TK Maxx "flouting planning laws"

robtri

gscully wrote: »

I'll have to respectfully disagree. If a landlord knows that a tenant will using his property for illegal purposes, then he has a duty to stop it happening before the event. Maybe it's not a legal duty, but it is certainly a moral one!

This whole 'Fcuk you Jack...I've got my money!' attitude is what has the country in the mess it's in today. People of authority need to pull together, not in opposite directions (for their own personal gain).

he has no duty at all, thats why there is an application form called "change of use" to apply to change the use of a particular site....
the landlord rents the site to TK MAxx, tells them what the planning is for the site and tells them in the lease to comply with it...
if they don't comply its their fault.... the landlord has done his duty and has signed it along with TK maxx to ensure they comply...

if landlords refused tennants on the grounds that they don't comply with planning, nothing would get done around here... the landlord rents to tennants and tells them to comply with planning... if the tennant doesn't like planning they apply to have it changed...

Freddie59

robtri wrote: »

you really haven't got a clue do you????

Yeah you're probably right.:rolleyes: I'm merely worried about the City's commercial future and the jobs at TK Maxx, while imbeciles worry about rules and red tape. No clue at all. Idiot.:cool:

robtri

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yeah you're probably right.:rolleyes: I'm merely worried about the City's commercial future and the jobs at TK Maxx, while imbeciles worry about rules and red tape. No clue at all. Idiot.:cool:

well then tk maxx should have followed the rules and they wouldn't be in this predicment... Regulations should not be changed because a company decides to ignore them... that is the riddiculous part...
the city's commercial future will not be effected in any real sense if tk maxx stays or goes..

Freddie59

robtri wrote: »

well then tk maxx should have followed the rules and they wouldn't be in this predicment... Regulations should not be changed because a company decides to ignore them... that is the riddiculous part...
the city's commercial future will not be effected in any real sense if tk maxx stays or goes..

No no. Of course it won't.:rolleyes: Wonderful outlook there.

Sully

Freddie59 banned for personal abuse.

BlaasForRafa

robtri wrote: »

well then tk maxx should have followed the rules and they wouldn't be in this predicment... Regulations should not be changed because a company decides to ignore them... that is the riddiculous part...
the city's commercial future will not be effected in any real sense if tk maxx stays or goes..

absolutely, what would happen to the town if Shaws, Penneys, Debenhams and others decided they wanted to move out of town to a retail park? Rules have to be set and kept to.

wmpdd3

So many companies that wanted to locate in Waterford have come foul of this planning rule.

Just ask yourself in the last year, when you spent more that €100 in another city in Ireland was is in a city or in an out of town location?

Also did the business you shopped with have a branch in Waterford and if not would they set up shop in the city?

robtri

wmpdd3 wrote: »

So many companies that wanted to locate in Waterford have come foul of this planning rule.

I am interested, can you give us a few examples please and some links, I am very interested in this, as I do have many years experience in commercial property

wmpdd3

I worked for a few large british high street stores from 2002 to last year.
Countless times were were asked to take photos of locations both in and outside town.

Visits from head office took place and plans were muted. Twice store were opened in Mahon Point and Carlow because a suitable premises could not be found.

robtri

wmpdd3 wrote: »

I worked for a few large british high street stores from 2002 to last year.
Countless times were were asked to take photos of locations both in and outside town.

Visits from head office took place and plans were muted. Twice store were opened in Mahon Point and Carlow because a suitable premises could not be found.

was it lack of suitable premises or planning issues???

Sully

I only know of one English retailer who was interested in Waterford but refused to come due to the headache that is our planning system here.

wmpdd3

robtri wrote: »

was it lack of suitable premises or planning issues???

Unsuitable premises due to planning issues.

Waterford has very small high street outlets in relation to the size of the city.

All along the stores were profitable and bringing in way more per sq meter the other areas but expansion was hindered by unsuitable premises.

Take Ferrybank, Dunnes is allowed, but no other clothing chain.

I suppose this is no longer an issue as I can't see many new sites being developed any time soon.

robtri

Sully wrote: »

I only know of one English retailer who was interested in Waterford but refused to come due to the headache that is our planning system here.

I find that hard to believe as the UK Planning system is a lot more headaches than here... I have experienced both..

robtri

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Unsuitable premises due to planning issues.

