Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lidl proposed for Swords

Options
12357…15

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Larianne
    Registered Users Posts: 35,954 ✭✭✭✭Larianne


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Do the people of Swords really need to be spoon fed?

    I guess if you have never submitted an objection to something before and don't know how to go about it, than yes help would be needed. That's just how it is with people in general.

    I understand, to an outsider, it's hard to see what the problem is when it would create so many jobs. I don't think anyone has an objection to Lidl coming to Swords. But if you live in the area you know already how dangerous the road can be. You've seen the accidents, or had trouble trying to turn out onto the road or cross the road.


  • Options
    #123
    PCros
    Registered Users Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭PCros


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    In the meantime the unemployment rate in Swords will continue to increase.

    Again people jumping on the unemployment argument bandwagon. :rolleyes:

    If you read this thread you would realise that people are NOT saying they don't want Lidl at all they are saying they DONT want it in the proposed location.


  • Options
    #124
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Larianne wrote: »
    I guess if you have never submitted an objection to something before and don't know how to go about it, than yes help would be needed. That's just how it is with people in general.
    Fair enough but why not have information leaflets distributed at random times throughout the year to teach people how to use the systems?

    Just wondering how many people who are objecting here placed objections on any housing development applications further up the road (Applewood etc..,) over the last 15 years?


  • Options
    #125
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    PCros wrote: »
    Again people jumping on the unemployment argument bandwagon. :rolleyes:
    We certainly don't make life easy for those who wish to create jobs do we. (insert some sort of rolleyes here)


  • Options
    #126
    PCros
    Registered Users Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭PCros


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    We certainly don't make life easy for those who wish to create jobs do we. (insert some sort of rolleyes here)

    Well by closing the petrol station we are losing jobs and by creating a lidl we are gaining jobs so they both cancel each other out.

    In fact more people probably work in the petrol station and centra than lidl will employ, we all know the ideology of lidl and their lack of floor staff.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    PCros wrote: »
    Well by closing the petrol station we are losing jobs and by creating a lidl we are gaining jobs so they both cancel each other out.

    In fact more people probably work in the petrol station and centra than lidl will employ, we all know the ideology of lidl and their lack of floor staff.
    Nothing like a bit of creative maths with absolutely nothing to back it up but guess work!

    Is anyone going to get a study done of the road in question to submit with their objection?


  • Options
    #128
    PCros
    Registered Users Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭PCros


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Nothing like a bit of creative maths with absolutely nothing to back it up but guess work!

    Is anyone going to get a study done of the road in question to submit with their objection?

    Hmmm living near the station for most of my life and having a rough idea how many people work in there....and the fact my friend worked for lidl for 3 years.

    So apart from going in and asking I've taken a good estimate I think.


  • Options
    #129
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    PCros wrote: »
    Hmmm living near the station for most of my life and having a rough idea how many people work in there....and the fact my friend worked for lidl for 3 years.

    So apart from going in and asking I've taken a good estimate I think.
    How many people work in the garage so?


  • Options
    #130
    PCros
    Registered Users Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭PCros


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    How many people work in the garage so?

    My best guessing would be around:

    5 on the deli
    8 on the till
    2 floor staff
    4 on the forcourt/car wash

    So around the 18-20 mark.


  • Options
    #131
    Larianne
    Registered Users Posts: 35,954 ✭✭✭✭Larianne


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Nothing like a bit of creative maths with absolutely nothing to back it up but guess work!

    Is anyone going to get a study done of the road in question to submit with their objection?

    I have heard that yes it is being done by one of the residents associations.
    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Fair enough but why not have information leaflets distributed at random times throughout the year to teach people how to use the systems?

    Just wondering how many people who are objecting here placed objections on any housing development applications further up the road (Applewood etc..,) over the last 15 years?

    It's human nature that unless something doesn't affect them they are not gonna to care about it. And distributing leaflets like that would just be a waste of paper. It's a pretty silly idea.
    PCros wrote: »
    My best guessing would be around:

    5 on the deli
    8 on the till
    2 floor staff
    4 on the forcourt/car wash

    So around the 18-20 mark.

