Developer tells of delight at victory in battle over Bowyers site

This Is Wiltshire: Angus Horner says he is relieved and delighted Angus Horner says he is relieved and delighted

Developer Prorsus has thanked Trowbridge residents for supporting its battle to get a new cinema built on the former Bowyers factory site.

The Planning Inspectorate has today overturned Wiltshire Council’s decision, in June 2012, to reject the developer’s proposals to regenerate the derelict land.

An eight-screen Cineworld, a Morrisons store, six restaurants and a pub will be built at Bowyers as part of the £46m scheme known as Innox Riverside.

Angus Horner, Prorsus managing director, said: “I’m feeling very relieved and delighted. This is a wonderful project and seeing the massive commitment of so many people in Trowbridge, who were behind it from the start, has just been fantastic.”

When Wiltshire Council rejected plans for the Bowyers scheme, in 2012, around 400 supporters of the Bowyers regeneration marched through Trowbridge, from the site to County Hall, in protest at the decision.

A Facebook group in support for Prorsus’ plans was also set up and members of the public also stood up and gave their backing to the proposals during a three-day planning appeal which took place at Trowbridge Civic Centre earlier this month.

Mr Horner said: “I do my job with enthusiasm and passion and I massively care about this project but it’s the people of Trowbridge who deserve the pat on the back and should be pictured on the front page as their commitment has been unbelievable.

“It has been a great joy getting to know everyone in the town and we need more people like them in this country who want to make a difference. Fed up with what they have had for the last 20 years they’ve stood up and without their support this might not have happened.”

In February 2013, Prorsus saw plans for a ‘reserve’ application – which substituted the cinema for an unspecified leisure facility and added a petrol station – accepted by Wiltshire Council.

As part of this permission, the developer had already started working on the Bowyers site and Mr Horner said demolition of the former factory could start within weeks.

“We had started work as part of the reserve application and we’ll be doing all we can to get Innox Riverside up and running as fast as we can,” he said.

“It is disappointing that it has taken so long to get to this stage but that is a sad reality of this process and in this country we need to deliver these types of big leisure facilities faster and there should be more clarity on the issue. As we’ll never get back that year and a half we have lost in building the site and supporting the people of Trowbridge and its economy but now we must move forward.”

During the planning appeal, overseen by inspector David Nicholson, Wiltshire Council and Legal & General, which opened the £17m St Stephens Place Leisure Park in November, made submissions against Prorsus’ plans.

Both believe that the Bowyers development will have a detrimental effect on the seven-screen Odeon cinema, which opened in October at St Stephens Place, potentially forcing it to close.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:36pm Tue 28 Jan 14

PaulSmith2 says...

Great News and finally we (the people of Trowbridge) get what we wanted :-)
Great News and finally we (the people of Trowbridge) get what we wanted :-) PaulSmith2
  • Score: -6

4:57pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Ult1mate says...

Yeah what a fantastic victory! Odeon will no doubt be out of business within the next 5 years and then thats another derelict site.....again! And of course we need yet another supermarket with the vast choice we have already! This is the county town of Wiltshire and yet there is nothing to tempt people to come to the town except for a phone or a coffee! Where's the major shopping chains to make people want to visit the town!
What a waste of development and a massive site that had so much potential,people in this town are unbelievable!
Yeah what a fantastic victory! Odeon will no doubt be out of business within the next 5 years and then thats another derelict site.....again! And of course we need yet another supermarket with the vast choice we have already! This is the county town of Wiltshire and yet there is nothing to tempt people to come to the town except for a phone or a coffee! Where's the major shopping chains to make people want to visit the town! What a waste of development and a massive site that had so much potential,people in this town are unbelievable! Ult1mate
  • Score: 12

5:18pm Tue 28 Jan 14

trow paint says...

It didn't take long for the detractors to come out, someone is about to invest In Trowbridge, and with luck the cinema roof wont leek on this one!
It didn't take long for the detractors to come out, someone is about to invest In Trowbridge, and with luck the cinema roof wont leek on this one! trow paint
  • Score: 5

5:55pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Ult1mate says...

But they're investing in Trowbridge with the wrong businesses
But they're investing in Trowbridge with the wrong businesses Ult1mate
  • Score: 13

10:40pm Tue 28 Jan 14

sarah261 says...

