A discount retailer who plans to demolish a local gym and their existing store so they can replace it with a new larger store has justified their scheme with an assessment which concludes that the Energie Fitness Club "can be considered to be surplus to requirements."
A Leisure Needs Assessment has been submitted on behalf of Lidl to support their plans to deliver a replacement Lidl food store, which will be approximately twice the scale of the existing Lidl store, within Summerfields Village Centre on Dean Row Road.
The report identifies eight swimming pools and 1,045 fitness stations provided across 11 separate facilities which are all located within an 8 to 10 minute drive from the Energie Fitness Club. Adding that the level of provision is set to increase to 1,120 following the planned opening of a new Anytime Fitness club in Wilmslow town centre, which received planning permission in May 2017.
The assessment also looks at studio space which it says is provided at the majority of the health and fitness suites identified and the opening of the Anytime Fitness club will compensate for the loss of the studio at Energie Fitness, stating "There will, therefore, be no reduction in the number of studio facilities. It should be expected that the brand new studio space at Anytime Fitness will offer a higher quality facility than the existing Energie Fitness studio space."
The Leisure Needs Assessment also points out that given Wilmslow Leisure Limited, which runs the Energie Fitness Club, filed a Company Voluntary Arrangement which took effect in April 2017 (prior to the submission of the Lidl planning application) the club faces difficulties to remain solvent.
The report concludes "The Energie Club could, therefore, cease trading regardless of the proposed Lidl development. It has been demonstrated that the closure of the Club will not prejudice the ability of local residents to meet their fitness needs, with there being a significant supply of public and private swimming pools, health and fitness suites and studio space within the study area. Exercise classes currently run from Energie Fitness will relocate to a nearby club, with other ancillary facilities also relocating within the local area.
"Therefore, in the context of Local Plan Policy SC1 and Paragraph 74 of the NPPF, the Energie Fitness Club can be considered to be surplus to requirements."
Lidl's controversial proposal has generated over 250 letters of objection and a petition containing 600 signatures of local residents and gym members who are opposed to the building of a new Lidl store adjacent to their existing store, on the site currently occupied by the Energi Fitness Club was delivered to Cheshire East Council at the end of August.
Lidl's planning applications (reference 17/3208M) is scheduled to be determined by the Northern Planning Committee at their meeting on at Macclesfield Town Hall on Wednesday, 6th December.
If planning permission is granted then Lidl proposes to phase the development so the existing store will remain in operation whilst the new store is constructed and will cease trading and be demolished to provide car parking on the opening of the replacement store.
All existing members of staff will be transferred to the new store and it is expected that two additional full-time and 10 to 15 additional part-time jobs will be created.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
By that logic, the Lidl store itself is surplus to requirements, as there are numerous other grocery retailers in the area.
Other local gyms do not necessarily offer comparable facilities for a comparable price.
If Energie is surplus to requirements, then how does it have any members/customers?
Unfortunately I expect the petition and all objections will be completely ignored by the planning committee, as usual.
Who actually wants the big Lidl store?
Over 400 residents (& not 250 as reported above) objected to the original Lidl proposals.
By comparison, if you look at the website you will see that just a handful of residents emailed Cheshire East saying they were ' For ' it. And of those, the majority appear to have been orchestrated by Lidl themselves after Wilmslow Town council unanimously rejected the application.
What's more the proposed Lidl store design is modular, glass and steel with a monopitch roof. It could not clash more with its more traditionally built "brick and tile neighbours " if it tried.
LEISURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The figures quoted by Lidl are sadly misleading and incorrect. For a start, the assessment misses out big chunks of the population and new development which is coming our way.
All the other facilities Lidl quote require travel, none are walkable to. This means more trafic on our gridlocked roads.
If Cheshire East pass the plans, a large proportion of the Summerfields / North Wilmslow community will be denied access to good value local leisure and recreation which everybody deserves and what's more, they can get to without getting the car out, if they have one
Significantly, the provision of leisure facilities was also part of the original vision for Summerfields Village. That need has not changed despite what Lidl are saying to support their expansion plans.
Lidl have also chosen to ignore the objectives in Policy SC1 of the Cheshire East's own Local Plan & The Indoor and Built Facilities Needs Assessment in their quest to build a bigger store. All rather ironic when it's Cheshire East thenselves they're trying to convince.
If passed the Lidl plans to remove the current leisure facilities will rip the heart out of this community. And all in exchange for a bigger bakery, wider aisles and customer toilets. Apparently. This is at a time when everybody, regardless of age or income needs to get active and stay healthy. And it's not as if there aren't stores (including their own) already on site
FINANCIAL VIABILITY
The financial viability of the current leisure provider does not mean that the community should lose its current fitness centre.
The facilities do not automatically become surplus to requirements when 3000 members means there's a local demand for it from the community. Potentially this need could be by another company that could make a success of it.
NEXT STEPS
The fact that Cheshire East have now written to the 400 residents who originally objected to the Lidl plans and invited comments on this extra 'Leisure Needs Analysis' report is an interesting one.
Even though some might be sceptical, all residents should go on to the Cheshire East planning website (Reference 17/3208M) and comment on the Leisure Needs Analysis.
Thank you.
Here in Summerfields Village the community have both a Lidl (was Leedle a pun?) and a very popular, much needed fitness centre operating side by side.
The best of both worlds then !
.............
(2) Hello Sarah Statham.
I'm not entirely sure I agree that "our opinions and needs don't count" with Cheshire East (CE)
I'll tell you why I think that...
It's interesting that CE have consulted all the 400 residents that objected back in August for their opinions on this new Lidl's "Leisure Needs Assessment" document.
CE may well have also written out to the 600 people who signed the petition.
It could be because it's CE's own strategies which will be contravened if Lidl's try to flatten the current leisure facilities. I'm not sure.
We suggest that everybody exercises their democratic right and emails Cheshire East planning to say what you think about this " Leisure Needs Assessment" document.
Thank you.
Some of Martin's justifications for blocking Lidl here are exactly the sort of thing Julie points out are completely self-defeating when there are much more serious things to object to. For example:
"What's more the proposed Lidl store design is modular, glass and steel with a monopitch roof. It could not clash more with its more traditionally built "brick and tile neighbours " if it tried."
How about rewording this as: "The current prefabricated faux-chalet gym design uses wood and glass. It could not clash more with its more traditionally built 'brick and tile neighbours' if it tried." The gym looks absolutely nothing like any of the other surrounding buildings for hundreds and hundreds of metres. You think that is ok, but they proposed shop looking a little different isn't?
"All the other facilities Lidl quote require travel, none are walkable to. This means more trafic on our gridlocked roads."
Certainly others are well within my definition of walkable. Do the 3000 gym members you keep referencing all walk there? We both know that isn't even nearly true...
"a large proportion of the Summerfields / North Wilmslow community will be denied access to good value local leisure and recreation which everybody deserves"
They won't be denied anything - you know that isn't true. They will just have to use different leisure facilities than those they do now.
"Significantly, the provision of leisure facilities was also part of the original vision for Summerfields Village."
And things change. There are now many other nearby leisure facilities that didn't exist when Summerfields was built. There are also many more nearby homes who want to buy food. Things need to be continually reassessed.
"If passed the Lidl plans to remove the current leisure facilities will rip the heart out of this community."
That may sound wonderful but we both know it isn't even close to being true. As much as you may want the gym to stay, the sad fact is gym could vanish from the face of the earth tomorrow and most people living in Wilmslow and even in Summerfields probably wouldn't even notice.
"The financial viability of the current leisure provider does not mean that the community should lose its current fitness centre. "
Hmmm... yes and no. If the gym isn't financially viable, should it continue anyway? Who should subsidise this? The owners? The council? You? Me? We both know having 3000 members isn't the same as having 3000 who attend and spend money regularly. Perhaps someone else could make it succeed, but those someones don't seem to be queuing up to try and they aren't the ones who approached the owners with an offer they seem only too glad to have received.
My understanding is that the gym business was doing well until Lidl has unilaterally decided it isn't. Therefore, we can dismiss this part of the argument.
As it stands though, the community either has a gym, swimming pool, yoga centre, beautician, physio AND a Lidl. Or just a Lidl. Either way, Lidl will stock exactly the same products in either store.
Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard to work out which option is best for the community, regardless of personal preferences.
When the application first appeared I couldn't see why Lidl could not use the space at the first floor level of the existing store + make the existing store wider. This is what has happened at the other end of the parade of shops. This would mean that Lidl could have the increase in floor area, the increase in office provision and Energie could remain as it is. However, I believe that Lidl has made it clear that they are not prepared to consider arrangements which don't deliver their "house style" in terms of design.
"...Wilmslow Leisure Limited, which runs the Energie Fitness Club, filed a Company Voluntary Arrangement which took effect in April 2017 (prior to the submission of the Lidl planning application) the club faces difficulties to remain solvent..."
The CVA is likely to been caused by Lidl. Wilmslow Leisure would have been informed of their new owner well before the planning application was submitted. WL would therefore know their lease would unexpectedly not be renewed and this would cause them massive issues to keep the business solvent (who wants to join a gym that might close down soon or pay them up front? Also debt in the business would have to be repaid far sooner than envisaged). Therefore, a CVA is almost inevitable in this situation and is not a coincidence nor a reflection of the viability of the business. A gym has traded there successfully for +20 years and membership numbers remain high.
Secondly, we don't allow every struggling gym, pub, shop, restaurant, factory or farm to be knocked down and redeveloped. Instead we keep the facility and find alternative owners.
Like I said, personal preference aside, this decsion should be a no brainer for the council.
All discussed at time of “Wilmslow Vision”, all categorically denied by CEC, so it must be true.
So,
The Leisure Centre - soon to be gone if EC get their way.
Total Fatness
David Lloyd - not in Cheshire
Hallmark Hotel, Handforth Private Hotel facilities
Mottram Hall (not in 10 mins) Private Hotel facilities
Valley Lodge (not sure of present name) not in 10 again. Private Hotel facilities
Struggling to think of two more and surely they aren't counting the Marriot in GMC of the Village in Cheadle and not in 10 minutes.
So only four places really suitable for swimming lessons for children and several thousand new houses planned. All the more reason to keep the place.
Mind you I can produce any kind of report you want if you tell me first and line my pockets with gold.
Wilmslow Leisure Centre
Total Fitness - how much is this place?
The SeaShell Trust - Stanley Green way - yes - the one with limited acess because it is part of the school.
Hallmark Hotel
Spindles Airport Inn - the Valley Lodge?
David Lloyd - Cheadle - yes we are talking expensive here too.
Life Leisure - Cheadle baths.
So you see they are anticpating that you go for a swim at 2am in order to beat the traffic.
Lidl (or more likely their agents) must have been able to bring huge pressure to bear on Energi (hence the recent voluntary arrangement) and simply squeeeze them out of business.
Big business wins out on small business every time (unless something like local planning does what it's paid to do - but let's not go there since we all know the answer to that). Not always the best for communities etc. but then who cares in the big business world, they look at their balance sheets and just smile and look around for the next killing.
You asked where the 600 people lived who signed the petition which objects to the demolition of the current leisure facilities ?
The vast majority of signatories came from Dean Row, Lacey Green and of course, Energie's nearest neighbours the Colshaw - Summerfields community.
We took the petition personally to Macclesfield Town Hall on 30 August. It sat boxed up on the front seat of our car so we know.
The same locations apply to the 400 people who also lodged their objections directlly on the CE planning portal under planning reference 17/3208M.
The relatively few people that told Cheshire East that they actually wanted to see the current leisure facilities demolished in favour of a bigger store also live in the local area.
None however live in the brick, tile and rendered homes which back on to the new store.... if it's approved. Glass, steel, mono pitch roof new store that is.
You say that the Summerfields Energie fitness centre doesn't blend in with its neighbours?
Aesthetics is always a difficult one but both projects were built by Orbit : Emerson : Jones Homes as part of a single vision for the area.
(1) The homes and Energie both have traditionally constructed pitched tiled roofs. Check !
(2) Both feature cream coloured rendered external walls. Check!
(3) Both feature wood cladding. Check!
(4) Neither the current Energie building nor the neighbouring homes are of a modular construction, featuring steel with a huge single monopitch roof like the proposed new Lidl.....Check !?
It doesn't. It doesn't look anything like it's near neighbours the current Lidl store and adjoining parade of shops, the Pentland House office block on the corner, the Wilmslow Tavern, the houses and flats on Chamberlain Drive or the streets nearby leading off Colshaw Drive.
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but to argue that it isn't architecturally in keeping with its surroundings and then argue in favour of a building just as out of keeping if not more so is a pretty weak case for an objection.
You know the current leisure building does blend in quite well and as neighbours go they're as quiet as mice. The best !
And the residents should know about that as after all, we live here don't we and are the greatest impacted ?
We've seen what Lidl want to stick up within metres of our windows and are pretty much flabbergasted.
The bottom line is that Cheshire East have 400 + emails and a 600 name petition from residents "Against" and comparatively only a few saying "For"
Anyway, can't hang about .....Want to see how far us pensioners can hobble in ten minutes to the nearest swimming pool from Summerfields - Colshaw.
"They won't be denied anything ... They will just have to use different leisure facilities than those they do now."