    Lidl are initially planning to hire between 15-20 mark.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Larianne wrote: »
    It's human nature that unless something doesn't affect them they are not gonna to care about it. And distributing leaflets like that would just be a waste of paper. It's a pretty silly idea.
    Surely if it's going to affect them that much they can walk the 500 meters from the Lidl site to the FCC offices? Go online? Ring FCC?

    The distribution of leaflets last week is just as much a waster of paper and just as much a silly idea.

    Again has anyone objected to the massive housing developments off this road off the last number of years?


  • Options
    #133
    Ginny
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 13,425 ✭✭✭✭Ginny


    Most of the massive housing developments, Applewood and the like have various different access points other then one of the most congested roads in Swords.


  • Options
    #134
    sharkman
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭sharkman


    The deadline to make a submission regarding the proposed LIDL store on the Rathbeale Road (in place of the existing petrol station) is this coming Thursday, 15th April 2010.

    Information Evening

    LIDL has also announced that they are holding an information evening open to the public this coming Tuesday, 13th April 2010 between 6pm and 8pm at the Carnegie Court Hotel. You can call in anytime between 6pm and 8pm if you have any questions / concerns that you would like to raise with them.

    The planning reference number for this application is F10A/0088 and further information can be found on-line at the following address:

    http://www.fingalcoco.ie/Planning/SearchforaPlanningApplication/


  • Options
    #135
    Ginny
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 13,425 ✭✭✭✭Ginny


    Looks like there's about 40 objections now, mostly groups of people too.


  • Options
    #136
    BollickyBill
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭BollickyBill


    I think it would be madness to put a Lidl there beside JC's. Both stores would suffer and the traffic entering and exiting there could cause chaos on the already busy Rathbeale road. Put Lidl somewhere else!


  • Options
    #137
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    I have now read through the entire thread and am quite frankly amazed at some of the postings and the level of inaccurate and ill informed postings by users who seem to everything from Traffic to Retail to Planning experts!

    Has anybody actually bothered to pull out the FCC Zoning map for the area? What is the sites current zoning and is a supermarket and/or discount foodstore a permitted use on the site? If the answer is yes then the time and opportunity for local objections was when the development plan was being formulated. Where was councillor Clare then? Was she posting leaflets through the residents doors and hosting meetings then?

    Re the constant reference to the Woodies and the other site in Airside. Aldi were refused in Airside circa 2 years ago as Food Use/retailing is NOT a permitted use in this park. Again, the zoning map will tell you this. Ditto for Woodies, convenience or food retailing is not permitted by FCC in either of these locations. If locals feel that this is wrong then I refer you to my previous comments re the zoning of the site.

    As for the traffic survey submitted with the application it is all too easy to dismiss it, its findings and the assumptions used because it does not sit well with your own personal oponion and/or argument. The fact is that professional traffic consultants were clearly employed by Lidl prior to submitting an application and their results indicate that there will be a minimal increase in traffic volumes if it is granted. To simply retort that I know the area, road, traffic volumes etc is not sufficient in the face of a professional report. If you are or happen to be an expert in the field yourself then submit your own survey/report using the same assumptions. If not then you are really not qualified to outright dismiss the report based on "Personal Opinion/experience"

    The deliveries in the middle of the night comments in a red herring. FCC can condition on the delivery times.

    The rest of the comments are typical of Irish society. We want it but not in our backyard. What a naive and selfish viewpoint.


  • Options
    #138
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Pool5 wrote: »
    I have now read through the entire thread and am quite frankly amazed at some of the postings and the level of inaccurate and ill informed postings by users who seem to everything from Traffic to Retail to Planning experts!