This is stupid , Trowbridge needs a place where young people can go like a ice rink or a bowling alley not another cinema , also we dont need another supermarket to compete with each other in the town , they should of got some ideas together and got the people of Trowbridge to vote what they feel they would benefit, seeing it the people of the town and surrounding area that would use it.
This is stupid , Trowbridge needs a place where young people can go like a ice rink or a bowling alley not another cinema , also we dont need another supermarket to compete with each other in the town , they should of got some ideas together and got the people of Trowbridge to vote what they feel they would benefit, seeing it the people of the town and surrounding area that would use it. sarah261
  • Score: 8

10:48pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Prince08 says...

This is a terrible decision. Why not a different leisure facility to add variety and give people something to do. The council had already agreed to that, but instead one or both will now probably struggle as the town and surrounding area will not support two cinemas. The people that protested and lobbied for a second cinema have lost the plot - we already have one now!
This is a terrible decision. Why not a different leisure facility to add variety and give people something to do. The council had already agreed to that, but instead one or both will now probably struggle as the town and surrounding area will not support two cinemas. The people that protested and lobbied for a second cinema have lost the plot - we already have one now! Prince08
  • Score: 7

12:21am Wed 29 Jan 14

AMVanquish007 says...

Ult!mate -the Innox Riverside site was the development that came out of the starting gate first and should have been heard first. St Stephens Place was fast tracked through without any consideration whatsoever to the feelings of the local people. There was a poll carried out if you remember which was 75% in favour of this site over 25% for SSP. Sometimes you people or should i say detractors conveniently have short memories.
Experience of multiplexes will tell you that these developments will bring in more business especially retail. Just wait and see.
Sarah261-the main application that was heard at the appeal did not have a bowling alley or ice rink because of the lack of space.
A bowling alley company will only go on a development if there is the anchor of a cinema. Bowling companies do not build as stand alone.
Ice Rinks are in the doldrums at present. More are shutting than opening and without a dedicated ice hockey team with a seated stadium to go with it-its a non starter. People were asked and they voted with their feet on a march in 2012
Fact-no new multiplex built since 1996 has ever shut. Odeon and Cineworld are the countries 2 largest cinema operators vying for market share. They wont close-this is just scaremongering.
And why would Odeon sign a 25 year lease if they knew another cinema was going to possibly open.
And Prince08-think catchment will you. This area is one of the last underscreened ones in the country. There is a vast catchment going up to Chippenham across to Devizes down as far south as Salisbury-the 5 towns of West Wiltshire and the significant catchment across into north east Somerset. It CAN support 2 cinemas.This catchment isabout 550000-600000 across this area.A 7 screen 1200 seater cinema only requires a 100000 catchment to profitably survive. if you work on an average cinema goer going 4 times a year thats a figure of 400000 needed a year-so there is plenty of catchment to cover 2 multiplexes.
We havent lost the ploit-this is people power in action getting what they really wanted in the first place.
GAME, SET AND MATCH as they say
Ult!mate -the Innox Riverside site was the development that came out of the starting gate first and should have been heard first. St Stephens Place was fast tracked through without any consideration whatsoever to the feelings of the local people. There was a poll carried out if you remember which was 75% in favour of this site over 25% for SSP. Sometimes you people or should i say detractors conveniently have short memories. Experience of multiplexes will tell you that these developments will bring in more business especially retail. Just wait and see. Sarah261-the main application that was heard at the appeal did not have a bowling alley or ice rink because of the lack of space. A bowling alley company will only go on a development if there is the anchor of a cinema. Bowling companies do not build as stand alone. Ice Rinks are in the doldrums at present. More are shutting than opening and without a dedicated ice hockey team with a seated stadium to go with it-its a non starter. People were asked and they voted with their feet on a march in 2012 Fact-no new multiplex built since 1996 has ever shut. Odeon and Cineworld are the countries 2 largest cinema operators vying for market share. They wont close-this is just scaremongering. And why would Odeon sign a 25 year lease if they knew another cinema was going to possibly open. And Prince08-think catchment will you. This area is one of the last underscreened ones in the country. There is a vast catchment going up to Chippenham across to Devizes down as far south as Salisbury-the 5 towns of West Wiltshire and the significant catchment across into north east Somerset. It CAN support 2 cinemas.This catchment isabout 550000-600000 across this area.A 7 screen 1200 seater cinema only requires a 100000 catchment to profitably survive. if you work on an average cinema goer going 4 times a year thats a figure of 400000 needed a year-so there is plenty of catchment to cover 2 multiplexes. We havent lost the ploit-this is people power in action getting what they really wanted in the first place. GAME, SET AND MATCH as they say AMVanquish007
  • Score: 9

9:03am Wed 29 Jan 14

D@ve says...

Prince08 wrote:
This is a terrible decision. Why not a different leisure facility to add variety and give people something to do. The council had already agreed to that, but instead one or both will now probably struggle as the town and surrounding area will not support two cinemas. The people that protested and lobbied for a second cinema have lost the plot - we already have one now!
It's about telling the council that they should listen to the people.

Out of the two options on the table, the vast majority of the town wanted this development, not the Odeon. The council did it's very best to stonewall this development and push through the one next to it's shiny new offices.

I wish people would understand this point.

Yes we would all love an alternative leisure development, bowling etc. But there is no developer and more importantly there is no operator willing to open in the town.

Without this, it simply won't happen.

However, we do have a developer willing to spend £46m to transform a site, and already has contracts signed. If Cineworld see margin and profit, who are we to argue.

At least this site and it listed buildings will be transformed.
[quote][p][bold]Prince08[/bold] wrote: This is a terrible decision. Why not a different leisure facility to add variety and give people something to do. The council had already agreed to that, but instead one or both will now probably struggle as the town and surrounding area will not support two cinemas. The people that protested and lobbied for a second cinema have lost the plot - we already have one now![/p][/quote]It's about telling the council that they should listen to the people. Out of the two options on the table, the vast majority of the town wanted this development, not the Odeon. The council did it's very best to stonewall this development and push through the one next to it's shiny new offices. I wish people would understand this point. Yes we would all love an alternative leisure development, bowling etc. But there is no developer and more importantly there is no operator willing to open in the town. Without this, it simply won't happen. However, we do have a developer willing to spend £46m to transform a site, and already has contracts signed. If Cineworld see margin and profit, who are we to argue. At least this site and it listed buildings will be transformed. D@ve
  • Score: 5

9:11am Wed 29 Jan 14

Prince08 says...

Ok you dislike the option that the council chose, that doesn't mean that we need two cinemas or that the town will benefit from having a second. That is the overriding point here and shouldn't be forgotten. A second cinema won't add any value. From the comments in support of this, it seems like some sort of tit for tat victory against the council rather than the fact that the cinema is actually a good thing.
Ok you dislike the option that the council chose, that doesn't mean that we need two cinemas or that the town will benefit from having a second. That is the overriding point here and shouldn't be forgotten. A second cinema won't add any value. From the comments in support of this, it seems like some sort of tit for tat victory against the council rather than the fact that the cinema is actually a good thing. Prince08
  • Score: 4

9:35am Wed 29 Jan 14

D@ve says...

Prince08 wrote:
Ok you dislike the option that the council chose, that doesn't mean that we need two cinemas or that the town will benefit from having a second. That is the overriding point here and shouldn't be forgotten. A second cinema won't add any value. From the comments in support of this, it seems like some sort of tit for tat victory against the council rather than the fact that the cinema is actually a good thing.
Prince - Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence.

The benefits are huge, it will being in much more value than the Odeon as a single cinema.
[quote][p][bold]Prince08[/bold] wrote: Ok you dislike the option that the council chose, that doesn't mean that we need two cinemas or that the town will benefit from having a second. That is the overriding point here and shouldn't be forgotten. A second cinema won't add any value. From the comments in support of this, it seems like some sort of tit for tat victory against the council rather than the fact that the cinema is actually a good thing.[/p][/quote]Prince - Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence. The benefits are huge, it will being in much more value than the Odeon as a single cinema. D@ve
  • Score: 6

11:13am Wed 29 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.
There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 2

11:45am Wed 29 Jan 14

frankie007 says...

Prorsus are backing their judgement with 46 million pounds. Angus Horner is no fool.

If there's no one willing to back their alternative judgements, maybe it's time to stop whinging & get behind it. Who knows what might spin off from it once it's up & running & successful?