Other comparable leisure facilities (including a swimming pool) in the area are a lot more expensive than Energie, so many of the current Energie members would not be able to afford them.
'Let them eat cake'?
This falsehood is quite strange and you clearly haven't thought it through. You want to maintain a private members-only gym many can't afford and oppose a supermarket aimed at the budget end of the market, and accuse me of wanting them to "let they eat cake"? Righto.
I'm surprised you are saying that swimming at Energie is more expensive than for example swimming at Wilmslow Leisure Centre, but since Energie don't seem to put prices on their website I can't verify this.
Anyway, keep it up. When developments that really should be stopped such as Stanneylands get waved through and well-considered objections lost amongst the usual cries of "wolf, wolf, wolf" you'll only have yourselves to blame.
As to cost for this "private members club" - it is £20 - 25 a month. The alternative "private members clubs" the applicant is suggesting all come in dearer and are further away. The pricing of the leisure centre according to their website is £30 a month, but you can also do "pay as you go" which works out dearer if you go regularly. So you see Energie is the "budget option".
I took my 8 year old grandson to Wilmslow Leisure Centre during the holidays.
Sadly it was prohibitively expensive and not easy to park at when we had the car.
At peak travel times it took us 20 minutes each way each day and sometimes longer.
Walking there from Colshaw -Summerfields on the path besides the A34 & then down the steps through Cow Lane woodland would have taken much longer.
Safety wise of course, it's also a non starter.
Come the weekend as a child, he swam for free at the fantastic pool facilities within (yes you guessed it...) 5 minutes away on foot at Energie Fitness Centre.
I don’t make the rules about the buildings around here. CE do that. I’m just saying the bland gym is in keeping with the rest of the bland area and doesn’t stick out like a sore thumb. Anything futuristic in design is going to do that.
I take it you don’t live opposite to the gym otherwise you’d be fighting against it.
You say you want an Aldi opened here on Summerfields Village.
Whereabouts would it be built I wonder & what community assets would have to be flattened by the developers to make way for it.
The church - village centre and the mobility centre on Ringstead Drive, children's centre maybe on Colshaw Drive, housing association homes perhaps in Ringstead Close, apartments in Village Court perhaps ?
Incidentally, talking of protecting what we've got , 600 petitioners and 400 emailers told Cheshire East they wanted a Lidl AND continued leisure facilities here side by side.
Best of both worlds I guess then & both protected.
At the times when it is snowing, it is glorious to be in such a great pool, with snowing falling outside. The large glass structure is vast and ever-changing and unique. No pool in the area offers such beauty, tranquillity, or visual delight. To lose Club Energie for some ugly loud noisy supermarket, is to lose so much. I hope against hope that this will not happen.
Thank you for your beautiful words and your support for the much needed leisure facilities here in the heart of the Colshaw - Summerfields community.
Remember we have until 6 November to comment on Lidl's " Leisure Needs Assessment " report.
This is the report Lidl are using to support the demolition of the current leisure facilities as being "Surplus to Requirements " in favour of a bigger Lidl store few people in have told Cheshire East they want.
The report and the opportunity to comment on it straight back to Cheshire East is on their planning website under reference 17/3208M. It's on the last few pages.
The final decision should now be made by Cheshire East (CE) Northern Planning Committee (NPC) on 6 December at Macclesfield Town Hall. Previous meetings were cancelled by CE.
The NPC meeting will be open to the public and will start at 10am. Closer to the time the NPC agenda will appear on the Cheshire East website.
Thank you for your ongoing support and kind comments. I am sure they're appreciated by residents.
(1) Original Permission :-
You talk about the original planning permission granted to Emerson for the Colshaw - Summerfields community'.
As you say long may the recreational facilities & Lidl be allowed to continue as originally visioned. The need for both is needed.
(2) Support :-
This is the message of course that 600 petitioners and 400 emailers have clearly said to Cheshire East. By comparison, Lidl's plans to demolish Energie have received very little support.
(3) Extended Store:-
An extended Lidl store next to the existing recreation facilities would be a fantastic idea.
And of course it's perfectly doable and there's precedent with the smart extended Lidl store in Middlewich .
(4) The Final Decision:-
The final decision will hopefully now be reached by Cheshire East on 6th December at Northern Planning Committee (NPC).
The NPC meeting wil start at 10am at Macclesfield Town Hall.
Closer to the time the agenda will appear on the meeting part of the planning website and include the planning officer's recommendations..
Everybody is welcome to attend and we look forward to meeting you all again.
Thank you.