    No-one on here is purporting to be experts in any particular area - if someone is an expert, they are welcome (but not required) to state their specialism. This forum allows discussion and comment. If you have a problem with a particular statement, challenge that statement.
    Pool5 wrote: »
    Has anybody actually bothered to pull out the FCC Zoning map for the area? What is the sites current zoning and is a supermarket and/or discount foodstore a permitted use on the site? If the answer is yes then the time and opportunity for local objections was when the development plan was being formulated. Where was councillor Clare then? Was she posting leaflets through the residents doors and hosting meetings then?

    Have you bothered to do this? What's the point of having a system which allows objections if the "zoning" determines whether permission should be granted?

    Pool5 wrote: »
    As for the traffic survey submitted with the application it is all too easy to dismiss it, its findings and the assumptions used because it does not sit well with your own personal oponion and/or argument. The fact is that professional traffic consultants were clearly employed by Lidl prior to submitting an application and their results indicate that there will be a minimal increase in traffic volumes if it is granted. To simply retort that I know the area, road, traffic volumes etc is not sufficient in the face of a professional report. If you are or happen to be an expert in the field yourself then submit your own survey/report using the same assumptions. If not then you are really not qualified to outright dismiss the report based on "Personal Opinion/experience"

    If employed by Lidl, the consultants are clearly not independent. Posters here have a right to express their own views and make comments
    Pool5 wrote: »
    The deliveries in the middle of the night comments in a red herring. FCC can condition on the delivery times.
    This is not a red-herring at all. You say FCC can condition - that does not mean they will, and locals have the right to make their own views known on the matter
    Pool5 wrote: »
    The rest of the comments are typical of Irish society. We want it but not in our backyard. What a naive and selfish viewpoint.
    A very sweeping statement - again you seem to be tarring everyone who has contributed to this thread with the same brush


  • Options
    #139
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    Beasty wrote: »
    No-one on here is purporting to be experts in any particular area - if someone is an expert, they are welcome (but not required) to state their specialism. This forum allows discussion and comment. If you have a problem with a particular statement, challenge that statement.

    You have clearly not read the thread fully. If you start with the OP and go right through to my posting you will see all sorts of recommendations ranging from the Lidl going into Airside or Woodies, to Lidl making their deliveries in the middle of the night. All of these assertions are factually incorrect. A cursory investigation or reference with a DP or Zoning map would enlighten posters in this regard.
    Beasty wrote: »
    Have you bothered to do this? What's the point of having a system which allows objections if the "zoning" determines whether permission should be granted?.

    Yes I have bothered to do this and see that the zoning on the site is correct for retail/supermarket use and that a discount foodstore is a permissable use on the site. Have you bothered to look at the DP or Zoning Map? What is the point in having zoning at all if public opinion and political pressure based on incorrect assertions and assumptions is deemed as the correct way to determine who or what gets planning permission in Ireland. If that was the case the not in my back yard brigade would ensure that nothing would ever be built anywhere.



    Beasty wrote: »
    If employed by Lidl, the consultants are clearly not independent. Posters here have a right to express their own views and make comments?

    DITTO, if the local residents employ consultants to carry out their own survey this will also clearly not be independent. Let allow the planners to assess the application on its merits so and the disregard shown by posters on this thread for the traffic survey submitted by Lidl on the basis of personal opinion and not a counter survey will not be sufficient in this regard.
    Beasty wrote: »
    This is not a red-herring at all. You say FCC can condition - that does not mean they will, and locals have the right to make their own views known on the matter

    Red herring and you know it. Of course if the development is located in a primarily residential area FCC will condition it in terms of delivery times. A simple examiniation of similar applications throughout Dublin and elsewhere by Supermarkets will tell you that.

    Beasty wrote: »
    A very sweeping statement - again you seem to be tarring everyone who has contributed to this thread with the same brush

    Not everybody, just the posters who post mis informed opinions re the application and refuse to be swayed from them despite evidence to the contary. If you have read the entire thread the overwhelming theme throughout is .....Lidl in Swords.....Great......just not in my backyard.


  • Options
    #140
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Pool5 wrote: »
    You have clearly not read the thread fully. If you start with the OP and go right through to my posting you will see all sorts of recommendations ranging from the Lidl going into Airside or Woodies, to Lidl making their deliveries in the middle of the night. All of these assertions are factually incorrect. A cursory investigation or reference with a DP or Zoning map would enlighten posters in this regard.

    Couple of points - I am a moderator on this forum. This involves reviewing threads, such as these, so yes, I have read every post in this thread.

    I have no personal interest in this particular issue, however I am concerned when a new poster appears and makes sweeping statements such as the one in your first post, as well as the one above. Other posters were making suggestions as to alternative options - they are perfectly entiteld to do so, and this is a useful forum for them to get local feedback on such suggestions


    Pool5 wrote: »
    Yes I have bothered to do this and see that the zoning on the site is correct for retail/supermarket use and that a discount foodstore is a permissable use on the site. Have you bothered to look at the DP or Zoning Map? What is the point in having zoning at all if public opinion and political pressure based on incorrect assertions and assumptions is deemed as the correct way to determine who or what gets planning permission in Ireland. If that was the case the not in my back yard brigade would ensure that nothing would ever be built anywhere.
    No I have not looked at the zoning. As stated above, I have no personal interest in this particular proposal. However you were the one asking the question, and I thought it only reasonable to ask if you had looked at it
    Pool5 wrote: »
    DITTO, if the local residents employ consultants to carry out their own survey this will also clearly not be independent. Let allow the planners to assess the application on its merits so and the disregard shown by posters on this thread for the traffic survey submitted by Lidl on the basis of personal opinion and not a counter survey will not be sufficient in this regard.
    I think it perfectly reasonable for posters to question the report if it is not from an independent source. As you state it is up to the planning authorities to consider the merits or otherwise of everyone's submissions

    Pool5 wrote: »
    Red herring and you know it. Of course if the development is located in a primarily residential area FCC will condition it in terms of delivery times. A simple examiniation of similar applications throughout Dublin and elsewhere by Supermarkets will tell you that.
    Please do not tell me what I know and what I don't know. I have no idea how this works, but was simply stating that if this is something that FCC can condition, then surely there is a possibility that they may not

    Pool5 wrote: »
    Not everybody, just the posters who post mis informed opinions re the application and refuse to be swayed from them despite evidence to the contary. If you have read the entire thread the overwhelming theme throughout is .....Lidl in Swords.....Great......just not in my backyard.
    As I stated previously, please do not make sweeping statements about posters - as you indicated in your first post, you are only just coming to this thread. If you had been with it all along, you would have been able to challenge any specific comments made (and indeed you still can) rather than simply suggest that anyone who objects must be mis-informed

    Finally, could you please confirm whether you have any personal interest in this proposal?


  • Options
    #141
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    Beasty wrote: »
    Finally, could you please confirm whether you have any personal interest in this proposal?

    I can confirm that I have no personal interest in this proposal unfortunately although I must admit that I would not mind having a % of a discounter in Swords or anywhere else for that matter :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    Beasty wrote: »
    Couple of points - I am a moderator on this forum. This involves reviewing threads, such as these, so yes, I have read every post in this thread.

    I have no personal interest in this particular issue, however I am concerned when a new poster appears and makes sweeping statements such as the one in your first post, as well as the one above. Other posters were making suggestions as to alternative options - they are perfectly entiteld to do so, and this is a useful forum for them to get local feedback on such suggestions

    Couple of points myself....Firstly congrats on your role as moderator... Second, I am glad to hear that you have read every post, although I would recommend that you read it again as you seem to have missed some fairly sweeping statements by other posters elsewhere in the thread.

    Beasty wrote: »
    No I have not looked at the zoning. As stated above, I have no personal interest in this particular proposal. However you were the one asking the question, and I thought it only reasonable to ask if you had looked at it

    Third, Of course I had looked at the DP and zoning map and as a moderator perhaps referring posters to same when the thread began may have led to a more balanced and informed debate.

    Beasty wrote: »
    I think it perfectly reasonable for posters to question the report if it is not from an independent source. As you state it is up to the planning authorities to consider the merits or otherwise of everyone's submissions

    It is absolutely reasonable to question the report, however to dismiss it outright as some posters have done on the basis of nothing other than hearsay and personal opinion is not "Absolutely Reasonable".


    Beasty wrote: »
    Please do not tell me what I know and what I don't know. I have no idea how this works, but was simply stating that if this is something that FCC can condition, then surely there is a possibility that they may not

    If you have no idea how it works then make it clear in your posting. I do know how this works and have given my opinion on same

    Beasty wrote: »
    As I stated previously, please do not make sweeping statements about posters - as you indicated in your first post, you are only just coming to this thread. If you had been with it all along, you would have been able to challenge any specific comments made (and indeed you still can) rather than simply suggest that anyone who objects must be mis-informed

    Let me clarify this then. I have read all the postings and every single negative posting re the application contains assertions/opinions which are factually incorrect.
    Beasty wrote: »
    Finally, could you please confirm whether you have any personal interest in this proposal?

    Allready clarifed in previous posting as a definitive NO


  • Options
    #143
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Pool5 wrote: »
    although I would recommend that you read it again as you seem to have missed some fairly sweeping statements by other posters elsewhere in the thread.

    The sweeping statements I am referring to are those where you state that everyone who objects have made factually incorrect statements. There may be some factually inaccuracies - it is not my role to police this. Please specify the points you consider wrong, rather than continue to make general statements of this nature.
    Pool5 wrote: »
    Third, Of course I had looked at the DP and zoning map and as a moderator perhaps referring posters to same when the thread began may have led to a more balanced and informed debate.
    My role is to facilitate debate. I will contribute where I see fit, but it is up to individual posters to make any such suggestion.
    Pool5 wrote: »
    Let me clarify this then. I have read all the postings and every single negative posting re the application contains assertions/opinions which are factually incorrect.
    An opinion is what it says it is. It is not a statement of fact, but a conclusion drawn based on the facts provided. If the "facts" are incorrect, then you have the opportunity to post corrections (ideally with some backup). However it is not correct to say an opinion is "factually incorrect".

    Now posting as a Mod - if you continue to make sweeping statements about "every single negative posting" being factually incorrect, without specifying exactly what you mean, I will ban you from the forum

    Thanks

    Beasty


  • Options
    #144
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    Beasty wrote: »
    The sweeping statements I am referring to are those where you state that everyone who objects have made factually incorrect statements. There may be some factually inaccuracies - it is not my role to police this. Please specify the points you consider wrong, rather than continue to make general statements of this nature.

    If you refer to my initial posting you will see which inaccuracies I am referring to. These primarily are as follows;
    • Ability of Discounters to locate in Airside or Woodies
    • Disregard for the sites zoning and permissable uses
    • Disregard for the traffic survey which accompanies the application without any counter survey or facts
    Beasty wrote: »
    My role is to facilitate debate. I will contribute where I see fit, but it is up to individual posters to make any such suggestion..

    I have suggested a particular suggestion which you might advise other contributors on.....consult the DP and zoning map.

    Beasty wrote: »
    An opinion is what it says it is. It is not a statement of fact, but a conclusion drawn based on the facts provided. If the "facts" are incorrect, then you have the opportunity to post corrections (ideally with some backup). However it is not correct to say an opinion is "factually incorrect". ..

    Without wishing to resort to semantics your statement above is also incorrect! If the assertions/opinions expressed by posters are presented as being based on "facts", such as the ability of discounters to move to Woodies or Airside, or the numerous postings discrediting a traffic report/survey conducted by professionals, based on nothing more than peoples observations then I am in fact perfectly correct to state that the assertion/opinion is "factually incorrect". How else would you describe it?? Before responding you really should consider the contradictory nature of your posting quoted above!
    Beasty wrote: »
    Now posting as a Mod - if you continue to make sweeping statements about "every single negative posting" being factually incorrect, without specifying exactly what you mean, I will ban you from the forum

    Thanks..

