bandwagon? Does anybody know who has put the winning bid in for the old Peter Black site? Probably a good idea that Wiltshire Council didn'y enter into a bidding battle there. More important that they get to grips with the East Wing Bythesea site for the long promised Trowbridge Campus. brandx
  • Score: 0

1:32am Fri 25 Apr 14

AMVanquish007 says...

I'm sure there are a few red faces at County Hall seeing they lost the bid which I believe was almost double. A radical design of Bythesea road will have to undertaken with a view to incorporating plenty of car parking for the campus or sports hub if sited there.The parking was obviously what was in mind to help SSP as well as the campus .
I suggest it's all built on stilts with the ground floor being extensive car parking. It's the only way forward on that score to accommodate the hundreds of people.
I'm sure there are a few red faces at County Hall seeing they lost the bid which I believe was almost double. A radical design of Bythesea road will have to undertaken with a view to incorporating plenty of car parking for the campus or sports hub if sited there.The parking was obviously what was in mind to help SSP as well as the campus . I suggest it's all built on stilts with the ground floor being extensive car parking. It's the only way forward on that score to accommodate the hundreds of people. AMVanquish007
  • Score: -4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree