Reference: Does Lancaster need yet another supermarket?
On my way to Preston, as I had passed the Boot and Shoe, I noticed a sign that Booths had acquired land for a supermarket.
I could not help but laugh as only a matter of within a 100 yards was the sign Historical Lancaster.
It puzzled me that Booths have a supermarket opposite the Boot and Shoe yet have been granted permission to build another supermarket half a mile down the A6.
Perhaps I am being cynical, who knows? But if permission has been granted for Booths to build a supermarket then would you not think, or assume, that such valuable land would be used to build either social housing or affordable housing as these are more important, and more urgent, than yet another supermarket.
Would you not agree?
I cannot help but feel that there is a trade war going on in Lancaster between the various supermarkets, and having spent many years in Africa, there is a Northern Ndebele saying that could be appropriate: When two bull elephants fight the jungle suffers, and innocent people get hurt.
It begs another question does it not, are supermarkets fighting over trade from the University?
I think the ‘burghers in Dalton Square’ must answer relevant questions as to why permission has been granted to permit Booths to acquire that three-four acre plot, and to build a supermarket on that land?
Does that land come within the definition of a green belt as the borders of Lancaster have not changed a great deal since the days of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Aquitaine?
There is also another question that needs answering – why did Lancaster City Council purchase land a mile or so down the road and plant hundreds of trees?
Curiouser and curiouser methinks.