Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm

Cheers

never realised they were part of B&Q!

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm

Cheers

"a" wrote in message
. net...
never realised they were part of B&Q!

Not really - they are part of Kingfisher, of which B&Q are also a part

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:05:28 +0100, a wrote:

never realised they were part of B&Q!

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm


It is a game of mine to find the item with the biggest price ratio
B&Q:Screwfix.

At one time it was held by a pair of 15mm Speedfit couplers.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Paul Williams" wrote in message
...
Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm

Cheers

Well that explains it, but it's also one of the quickest way of screwing up
a mail order company....

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:26:22 +0100, Paul Williams
wrote:

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm

Cheers

Serves em right for sacking 520 people........

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:41:10 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote:


Serves em right for sacking 520 people........

As I understand it they had little choice - the local council would
not grant planning permission for expanded premises or allow new ones
to be built.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

As I understand it they had little choice - the local council would
not grant planning permission for expanded premises or allow new ones
to be built.

The trouble was that they wanted to build on a site in open country outside
the developement limit. Screwfix also said that a central England location
would be more efficient.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
As I understand it they had little choice - the local council would
not grant planning permission for expanded premises or allow new ones
to be built.

The trouble was that they wanted to build on a site in open country
outside
the developement limit.

They can always make an exception when assessing the benefits of such a
move. The urban footprint of the UK is only 6.6%, it is not as if we don't
have enough subsidised land to make beneficial use from.

Screwfix also said that a central England location
would be more efficient.

Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they generate
would make little difference in location as order volumes would be going to
all areas of the UK.

This is another case of planning system that does not serve the people,
stupid planners and a bloody-mindedness resulting in a community shooting
itself in the foot, as what happened at Vauxhall in Luton. No cars are made
there anymore because they could not expand the plant onto available land,
so they went abroad.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
As I understand it they had little choice - the local council would
not grant planning permission for expanded premises or allow new ones
to be built.

The trouble was that they wanted to build on a site in open country
outside
the developement limit.

They can always make an exception when assessing the benefits of such a
move. The urban footprint of the UK is only 6.6%, it is not as if we don't
have enough subsidised land to make beneficial use from.

Screwfix also said that a central England location
would be more efficient.

Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they generate
would make little difference in location as order volumes would be going
to
all areas of the UK.

This is another case of planning system that does not serve the people,
stupid planners and a bloody-mindedness resulting in a community shooting
itself in the foot, as what happened at Vauxhall in Luton. No cars are
made
there anymore because they could not expand the plant onto available land,
so they went abroad.

Also the south west has a higher unemployment problems than the Midlands.
Recruiting additional staff around Yeovil would not have been a problem as
it is around Stoke.

In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they generate
would make little difference in location as order volumes would be going to
all areas of the UK.

What?
The spending power of 520 people in one area being cut
will likely be the end of many other local businesses.
I would also imagine Screwfix are likely to have sourced
many products/services locally, and those businesses will
lose out too. The local economy has probably just lost many
millions per year of revenue directly and indirectly from
the loss of Screwfix.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:45:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
As I understand it they had little choice - the local council would
not grant planning permission for expanded premises or allow new ones
to be built.

The trouble was that they wanted to build on a site in open country
outside
the developement limit.

They can always make an exception when assessing the benefits of such a
move. The urban footprint of the UK is only 6.6%, it is not as if we don't
have enough subsidised land to make beneficial use from.

Hi,

It's likely that there were existing or brownfield sites big enough
but they could not be redeveloped at a cost acceptable to Kingfisher.

It would be better if regional grants were available to facilitate
this, with the local council holding a proportion of the equity in the
redeveloped site.

Otherwise any company could build on a greenfield site and flog it on
for a profit in a few years.

cheers,
Pete.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:41:10 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:26:22 +0100, Paul Williams
wrote:

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm

Cheers

Serves em right for sacking 520 people........



No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:41:10 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:26:22 +0100, Paul Williams
wrote:

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm


Serves em right for sacking 520 people........

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.


Not so, are you seriously saying that there was no other site that couldn't
have been developed within a distance that could have allowed people to
remain employed (even if they needed to travel a few miles), Yeovil isn't
exactly without large industry you know ?!