Waterford has very small high street outlets in relation to the size of the city.

All along the stores were profitable and bringing in way more per sq meter the other areas but expansion was hindered by unsuitable premises.

Take Ferrybank, Dunnes is allowed, but no other clothing chain.

I suppose this is no longer an issue as I can't see many new sites being developed any time soon.

by reading your response I think you are saying that unsuitable premises where the issue not planning restrictions...

as to ferry bank, I would say that is a clause by Dunnes to the landlord as they will be the anchor tennat and not a decession made by the planning authority...

wmpdd3

Basically the stores wanted large premises that they couldn't get in town. That left them with the out of town option which doesn't exist in Waterford.

gscully

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Basically the stores wanted large premises that they couldn't get in town. That left them with the out of town option which doesn't exist in Waterford.

To be honest, I can't see why TK Maxx couldn't have gone in where Penneys are now, in Railway Square. It's a similar sized unit to the one they're in now...and we'd never have had this thread!

robtri

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Basically the stores wanted large premises that they couldn't get in town. That left them with the out of town option which doesn't exist in Waterford.

so it was nothing to do with planning regulations, it was to do with no premises exsisted to accomodate them......

wmpdd3

gscully wrote: »

To be honest, I can't see why TK Maxx couldn't have gone in where Penneys are now, in Railway Square. It's a similar sized unit to the one they're in now...and we'd never have had this thread!

Heard a rumor from an unreliable source that this was going to happen..

Gruffalo

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

If you want to look over the Irish Sea for an example (albeit on a much bigger scale) contrast Bristol (with the huge out-of-town Cribbs Causeway built on part of Filton airfield) and Liverpool (with the central Liverpool One built on the old bus station). Bristol city centre is quiet, tatty and full of tramps and pound shops (last time I was there),

Clearly it has been a while since you were there. Cabot circus has been built which is a city centre shopping centre and is doing well.

I do not ever recall the city centre being full of tramps (not anymore than any other city).

sunnysoutheast

Well the objectors are in good company anyway

http://www.retail-week.com/tk-maxx-%E2%80%98not-posh-enough%E2%80%99-for-piccadilly/5002111.article

Gruffalo - no it was last year just before Christmas. The shopping centre itself was fine, but the rest of the city centre was quiet and seemed to me to be declining. Cribbs Causeway was absolutely heaving, with skating rink etc. Friends of mine who live locally said that they or their friends hadn't been into Bristol for shopping since Cribbs opened.

SSE

durrus

Considering that this post started almost two months ago, you would have to wonder if the whole thing is just a ball of smoke! Much huffing and puffing, articles on radio and news media about the failure of TKMaxx to win it's appeal, imminent loss of jobs etc and still nothing has changed? Don't get me wrong I'm not willing the place to close, I'm just wondering what all the fuss was about if ultimately nothing was going to happen anyway?

Gruffalo

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Well the objectors are in good company anyway

http://www.retail-week.com/tk-maxx-%E2%80%98not-posh-enough%E2%80%99-for-piccadilly/5002111.article

Gruffalo - no it was last year just before Christmas. The shopping centre itself was fine, but the rest of the city centre was quiet and seemed to me to be declining.

I was walking around it the other night when I thought of your comment, and you have a point. Once you go either side of broadmead it does quiten down but then again it is a small city centre.

Cribbs Causeway was absolutely heaving, with skating rink etc. Friends of mine who live locally said that they or their friends hadn't been into Bristol for shopping since Cribbs opened.

That does surprise me, but if you have everything nearer you, why would you bother?

SSE

I would definitely think that every city should have a good city centre for shopping and socialising, preferably pedestrianised. However, the city must be willing to provide the space for these shops to exist, otherwise they have no choice but to locate outside the city centre.

sunnysoutheast

Gruffalo wrote: »

I would definitely think that every city should have a good city centre for shopping and socialising, preferably pedestrianised. However, the city must be willing to provide the space for these shops to exist, otherwise they have no choice but to locate outside the city centre.

