Scunthorpe M&S retail park planning application change
The firm behind the proposed M&S retail park in Scunthorpe has applied to change a condition of its planning permission.
Simons Developments is looking to create the park, which will include Marks & Spencer and Debenhams.
North Lincolnshire Council awarded planning permission for the project in March.
This came on the condition no more than five per cent of the trading space was used for selling convenience goods.
NEED A NEW BOILER ?. THEN READ OUR REVIEWS & CALL P & P PLUMBING...
P&P Plumbing & Heating services
View detailsIF YOUR LOOKING AT REPLACING YOUR BOILER, THEN CALL, P & P PLUMBING. WE CAN SUPPLY & FIT BOILERS, TO SUIT ALL BUDGETS, & THEY COME WITH 3, 5, 7 & AN AMAZING 10 YEARS PARTS & LABOUR GUARANTEE.
Terms: Ts & Cs apply
Contact: 01472 803004
Valid until: Friday, May 31 2013
Councillors imposed the condition to limit the adverse impact on Scunthorpe town centre.
But Simons officials have now applied for the change so retailers other than M&S can stock a small range of convenience goods, including sandwiches and confectionery.
This would ensure they would not be in breach of the planning permission.
The council's decision to grant planning permission for the retail park is currently subject to a judicial review, which will be heard in Leeds next month.
The application to change the condition is set to be determined by February 7.




Comments
by DFlated
Saturday, November 17 2012, 7:49AM
“Free trade. It's like Des .COMerford worried about this development - you have to up your game or like he does start up a website and look into out of town outlets yourself.
Retail is changing from 1970's style town centres. Keep up or go down. We are in the 21st Century for God's sake. I bet some of you on here would have complained about the invention of the wheel or the earth is still flat.”
by buffering
Friday, November 16 2012, 8:45PM
“Going by the amount of negative arrows on my comment it appears that many people don't care much for the "rule of law". Maybe they'll also not be bothered if their house gets broken into or their car stolen and the same Blasé attitude about the law is given to them...
Just because someones relatives want to buy their favourite liver paté or 15 denier tights from Marks and Sparks, doesn't mean that it's right for the planning commitee to ignore the planning laws.
I doubt very much that their isn't a single descent person in the town that doesn't want new stores and more choice on their doorstep, but the law is the law and no one, regardless of how many of the blue rinse brigade friends they have, is above that law.”
by IT_MAN
Friday, November 16 2012, 7:23PM
“Must be worried in case people go there instead of Tesco for sandwiches, must protect Tesco's trade.”
by anth8h
Friday, November 16 2012, 4:51PM
“Apologies buffering,looks like I got it wrong.”
by normanengland
Friday, November 16 2012, 8:32AM
“This development will bring much trade into the town. Relatives who live out of town are looking forward to this, but have stated that a town centre location would not tempt them. Seems that the only people who want M&S in the town centre are those who think their own business would benefit from being next door.”
by localad
Thursday, November 15 2012, 10:34PM
“Just get the thing built, we need the jobs.”
by buffering
Thursday, November 15 2012, 8:55PM
“by anth8h
"Delaying tactics whilst hoping in the meantime M & S will get fed up and move elsewhere?
Potential jobs lost as well!"
Not quite sure about this comment as it clearly states that it's The Simons group that have applied for a change of condition on its planning conditions. So given that they're the ones enticing M&S to be the anchor store I can hardly see how you can call it delaying tactics. Had they done their sequential testing in the first place then they would have know that there is no real demand for this development as there is plenty of available space already in existence and would now not be being required to change the whole plan.
Likewise, had the NLC planning committee not broken every single planning regulation so as to facilitate them, then this whole saga would now not be wasting tens of thousands of tax payers money by dragging it through the judicial court process.”
by anth8h
Thursday, November 15 2012, 11:37AM
“Delaying tactics whilst hoping in the meantime M & S will get fed up and move elsewhere?
Potential jobs lost as well!”