Lidl depot plan passed by Test Valley Borough Council

Lidl depot plan passed

Lidl depot plan passed

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a Lidl depot which could secure 400 jobs for Southampton have been approved by Test Valley Borough Council.

After nearly two-and-a-half hours of debate, councillors gave the green light to the cutprice chain’s plans to build a distribution centre next to the M271 near Nursling.

The new facility, on a greenfield site south of Brownhill Way, near Adanac Park, will serve an area from Poole to Newbury and across to Brighton.

Councillors raised their fears about tenants living in six homes on the site which would be demolished to make way for the 24-hour centre. Cllr Tony Ward said: “Why can we legally object for the bats and newts etc living in the hedgerow and not the nine human beings living in properties.

“I’m very disappointed to learn that human beings are not protected.”

Tenant Jacqueline Keir pleaded for councillors to refuse application and said that Barker-Mill Estates, which owns the site, had not provided any assurances of finding alternative accommodation.

Stuart Irvine, of Barker-Mill, denied this saying that a letter had been sent out to occupants in 2011 saying they would provide them with houses if planning approval was given.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:24am Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road. southy
  • Score: 0

10:30am Wed 30 Jan 13

daveetwo says...

It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket.
In other words its for storage and distribution.
It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket. In other words its for storage and distribution. daveetwo
  • Score: 0

11:15am Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

daveetwo wrote:
It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket.
In other words its for storage and distribution.
Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up
[quote][p][bold]daveetwo[/bold] wrote: It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket. In other words its for storage and distribution.[/p][/quote]Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up southy
  • Score: 0

11:16am Wed 30 Jan 13

trafficlighthater says...

Barker Mills are systematically selling off and destroying green field sites in this area. The infrastructure is already at breaking point. Try driving around this area at rush hour!
Barker Mills couldn't give two hoots about anyone living in and around the sites, all they see are the £££ signs!
Barker Mills are systematically selling off and destroying green field sites in this area. The infrastructure is already at breaking point. Try driving around this area at rush hour! Barker Mills couldn't give two hoots about anyone living in and around the sites, all they see are the £££ signs! trafficlighthater
  • Score: 0

11:25am Wed 30 Jan 13

Lone Ranger. says...

Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council
Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:28am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Pete,,,,you write on other threads about
council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at.

Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub
le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Pete,,,,you write on other threads about council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at. Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:29am Wed 30 Jan 13

daveetwo says...

southy wrote:
daveetwo wrote:
It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket.
In other words its for storage and distribution.
Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up
I was only going on the article so i guess time will tell what it finally ends up as.
Lidl only seems to go for smaller retails usually so would be an interesting departure if they open something substantial.
Regardless, I would have thought brownfield sites should be used before greenfield sites.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]daveetwo[/bold] wrote: It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket. In other words its for storage and distribution.[/p][/quote]Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up[/p][/quote]I was only going on the article so i guess time will tell what it finally ends up as. Lidl only seems to go for smaller retails usually so would be an interesting departure if they open something substantial. Regardless, I would have thought brownfield sites should be used before greenfield sites. daveetwo
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 30 Jan 13

Here, There says...

Suprise Suprise Southy is against any development in the area, its a ditribution centre bringing up to 400 jobs to the area, one field alongside the motorway benefits around 6 horses only and havn't heard many objections from those that currently farm the land, an alternative walkway is within the plans and shock horror private tenants may have to seek alternative acccomodation, were they told by their private landlord they had the house for life ? Recent employment figures for this area should make people welcome further investment.
Suprise Suprise Southy is against any development in the area, its a ditribution centre bringing up to 400 jobs to the area, one field alongside the motorway benefits around 6 horses only and havn't heard many objections from those that currently farm the land, an alternative walkway is within the plans and shock horror private tenants may have to seek alternative acccomodation, were they told by their private landlord they had the house for life ? Recent employment figures for this area should make people welcome further investment. Here, There
  • Score: 0

11:57am Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council
Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council. southy
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Pete,,,,you write on other threads about
council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at.

Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub

le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby
True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area.
Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes.
When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions.
So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Pete,,,,you write on other threads about council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at. Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby[/p][/quote]True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area. Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes. When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions. So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box. southy
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

daveetwo wrote:
southy wrote:
daveetwo wrote:
It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket.
In other words its for storage and distribution.
Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up
I was only going on the article so i guess time will tell what it finally ends up as.
Lidl only seems to go for smaller retails usually so would be an interesting departure if they open something substantial.
Regardless, I would have thought brownfield sites should be used before greenfield sites.
Agreed plans do change, and yes Brownfields sites first
[quote][p][bold]daveetwo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]daveetwo[/bold] wrote: It appears to be a depot NOT a supermarket. In other words its for storage and distribution.[/p][/quote]Last time I look it was a plan for S&D depot plus market place, like what sainsburys was when that first open up[/p][/quote]I was only going on the article so i guess time will tell what it finally ends up as. Lidl only seems to go for smaller retails usually so would be an interesting departure if they open something substantial. Regardless, I would have thought brownfield sites should be used before greenfield sites.[/p][/quote]Agreed plans do change, and yes Brownfields sites first southy
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Pete,,,,you write on other threads about
council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at.

Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub


le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby
True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area.
Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes.
When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions.
So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box.
400 jobs, bringing money into 400 households,,,feeding 400 families,,,400 people with more money to spend within the city,,,hopefully 400 off of JSA and other state benefits,,,400 people feeling better about the themselves,,,,400 + lives improved by the development.....Now Pete is that outside of the box enough for you? or maybe the bigger picture

Sure 3 homes will go,,,those families offered new properties,,,yes it's hard but the positives outweigh the negatives......do you think?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Pete,,,,you write on other threads about council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at. Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby[/p][/quote]True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area. Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes. When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions. So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box.[/p][/quote]400 jobs, bringing money into 400 households,,,feeding 400 families,,,400 people with more money to spend within the city,,,hopefully 400 off of JSA and other state benefits,,,400 people feeling better about the themselves,,,,400 + lives improved by the development.....Now Pete is that outside of the box enough for you? or maybe the bigger picture Sure 3 homes will go,,,those families offered new properties,,,yes it's hard but the positives outweigh the negatives......do you think? Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council
Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council.
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a Lidl depot which could secure 400 jobs for ... Southampton ....have been approved by Test Valley Borough Council.
.
400 jobs for Southampton.
.
All under an SO postcode
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council.[/p][/quote]CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a Lidl depot which could secure 400 jobs for ... Southampton ....have been approved by Test Valley Borough Council. . 400 jobs for Southampton. . All under an SO postcode Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Pete,,,,you write on other threads about
council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at.

Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub



le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby
True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area.
Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes.
When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions.
So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box.
400 jobs, bringing money into 400 households,,,feeding 400 families,,,400 people with more money to spend within the city,,,hopefully 400 off of JSA and other state benefits,,,400 people feeling better about the themselves,,,,400 + lives improved by the development.....Now Pete is that outside of the box enough for you? or maybe the bigger picture

Sure 3 homes will go,,,those families offered new properties,,,yes it's hard but the positives outweigh the negatives......do you think?
No those familys have not been offered new homes, these familys are on a private accomdation contact, and when the contract runs out it will not be renewed like it as been in the pass. The council may take them in with a 2 year emergency accomedation

Those 400 jobs include the construction of the place, when finished there will not be 100 full time jobs, it will part time jobs plus agency workers, just like Tescos just round the corner

thats better bit more of the bigger picture, but its still no good in this area, like i said theres all ready one in that area Tescos have one, what is needed is to find another close location to Southampton.
B&M estates trustees tried selling that part of the land once before while they was building the new O/S place, they are only interested in the £ and not what is really in people needs
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Pete,,,,you write on other threads about council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at. Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby[/p][/quote]True to the first part, but look around that area, Tescos depot is only just around the corner also, Why not build this say on the west or north side of Totton, or to the north east of Southampton, to many of the same sort of thing in the same area. Then theres the other part "Outside of the Box" your failing to think about those familys in those 3 homes. When I look at it I don't just look at one angle, I tend to look at things in all directions. So come on your ment to think out side the box not stuck in the middle of the box.[/p][/quote]400 jobs, bringing money into 400 households,,,feeding 400 families,,,400 people with more money to spend within the city,,,hopefully 400 off of JSA and other state benefits,,,400 people feeling better about the themselves,,,,400 + lives improved by the development.....Now Pete is that outside of the box enough for you? or maybe the bigger picture Sure 3 homes will go,,,those families offered new properties,,,yes it's hard but the positives outweigh the negatives......do you think?[/p][/quote]No those familys have not been offered new homes, these familys are on a private accomdation contact, and when the contract runs out it will not be renewed like it as been in the pass. The council may take them in with a 2 year emergency accomedation Those 400 jobs include the construction of the place, when finished there will not be 100 full time jobs, it will part time jobs plus agency workers, just like Tescos just round the corner thats better bit more of the bigger picture, but its still no good in this area, like i said theres all ready one in that area Tescos have one, what is needed is to find another close location to Southampton. B&M estates trustees tried selling that part of the land once before while they was building the new O/S place, they are only interested in the £ and not what is really in people needs southy
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council
Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council.
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a Lidl depot which could secure 400 jobs for ... Southampton ....have been approved by Test Valley Borough Council.
.
400 jobs for Southampton.
.
All under an SO postcode
Most of these jobs will be the contruction of the place, which most will be traveling men, after the place is finish the only full time jobs will be in the office, all other jobs will be part time and angency.
And why can't it not be jobs for Test Valley, and the So post code is the only connection it really have.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh Dear ......... What will the Blue Dinosaur think of that ....... Companies INVESTING in Southampton and bringing much needed jobs ....... And under a Labour Council[/p][/quote]Its not in Southampton, its under the Test valley Council, whitch is a Tory council.[/p][/quote]CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a Lidl depot which could secure 400 jobs for ... Southampton ....have been approved by Test Valley Borough Council. . 400 jobs for Southampton. . All under an SO postcode[/p][/quote]Most of these jobs will be the contruction of the place, which most will be traveling men, after the place is finish the only full time jobs will be in the office, all other jobs will be part time and angency. And why can't it not be jobs for Test Valley, and the So post code is the only connection it really have. southy
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Wed 30 Jan 13

ohec says...

As i understand it the land is part Southampton and part Test Valley, and as far as i know S.C.C. have already passed the planning application and this article refers to the Test Valley part so now building can go ahead.
As i understand it the land is part Southampton and part Test Valley, and as far as i know S.C.C. have already passed the planning application and this article refers to the Test Valley part so now building can go ahead. ohec
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

ohec wrote:
As i understand it the land is part Southampton and part Test Valley, and as far as i know S.C.C. have already passed the planning application and this article refers to the Test Valley part so now building can go ahead.
Its totally out side of Southampton, wrong side of old redbridge to be in southampton
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: As i understand it the land is part Southampton and part Test Valley, and as far as i know S.C.C. have already passed the planning application and this article refers to the Test Valley part so now building can go ahead.[/p][/quote]Its totally out side of Southampton, wrong side of old redbridge to be in southampton southy
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Wed 30 Jan 13

aldermoorboy says...

Great news 400 new jobs for Southampton, well done to all concerned.
Great news 400 new jobs for Southampton, well done to all concerned. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Pete,,,,you write on other threads about
council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at.

Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub

le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby
You are right. More jobs are needed.

EVERY LIDL HELPS!
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Pete,,,,you write on other threads about council workers being made redundant,,,you say protect jobs at all costs,,but when it comes to creating 400 job opportunities you say no to it,,,,,in the current climate 400 jobs for local people in the West of the City should not be sniffed at. Get a grip man, it's progress, it's employment, it brings money to the city's economy, you say you stand not for yourself but for others,,,laying the foundations in the future (so to speak),,,yet you object to future job opportunities,,,doub le standards shown by Southy the Redbridge Nimby[/p][/quote]You are right. More jobs are needed. EVERY LIDL HELPS! Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Wed 30 Jan 13

ohec says...

Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10159738
.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl
_depot_vote/
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/ ohec
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Wed 30 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

ohec wrote:
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/10159738

.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl

_depot_vote/
But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above.

I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300.

Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/[/p][/quote]But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above. I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300. Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Wed 30 Jan 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
ohec wrote:
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/10159738


.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl


_depot_vote/
But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above.

I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300.

Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?
.. er, me finks, not southy.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/[/p][/quote]But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above. I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300. Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?[/p][/quote].. er, me finks, not southy. freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Wed 30 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

freefinker wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
ohec wrote:
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/news/10159738



.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl



_depot_vote/
But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above.

I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300.

Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?
.. er, me finks, not southy.
Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true?

You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/[/p][/quote]But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above. I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300. Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?[/p][/quote].. er, me finks, not southy.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true? You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

12:07am Thu 31 Jan 13

freefinker says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
ohec wrote:
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho




.co.uk/news/10159738




.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl




_depot_vote/
But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above.

I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300.

Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?
.. er, me finks, not southy.
Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true?

You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered.
..yea, sorry I forgot.

Southampton City Council were rather foolish to go through the whole planning application approval process when they could just have asked southy if it was partly in their territory. He’d of told ‘em.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/[/p][/quote]But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above. I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300. Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?[/p][/quote].. er, me finks, not southy.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true? You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered.[/p][/quote]..yea, sorry I forgot. Southampton City Council were rather foolish to go through the whole planning application approval process when they could just have asked southy if it was partly in their territory. He’d of told ‘em. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:38am Thu 31 Jan 13

steveyj says...

southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Being a resident of St Martins Close I am I am very concerned about the noise levels will be coming from this new complex. I am all for creating new jobs but on any given night after midnight I can hear the M271 traffick very clearly. Do we really need more noise pollution in the shape of reversing beepers, pallets and cages being dropped and scraped along the backs of lorries not to mention chiller and air conditioning units running 24 hrs? We already have enough noise from the docks operations all night long. It does not matter what lidle says about their efforts to quieten the noise levels we will still be be able to hear un-acceptable levels of noise.
I fell very sorry for people living at the bottom of Lower Brownhill as they will be in for a living hell if lidle get their way.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Being a resident of St Martins Close I am I am very concerned about the noise levels will be coming from this new complex. I am all for creating new jobs but on any given night after midnight I can hear the M271 traffick very clearly. Do we really need more noise pollution in the shape of reversing beepers, pallets and cages being dropped and scraped along the backs of lorries not to mention chiller and air conditioning units running 24 hrs? We already have enough noise from the docks operations all night long. It does not matter what lidle says about their efforts to quieten the noise levels we will still be be able to hear un-acceptable levels of noise. I fell very sorry for people living at the bottom of Lower Brownhill as they will be in for a living hell if lidle get their way. steveyj
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
ohec wrote:
Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities.
http://www.dailyecho





.co.uk/news/10159738





.It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl





_depot_vote/
But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above.

I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300.

Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?
.. er, me finks, not southy.
Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true?

You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered.
..yea, sorry I forgot.

Southampton City Council were rather foolish to go through the whole planning application approval process when they could just have asked southy if it was partly in their territory. He’d of told ‘em.
Southampton is included because of the Traffic, that is all.
If you gone to the consutation at Nursling hall then you would know its in Test valley council area, the only concerns southampton is because its right on our boarder and roads will need to be ajusted to accomadate the extra traffic flowing though the east, Soutampton boundary ends in the middle of old redbridge lane, the location of this depot is where Yewtree Farm use to be, (inbetween the O/S and the Holiday inn)
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Southy please look at the following link and try (i know it hurts but try and understand) that the land in question crosses the border of S.C.C and Test Valley so they sought planning permission from both authorities. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10159738 .It_s_D_Day_for_Lidl _depot_vote/[/p][/quote]But that link totally contradicts everything Southy has said above. I though there was going to be less than 100 full-time jobs like the Tesco in the same area, but your link suggests 300. Which one is right? Your link to the Echo or Southy?[/p][/quote].. er, me finks, not southy.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting Southy just made it up? He may well have got the info from one of those secret meetings and it could infact be true? You know these websites make up this stuff don't you as they've all be hacked and altered.[/p][/quote]..yea, sorry I forgot. Southampton City Council were rather foolish to go through the whole planning application approval process when they could just have asked southy if it was partly in their territory. He’d of told ‘em.[/p][/quote]Southampton is included because of the Traffic, that is all. If you gone to the consutation at Nursling hall then you would know its in Test valley council area, the only concerns southampton is because its right on our boarder and roads will need to be ajusted to accomadate the extra traffic flowing though the east, Soutampton boundary ends in the middle of old redbridge lane, the location of this depot is where Yewtree Farm use to be, (inbetween the O/S and the Holiday inn) southy
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Thu 31 Jan 13

southy says...

steveyj wrote:
southy wrote:
Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.
Being a resident of St Martins Close I am I am very concerned about the noise levels will be coming from this new complex. I am all for creating new jobs but on any given night after midnight I can hear the M271 traffick very clearly. Do we really need more noise pollution in the shape of reversing beepers, pallets and cages being dropped and scraped along the backs of lorries not to mention chiller and air conditioning units running 24 hrs? We already have enough noise from the docks operations all night long. It does not matter what lidle says about their efforts to quieten the noise levels we will still be be able to hear un-acceptable levels of noise.
I fell very sorry for people living at the bottom of Lower Brownhill as they will be in for a living hell if lidle get their way.
I know what your saying I hear the same racket every night also like many others do on this side of southampton.

Freefinker and IronLady2010 why dont you try to attend meetings, then you might find what things are really about and what is really being put forward
[quote][p][bold]steveyj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Very true Tony, this Supermarket should not of got planning permission Sainsburys is only just up the road.[/p][/quote]Being a resident of St Martins Close I am I am very concerned about the noise levels will be coming from this new complex. I am all for creating new jobs but on any given night after midnight I can hear the M271 traffick very clearly. Do we really need more noise pollution in the shape of reversing beepers, pallets and cages being dropped and scraped along the backs of lorries not to mention chiller and air conditioning units running 24 hrs? We already have enough noise from the docks operations all night long. It does not matter what lidle says about their efforts to quieten the noise levels we will still be be able to hear un-acceptable levels of noise. I fell very sorry for people living at the bottom of Lower Brownhill as they will be in for a living hell if lidle get their way.[/p][/quote]I know what your saying I hear the same racket every night also like many others do on this side of southampton. Freefinker and IronLady2010 why dont you try to attend meetings, then you might find what things are really about and what is really being put forward southy
  • Score: 0

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