    Oops....Apologies


  • Options
    #145
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I also don't want to get bogged down with semantics, and this thread has been somewhat dragged off-topic with the last few posts, so I will leave it there


  • Options
    #146
    BollickyBill
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭BollickyBill


    Of course professional traffic consultants were employed - by LIDL to produce the statistics to support their interests. Statistics can be expertly manipulated to show whatever suits. e.g. 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape. LIDL can't survive there unless they have a significant ammount of customers. This obviously means a significant increase in traffic. Are you trying to suggest that professional traffic consultants are trying to tell us different?


  • Options
    #147
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Pool5 wrote: »
    Has anybody actually bothered to pull out the FCC Zoning map for the area? What is the sites current zoning and is a supermarket and/or discount foodstore a permitted use on the site?

    Area is zoned NC - neighbourhood center. It's a grey area as to whether a supermarket (let alone a second one) is allowed on the site - down to the interpretation of the rules. Incidentally, lidl are planning a mini-market, not a supermarket, it's idea is to carry 1500 lines as opposed to 15,000 - it's thought that this is their concession to the fact that it's an NC area. As you've pointed out, Airside and the old Woodys site are not suitable for food retailing according to the planning laws - they would need to be rezoned.

    edit to add: another consideration when applying for planning in an NC area is that businesses should not be overly reliant on private transport - hard to see how lidl will get out of that one.


  • Options
    #148
    Pool5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Pool5


    tbh wrote: »
    Area is zoned NC - neighbourhood center. It's a grey area as to whether a supermarket (let alone a second one) is allowed on the site - down to the interpretation of the rules .

    It would seem to me that Retail use is permitted on the site and the current use has a retail element.

    tbh wrote: »
    Incidentally, lidl are planning a mini-market, not a supermarket, it's idea is to carry 1500 lines as opposed to 15,000 - it's thought that this is their concession to the fact that it's an NC area. .

    Both of the Discounters carry less than 1500 lines in ALL of their sootres. This is not a concession, it is their business model.
    tbh wrote: »
    edit to add: another consideration when applying for planning in an NC area is that businesses should not be overly reliant on private transport - hard to see how lidl will get out of that one.

    I would say that they will be able to demonstrate a significant population within a 10 min walk of trhe proposed development and also point to the fact that there is currently no discounter in Swords.


  • Options
    #149
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    Pool5 wrote: »


    I would say that they will be able to demonstrate a significant population within a 10 min walk of trhe proposed development and also point to the fact that there is currently no discounter in Swords.
    Facts , ye right
    JC's?


  • Options
    #150
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Pool5 wrote: »
    Both of the Discounters carry less than 1500 lines in ALL of their sootres. This is not a concession, it is their business model.

    you're right about that - don't know where I heard the 15,000 figure. don't think I agree with your first point tho, there is a retail element to the petrol station, but it would be a major shift to introduce a outlet who's business was solely retail. I also would be sceptical that the majority of people using the store would be pedestrians, but that remains to be seen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    BollickyBill
    Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭BollickyBill


    Pool5 wrote: »
    I can confirm that I have no personal interest in this proposal unfortunately although I must admit that I would not mind having a % of a discounter in Swords or anywhere else for that matter :)

    Dear Poo 15, for someone who has no personal interest in this Lidl issue, you sure seem to know a lot about mini-markets and the number of lines they carry. You also seem to be very familiar with planning and zoning regulations. I can accept that that may be your line of business, but you argue the case like you have just been offered the job as manager of the new store. What is your agenda here?
    I think that you are incorrect when you accuse people of having a "not in my back yard" mentality, when all they seem to be trying to say is that Garrigans garage is not suitable. Perhaps a little bit further west along the Rathbeale Rd. would be more appropriate.


Advertisement