Sound more like an excuse to move to a more central position for countrywide
distribution to me....

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:40:01 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:41:10 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:26:22 +0100, Paul Williams
wrote:

Following recent discussions, this is quite relevant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3686404.stm


Serves em right for sacking 520 people........

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.


Not so, are you seriously saying that there was no other site that couldn't
have been developed within a distance that could have allowed people to
remain employed (even if they needed to travel a few miles), Yeovil isn't
exactly without large industry you know ?!

They wanted to develop on a site that was logistically and
economically sensible for them and weren't allowed to do so.

Any business faced with this situation, will then look at the costs of
relocating including paying severance if employees are made redundant.

If the numbers add up to a lower cost to move, then that's what they
will do.

The primary purpose of a business is to

a) make money for its shareholders,

b) fulfill customer's requirements because that usually leads to (a)

Providing employment is a distant (c).



Sound more like an excuse to move to a more central position for countrywide
distribution to me....


If that were the prime motivating reason, they would have just done it
and not bothered to go through all the architect stuff and make a
planning application in Yeovil. Why bother? Very few people would
stop buying from them because they lay off 500 warehouse staff, so
they could simply have upped anchor anyway so there would be no point
in going through the motions of this as a PR exercise.

No excuses are really needed in order to address points (a) and (b)
above. it's a commercial business not a charity.

The members of the planning committee are perfectly at liberty not to
grant planning permission such that the business could have been
expanded in their area. Presumably they have calculated that the loss
of 500-1000 votes is not going to cause them an electoral problem.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The primary purpose of a business is to

a) make money for its shareholders,

b) fulfill customer's requirements because that usually leads to (a)

Providing employment is a distant (c).

Not even distant. Directors of a UK (or US) public company have a legal
obligation to (a) and (b) but (c) isn't a requirement at all. Of course
German and French law is quite the opposite which is why so many of their
companies lose so much money and have to be bailed out by taxpayer's money.

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Wrong! The blame is for the government that makes the policy that local
planning authorities have to follow.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:35:21 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Wrong! The blame is for the government that makes the policy that local
planning authorities have to follow.



They do have some discretion within their local plan, but equally I am
not averse to the suggestion that central government meddles where it
has no business to do so as we have recently seen.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:35:21 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Wrong! The blame is for the government that makes the policy that local
planning authorities have to follow.

They do have some discretion within their local plan, but equally I am
not averse to the suggestion that central government meddles where it
has no business to do so as we have recently seen.

If the local authority wanted Screwfix, they would have found them land. It
is that simple.

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Just double checked and the application was not refused. Screwfix withdrew
the application.

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Just double checked and the application was not refused. Screwfix withdrew
the application.

Why? Did they get word that problems would occur giving delays? No one
spends that sort of money to submit a plan then forgets it.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:13:29 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

No choice. The local authority wouldn't allow them to expand their
business. The blame lays fairly and squarely there.

Just double checked and the application was not refused. Screwfix withdrew
the application.

Looking at the local authority web site, it appears that two
applications were made and withdrawn three months apart in 2001.
One was next to a trading estate.

Perhaps they were simply told that permission would not be granted.

Somewhat academic though.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Peter Ramm wrote:
Placed an on-line order last night about half past six - normal
delivery.
This morning - knock on the door at nine fifteen - the full delivery!!

Looked at "don't want your order" sign on Screwfix Website Monday pm,
Phone orders not accepted, placed order with Toolstation Tuesday noon.
Delivered today 3pm. Order taker apologised for possible shipping delay
as business had more than doubled in last few weeks and warehouse was
struggling to keep up!! Cost was lower than Screwfix!! Screwfix ex customer.

Regards
Capitol

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:45:18 +0100, Peter Ramm
wrote:

Placed an on-line order last night about half past six - normal
delivery.
This morning - knock on the door at nine fifteen - the full delivery!!

Last week I placed an order for some stationary via Viking Direct, at
10pm in the evening.

The next morning at 8am the delivery driver knocks the door with the
full delivery. Only a couple of invoice books and a few reels of
packaging tape, but I was so impressed! They must've been packing the
van as the order came in.

Andrew

If you need help with those general DIY projects
you can give me a call. More information about
what I can help with can be found on my web site:

http://www.handymac.co.uk