Do away with that Gateway development, put in a bowling & a friendly footbridge to the cinema complex. Not like that semi derelict stairwell from the car park with automatic doors that never work properly & a lift that anyone larger than a size 10 has trouble fitting in.
Prorsus are backing their judgement with 46 million pounds. Angus Horner is no fool. If there's no one willing to back their alternative judgements, maybe it's time to stop whinging & get behind it. Who knows what might spin off from it once it's up & running & successful? Do away with that Gateway development, put in a bowling & a friendly footbridge to the cinema complex. Not like that semi derelict stairwell from the car park with automatic doors that never work properly & a lift that anyone larger than a size 10 has trouble fitting in. frankie007
  • Score: 2

11:47am Wed 29 Jan 14

frankie007 says...

Bowling Alley
Bowling Alley frankie007
  • Score: -1

12:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

frankie007 wrote:
Prorsus are backing their judgement with 46 million pounds. Angus Horner is no fool.

If there's no one willing to back their alternative judgements, maybe it's time to stop whinging & get behind it. Who knows what might spin off from it once it's up & running & successful?

Do away with that Gateway development, put in a bowling & a friendly footbridge to the cinema complex. Not like that semi derelict stairwell from the car park with automatic doors that never work properly & a lift that anyone larger than a size 10 has trouble fitting in.
Sounds like you need to resubmit your plans again.

Morrisons are funding the majority of the 46m investment - not prorsus.
[quote][p][bold]frankie007[/bold] wrote: Prorsus are backing their judgement with 46 million pounds. Angus Horner is no fool. If there's no one willing to back their alternative judgements, maybe it's time to stop whinging & get behind it. Who knows what might spin off from it once it's up & running & successful? Do away with that Gateway development, put in a bowling & a friendly footbridge to the cinema complex. Not like that semi derelict stairwell from the car park with automatic doors that never work properly & a lift that anyone larger than a size 10 has trouble fitting in.[/p][/quote]Sounds like you need to resubmit your plans again. Morrisons are funding the majority of the 46m investment - not prorsus. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 7

1:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Das Motte says...

how much was the bribe for this decision???
what does mr nicholson know about the traffic in this area? is he local? i doubt it.
no way in hell this makes sense without corresponding road improvements. especially when apparently the whole point of it is to attract visitors from out of town which let's face it = cars!!!
how much was the bribe for this decision??? what does mr nicholson know about the traffic in this area? is he local? i doubt it. no way in hell this makes sense without corresponding road improvements. especially when apparently the whole point of it is to attract visitors from out of town which let's face it = cars!!! Das Motte
  • Score: -2

1:03pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jigsaw 5 says...

Yes, competition!! good news for residents and visitors. Shame a petrol station with Morrisons couldn't be sorted. Tesco think they own this town.
Yes, competition!! good news for residents and visitors. Shame a petrol station with Morrisons couldn't be sorted. Tesco think they own this town. jigsaw 5
  • Score: 3

4:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

BathBadger says...

"Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence." - well said D@ve, it provides all the answers anyone needs from an independent source. The Council got this wrong from the start and could have saved alot of time and (our) money assessing both plans at the start of the process, but we are where we are and common sense has prevailed.

Even now, the detractors still go on, none of which have done anything to campaign for any alternatives, as they believe it should all be done for them.

46 million to develop an eyesore should be getting supported, not slated.
"Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence." - well said D@ve, it provides all the answers anyone needs from an independent source. The Council got this wrong from the start and could have saved alot of time and (our) money assessing both plans at the start of the process, but we are where we are and common sense has prevailed. Even now, the detractors still go on, none of which have done anything to campaign for any alternatives, as they believe it should all be done for them. 46 million to develop an eyesore should be getting supported, not slated. BathBadger
  • Score: 5

4:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

BathBadger says...

jigsaw 5 wrote:
Yes, competition!! good news for residents and visitors. Shame a petrol station with Morrisons couldn't be sorted. Tesco think they own this town.
Petrol station is included Jigsaw.
[quote][p][bold]jigsaw 5[/bold] wrote: Yes, competition!! good news for residents and visitors. Shame a petrol station with Morrisons couldn't be sorted. Tesco think they own this town.[/p][/quote]Petrol station is included Jigsaw. BathBadger
  • Score: 2

4:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

BathBadger says...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.
Same argument for SSP to get all the units filled. i see no reason why they wouldn't, so it will be the same for Innox. But as you say, no need to worry as it's all being subsided by Morrison's isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.[/p][/quote]Same argument for SSP to get all the units filled. i see no reason why they wouldn't, so it will be the same for Innox. But as you say, no need to worry as it's all being subsided by Morrison's isn't it? BathBadger
  • Score: -4

5:12pm Wed 29 Jan 14

brandx says...