The only reason I brought up Bristol was that I worked there for a few months in 2004/2005 and I remember articles in local papers bemoaning the impact Cribbs Causeway was having on the City Centre since it opened. Plus I got chased back to the hotel by a load of tramps after a night out, but I've got over it now

I've got friends who live both in the City itself and surrounding towns, and when we talked about this before Christmas the general view was that nobody would go into the City Centre, everybody would go to Cribbs, and they couldn't remember when they were last in town. To be honest, I think there's an underlying view that Cribbs is the "middle-class" shopping destination whereas the centre is for the, ahem, lower echelons of society. Their view not mine I hasten to add.

It's worth remembering that John Lewis closed their Bristol store to take up an anchor position at the new Cribbs.

Anyway, probably gone far enough off topic now!

SSE

Sully

The latest on this is:-

Meanwhile, two more appeals have been lodged with the Planning Board against the decision of Waterford County Council to grant retention to the TK Maxx store in Butlerstown.

The decision was appealed by Waterford City Council last week, and has now also been appealed by Noel Frisby Construction and Parker Green International. The decision is due on November 19 of this year.

http://waterford-news.ie/news/story/?trs=mhkfausnsn&cat=news

Psychedelic

Well here's the latest news.

The future of the TK Maxx in Waterford is now in doubt after the all the company's attempts to retain the store in Butlerstown appear to have failed.

This week An Bord Pleanala refused permission to change the use of the store from bulky goods to all household items.

In a seperate development this week, the High Court refused an application by the company for a judicial review of the Planning Board's previous determination on the shop last year.

TK Maxx opened on the Outer Ring Road in 2008, and although the shop sold some bulky items such as furniture, most retail was in clothing which some observers felt was in breach of the retail park's zoning

This view was upheld by An Bord Pleanala in March last year, and the view was repeated in this week's ruling, which said the development was in breach of the planning retail guidelines and would be detrimental to the city centre.

Enforcement proceedings by the County Council have already begun and the council is now liaising with its legal team

TK Maxx employs 60 people here but now have to secure a city centre site to remain in Waterford.

The company says its extremely disappointed with the decision and adds that it will vigourously any injunction to close the store.

TK Maxx will continue to trade as normal but has confirmed its looking to other sites in Waterford to continue trading.

http://www.wlrfm.com/tabId/503/itemId/3633/TK-Maxx-fight-to-retain-Waterford-store-suffers-an.aspx

Looks like we might TK Maxx into the city centre (a good thing). The amount of money they are surely making here they will stay in Waterford, so I doubt jobs are at risk. Now they will be in the city centre, paying City Council rates instead of to the Co. Council, and their presence in the city centre will help footfall.

merlante

This is the right result I think, and a good signal to other retailers that the city council are serious about the city centre. Hopefully they'll open up there fairly soon.

It's a bad state of affairs when you doing a clothes shop takes you around town and then out to TK Maxx on one side of the city and Next on the other side (not the crap one in the centre). A waste of time, effort and petrol.

ziedth

Maybe that premesis where pennys moved too during building? Be no harm to drag people down there and open up that side of town.

innocenti

One would hope that the shop Pennys used while their new store was being built would be sufficient for TK MAXX's needs, I know from a family member the present store a times out performs the Cork store, so there's not a snowballs chance of them pulling out of Waterford.
I'm sure their present location is preferable to TK and their balance book as I know it's location is very convenient, too much at times for me.
Best case would be if they were allowed trade until their new location was fitted out and a smooth transition could be made.
Here's hoping

Cabaal

Given this ruling I honestly wouldn't see anything wrong if TKMaxx closed up shop in Waterford.

TK Maxx may not want the expense of
1 Moving stock etc into town
2 Finding premises big enough to hold stock
3 Having enough storeroom space for stock
4 Renovating new premises, signage etc

Rent is going to be higher in town compared to out at the ringroad especially for what they'll want and they'll also loose all the handy and free parking they've had till now.

gscully

Cabaal wrote: »

Given this ruling I honestly wouldn't see anything wrong if TKMaxx closed up shop in Waterford.

TK Maxx may not want the expense of
1 Moving stock etc into town
2 Finding premises big enough to hold stock
3 Having enough storeroom space for stock
4 Renovating new premises, signage etc

Rent is going to be higher in town compared to out at the ringroad especially for what they'll want and they'll also loose all the handy and free parking they've had till now.

...and that's not to mention the detrimental effect this might have on other shops out there (B&Q, Harvey Normans etc).