So it looks like we are going to get some full red blooded capitalism competition. Perhaps Trowbridge can manage 15 screens and 12 restaurants and bars. Let the public decide. I await the outcome with interest.
So it looks like we are going to get some full red blooded capitalism competition. Perhaps Trowbridge can manage 15 screens and 12 restaurants and bars. Let the public decide. I await the outcome with interest. brandx
  • Score: 8

8:55pm Wed 29 Jan 14

powster says...

Am I the only person who thinks this is a complete and utter disaster in the making? We need another supermarket like a hole in the head…we simply do now have the local economy to support 2 cinemas…why not develop a new fun swimming pool or a bowling alley. Give us something we don't already now have.
Am I the only person who thinks this is a complete and utter disaster in the making? We need another supermarket like a hole in the head…we simply do now have the local economy to support 2 cinemas…why not develop a new fun swimming pool or a bowling alley. Give us something we don't already now have. powster
  • Score: 4

10:19pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Atomiser says...

powster wrote:
Am I the only person who thinks this is a complete and utter disaster in the making? We need another supermarket like a hole in the head…we simply do now have the local economy to support 2 cinemas…why not develop a new fun swimming pool or a bowling alley. Give us something we don't already now have.
We cannot develop a fun swimming pool or bowling alley because, as has been mentioned at length, there is no one willing to fund either as they are economically viable.
Swimming pools do not make money and, as such, cannot support a scheme this big. The same with a bowling alley.
Two cinema complexes and various restaurants competing for trade can only mean on thing - more choice and better value for the public. They will also attract trade from a larger area and, with this in mind, may tempt the likes of M&S to come to town.
[quote][p][bold]powster[/bold] wrote: Am I the only person who thinks this is a complete and utter disaster in the making? We need another supermarket like a hole in the head…we simply do now have the local economy to support 2 cinemas…why not develop a new fun swimming pool or a bowling alley. Give us something we don't already now have.[/p][/quote]We cannot develop a fun swimming pool or bowling alley because, as has been mentioned at length, there is no one willing to fund either as they are economically viable. Swimming pools do not make money and, as such, cannot support a scheme this big. The same with a bowling alley. Two cinema complexes and various restaurants competing for trade can only mean on thing - more choice and better value for the public. They will also attract trade from a larger area and, with this in mind, may tempt the likes of M&S to come to town. Atomiser
  • Score: 3

9:02am Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

BathBadger wrote:
PCS_Wilts wrote:
There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.
Same argument for SSP to get all the units filled. i see no reason why they wouldn't, so it will be the same for Innox. But as you say, no need to worry as it's all being subsided by Morrison's isn't it?
Richard, by the time any of those units are even available the SSP site will have been up and running for 2-3 years or more. Hopefully the interest in the SSP site will have bucked enough trend for the second site to be of interest to other restaurant brands.

However, Prorsus/Morrisons still have no plan/funding to deal with the traffic issues that will be exasperated in the Wicker Hill and Gateway area. I wonder if your 125 strong marching group and 1000 signatures will be so happy when it falls upon local council and to the cost of council tax payers to resolve this?
[quote][p][bold]BathBadger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.[/p][/quote]Same argument for SSP to get all the units filled. i see no reason why they wouldn't, so it will be the same for Innox. But as you say, no need to worry as it's all being subsided by Morrison's isn't it?[/p][/quote]Richard, by the time any of those units are even available the SSP site will have been up and running for 2-3 years or more. Hopefully the interest in the SSP site will have bucked enough trend for the second site to be of interest to other restaurant brands. However, Prorsus/Morrisons still have no plan/funding to deal with the traffic issues that will be exasperated in the Wicker Hill and Gateway area. I wonder if your 125 strong marching group and 1000 signatures will be so happy when it falls upon local council and to the cost of council tax payers to resolve this? PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 12

9:05am Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

BathBadger wrote:
"Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence." - well said D@ve, it provides all the answers anyone needs from an independent source. The Council got this wrong from the start and could have saved alot of time and (our) money assessing both plans at the start of the process, but we are where we are and common sense has prevailed.

Even now, the detractors still go on, none of which have done anything to campaign for any alternatives, as they believe it should all be done for them.

46 million to develop an eyesore should be getting supported, not slated.
No one disagrees with redevelopment - just such a shame it couldn't offer something we don't already have.
[quote][p][bold]BathBadger[/bold] wrote: "Read the report from the planning inspector and all the evidence." - well said D@ve, it provides all the answers anyone needs from an independent source. The Council got this wrong from the start and could have saved alot of time and (our) money assessing both plans at the start of the process, but we are where we are and common sense has prevailed. Even now, the detractors still go on, none of which have done anything to campaign for any alternatives, as they believe it should all be done for them. 46 million to develop an eyesore should be getting supported, not slated.[/p][/quote]No one disagrees with redevelopment - just such a shame it couldn't offer something we don't already have. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 8

9:55am Thu 30 Jan 14

D@ve says...

PCS -

What does it take for you to understand the following.

We all would like something else, however no developer and operator is willing and wanting to invest. Without that an alternative will not happen, so something different cannot be offered. Why do you think Cradle Bridge has been empty for so long. If a developer saw profit, surely you’d see bowling etc on this site?

If you are following this application as much as you say you are. You would realise that there is a lot of funding being put up by the developer and major improvements on the way.

But why should they when the traffic problems were caused by the council passing the hideous road layout and pedestrian routing by Asda and Gateway? The council are using this as an opportunity to undo their mess.
PCS - What does it take for you to understand the following. We all would like something else, however no developer and operator is willing and wanting to invest. Without that an alternative will not happen, so something different cannot be offered. Why do you think Cradle Bridge has been empty for so long. If a developer saw profit, surely you’d see bowling etc on this site? If you are following this application as much as you say you are. You would realise that there is a lot of funding being put up by the developer and major improvements on the way. But why should they when the traffic problems were caused by the council passing the hideous road layout and pedestrian routing by Asda and Gateway? The council are using this as an opportunity to undo their mess. D@ve
  • Score: 2

10:03am Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

D@ve wrote:
PCS -

What does it take for you to understand the following.

We all would like something else, however no developer and operator is willing and wanting to invest. Without that an alternative will not happen, so something different cannot be offered. Why do you think Cradle Bridge has been empty for so long. If a developer saw profit, surely you’d see bowling etc on this site?

If you are following this application as much as you say you are. You would realise that there is a lot of funding being put up by the developer and major improvements on the way.

But why should they when the traffic problems were caused by the council passing the hideous road layout and pedestrian routing by Asda and Gateway? The council are using this as an opportunity to undo their mess.
I'm not suggesting the traffic problem is caused by this development but it will certainly add to it - there is an opportunity for the developer and the council to address these issues at the same time as developing the site. However, Prorsus and Morrisons at best have offered to cover the cost of new signage.

It will be to the detriment of the site itself as people will avoid the area.

People vote with their feet - we shall see.
[quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS - What does it take for you to understand the following. We all would like something else, however no developer and operator is willing and wanting to invest. Without that an alternative will not happen, so something different cannot be offered. Why do you think Cradle Bridge has been empty for so long. If a developer saw profit, surely you’d see bowling etc on this site? If you are following this application as much as you say you are. You would realise that there is a lot of funding being put up by the developer and major improvements on the way. But why should they when the traffic problems were caused by the council passing the hideous road layout and pedestrian routing by Asda and Gateway? The council are using this as an opportunity to undo their mess.[/p][/quote]I'm not suggesting the traffic problem is caused by this development but it will certainly add to it - there is an opportunity for the developer and the council to address these issues at the same time as developing the site. However, Prorsus and Morrisons at best have offered to cover the cost of new signage. It will be to the detriment of the site itself as people will avoid the area. People vote with their feet - we shall see. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 4

12:53pm Thu 30 Jan 14

AMVanquish007 says...

I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema.
More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas.
You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack.
As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score
I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema. More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas. You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack. As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score AMVanquish007
  • Score: -4

1:11pm Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

AMVanquish007 wrote:
I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema.
More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas.
You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack.
As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score
The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please...

You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume.

Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even.
[quote][p][bold]AMVanquish007[/bold] wrote: I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema. More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas. You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack. As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score[/p][/quote]The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please... You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume. Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 5

1:11pm Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

AMVanquish007 wrote:
I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema.
More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas.
You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack.
As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score
The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please...

You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume.

Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even.
[quote][p][bold]AMVanquish007[/bold] wrote: I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema. More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas. You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack. As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score[/p][/quote]The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please... You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume. Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

AMVanquish007 wrote:
I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema.
More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas.
You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack.
As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score
The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please...

You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume.

Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even.
[quote][p][bold]AMVanquish007[/bold] wrote: I think PCS there is cause for celebration. The supporters of Innox Riverside got it right and you got it so disastrously wrong. Nearly every month you pedalled the line that after SSP, the Innox Riverside would not get its cinema. More fool you. Patience will always be rewarded especially when it flies in the face of individuals like yourself who know absolutely NOTHING about multiplex cinemas. You seem to conveniently forget that Bowyers and Ushers had high volumes of traffic which were containable. But if I remember you didn't even live around this area in the 70's or 80's so any highways judgements that you offer bear no relation to the fact that there will be 550 car parking spaces will take up the slack. As for the petrol station not being on this main application expect it to be a simple transfer from the 2nd reserve application as a straightforward matter of course. It would be pretty daft for any councillor to overturn a previously determined position on that score[/p][/quote]The gateway centre did not exist when Bowyers was open and the traffic flowed much better in that area - correct me if I am wrong please... You don't need to be a chauffeur to know the existing problem is not going to go away by increasing traffic volume. Your cinema "expert" at the appeal suggested the catchment area was big enough for 11 screens not 15 - let me re-iterate an "actual expert" called in by your own team says both cinema could exist likely breaking even with a possibility of profit. Now I don't know what margins chauffeur's work on these days but I bet my bottom dollar you don't work to break even. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 2

3:07pm Thu 30 Jan 14

trow paint says...

Wow that's one hell of an echo
Wow that's one hell of an echo trow paint
  • Score: 13

4:34pm Thu 30 Jan 14

D@ve says...

PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex.
PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex. D@ve
  • Score: 8

5:09pm Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

D@ve wrote:
PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex.
Maybe - but again the gateway roundabout and traffic lights did not exist. These being a huge factor in the traffic issues in that area that currently exist.
[quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex.[/p][/quote]Maybe - but again the gateway roundabout and traffic lights did not exist. These being a huge factor in the traffic issues in that area that currently exist. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Thu 30 Jan 14

AMVanquish007 says...

I think you will find that the cinema expert concluded that that the seating for this area should be between 1900-2000 seats . How that is split between screens is all relative but I'm quite sure that because of the success of the Odeon I'll bet they wish they had constructed a multiplex of between 12-14 screens but on the SSP site that's just impractical.
As for the chauffeuring, that's dependent on the sector of the market your aiming at- when it comes to cinemas - it includes everybody at the same price
I think you will find that the cinema expert concluded that that the seating for this area should be between 1900-2000 seats . How that is split between screens is all relative but I'm quite sure that because of the success of the Odeon I'll bet they wish they had constructed a multiplex of between 12-14 screens but on the SSP site that's just impractical. As for the chauffeuring, that's dependent on the sector of the market your aiming at- when it comes to cinemas - it includes everybody at the same price AMVanquish007
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Thu 30 Jan 14

PCS_Wilts says...

AMVanquish007 wrote:
I think you will find that the cinema expert concluded that that the seating for this area should be between 1900-2000 seats . How that is split between screens is all relative but I'm quite sure that because of the success of the Odeon I'll bet they wish they had constructed a multiplex of between 12-14 screens but on the SSP site that's just impractical.
As for the chauffeuring, that's dependent on the sector of the market your aiming at- when it comes to cinemas - it includes everybody at the same price
I was simply going by what the "expert" was quoted to have said - not what your interpretation of it ends up to be.
[quote][p][bold]AMVanquish007[/bold] wrote: I think you will find that the cinema expert concluded that that the seating for this area should be between 1900-2000 seats . How that is split between screens is all relative but I'm quite sure that because of the success of the Odeon I'll bet they wish they had constructed a multiplex of between 12-14 screens but on the SSP site that's just impractical. As for the chauffeuring, that's dependent on the sector of the market your aiming at- when it comes to cinemas - it includes everybody at the same price[/p][/quote]I was simply going by what the "expert" was quoted to have said - not what your interpretation of it ends up to be. PCS_Wilts
  • Score: -1

8:55am Fri 31 Jan 14

AMVanquish007 says...

Neverthess PCS the whole area is under screened. In fact the point was raised that even Bath could cope with another multiplex of 8 screens and above , but that space is at a premium in that city
The Odeon Bath maxes out consistently so there's you're other reason why Trowbridge being slap bang in the middle of the vast catchment was considered by Cineworld to build here.
Even in today's Wiltshire Times , Odeon say they aren't fussed and yet there were veiled threats to close screens and reduce performances in case another multiplex opened. This just proves they didnt want any competition to hit their monopoly.
So with the extra 4 screens plus an under screened Bath ,I think the railway with its improved services to Swindon will play a big part in the success of these 2 multiplexes.
Time to be positive PCS - not negative.
I know we've fought on this blog long and hard but just sit back now and watch what will happen over the next few months and years to come.
There could be potential space if a developer is willing to site a bowling alley, bingo hall and rooftop seasonal festive ice rink on top of a building constructed next door in the old Harris Motors/Bathroom showroom if not at Peter Blacks.
Either way- this town is now set to take off and it's going to take quite a few people by surprise.
Neverthess PCS the whole area is under screened. In fact the point was raised that even Bath could cope with another multiplex of 8 screens and above , but that space is at a premium in that city The Odeon Bath maxes out consistently so there's you're other reason why Trowbridge being slap bang in the middle of the vast catchment was considered by Cineworld to build here. Even in today's Wiltshire Times , Odeon say they aren't fussed and yet there were veiled threats to close screens and reduce performances in case another multiplex opened. This just proves they didnt want any competition to hit their monopoly. So with the extra 4 screens plus an under screened Bath ,I think the railway with its improved services to Swindon will play a big part in the success of these 2 multiplexes. Time to be positive PCS - not negative. I know we've fought on this blog long and hard but just sit back now and watch what will happen over the next few months and years to come. There could be potential space if a developer is willing to site a bowling alley, bingo hall and rooftop seasonal festive ice rink on top of a building constructed next door in the old Harris Motors/Bathroom showroom if not at Peter Blacks. Either way- this town is now set to take off and it's going to take quite a few people by surprise. AMVanquish007
  • Score: 3

8:58am Fri 31 Jan 14

D@ve says...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
D@ve wrote: PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex.
Maybe - but again the gateway roundabout and traffic lights did not exist. These being a huge factor in the traffic issues in that area that currently exist.
PCS - The roundabout entrance to Asda and the traffic lights did exist.

If you remember, the traffic lights had an island and the road was 2 lanes in each direction.
[quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D@ve[/bold] wrote: PCS you are correct, the gateway did not exist. However I'd like to point out that Wincanton did, and this generated more traffic than the gateway shopping complex.[/p][/quote]Maybe - but again the gateway roundabout and traffic lights did not exist. These being a huge factor in the traffic issues in that area that currently exist.[/p][/quote]PCS - The roundabout entrance to Asda and the traffic lights did exist. If you remember, the traffic lights had an island and the road was 2 lanes in each direction. D@ve
  • Score: 3

12:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Trowbridge Tracey says...

More businesses coming into the area can only be a good thing. If Wiltshire Council had not had their own agenda and played fair to begin with the other cinema would never have gone ahead. Everyone I speak to is looking forward to having a Morrisons. Competition is good for the consumer. Others will just have to raise their game to compete. Ultimately this will bring more people into Trowbridge which can only be a good thing for the town centre. Smaller retailers cannot blame everything on developments such as this. Internet shopping has a lot to answer to for ruining the high street.
More businesses coming into the area can only be a good thing. If Wiltshire Council had not had their own agenda and played fair to begin with the other cinema would never have gone ahead. Everyone I speak to is looking forward to having a Morrisons. Competition is good for the consumer. Others will just have to raise their game to compete. Ultimately this will bring more people into Trowbridge which can only be a good thing for the town centre. Smaller retailers cannot blame everything on developments such as this. Internet shopping has a lot to answer to for ruining the high street. Trowbridge Tracey
  • Score: 6

6:41pm Fri 31 Jan 14

snazzle says...

PCS_Wilts wrote:
There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.
WOW there are 2 kinds of people in this town - and +
[quote][p][bold]PCS_Wilts[/bold] wrote: There is no reason for celebration here. Prorsus still have to fill the units and its going to be 2-3 years at least before they are even available. It still has to be proved all units can be filled and sustained.[/p][/quote]WOW there are 2 kinds of people in this town - and + snazzle
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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