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

"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 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

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.

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

"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.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll re-write:
Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they generate
would make little difference in the location Screwfix is, as order volumes
would be going to all areas of the UK.

Let's say, an extra hour for an artic to go from Yeovil to the north east is
not worth talking about. The location was not that important as Yeovil was
fine. If they wee in Lewis or Lands End then they may think again. The
fact that they applied to expand in Yeovil proved they never thought Yeovil
out of the way. If they are moving elsewhere, then one more central to the
customers is better.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

Only themselves to blame. We this obsession of not building on the
countryside so large landowners can stay wealthy. Agriculture in the UK
only amounts to 15 billion per year. Many companies exceed that, yet it hogs
68% of land. It looks like the large landowners and their propaganda
organs have won the day yet again. We have a country with masses of land
laying there not serving the people. Total Madness.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

What are the annual figures for screwfix's business?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

I'll re-write:
Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they generate
would make little difference in the location Screwfix is, as order volumes
would be going to all areas of the UK.

Let's say, an extra hour for an artic to go from Yeovil to the north east
is

I suspect IMM has, like many other things, little if any real knowledge of
the 'parcel' distribution industry if he thinks that the difference between
a parcel being sent from Stoke and a parcel sent from Yeovil to the north
east is only an hour !..

not worth talking about. The location was not that important as Yeovil
was
fine. If they wee in Lewis or Lands End then they may think again. The

Err, well I know were both Yeovil and Lewis are and have been to both more
than a few times, Yeovil is far more of a problem distribution wise than
Lewis.

fact that they applied to expand in Yeovil proved they never thought
Yeovil
out of the way. If they are moving elsewhere, then one more central to
the
customers is better.


That is the baffling thing, if they though that Yeovil was not a problem why
the sudden move up north, I still believe that a move was on the cards -
unless they could wrangled the planning decision to do as they pleased (and
thus save a shed full of money literally !), irrespective of local planning
policy, in their favour on the backs of 520 jobs...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
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.

Only themselves to blame. We this obsession of not building on the
countryside so large landowners can stay wealthy. Agriculture in the UK
only amounts to 15 billion per year. Many companies exceed that, yet it
hogs
68% of land. It looks like the large landowners and their propaganda
organs have won the day yet again. We have a country with masses of land
laying there not serving the people. Total Madness.


It's nothing to do with land owners, it's to do with not concreting over
open countryside, but you would know that if you had ever set foot outside
an inner-city...

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

In article , Andrew Gabriel
wrote:
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.

You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Tony Bryer wrote:


You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.


AIUI their Yeovil site will be used as their head office.

--
Grunff

"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.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:


You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.


AIUI their Yeovil site will be used as their head office.


And thus a completely different employment requirement.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:14:42 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:


You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.


AIUI their Yeovil site will be used as their head office.


And thus a completely different employment requirement.


So?

Life's tough. They aren't in business to provide employment.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:14:42 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:


You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.


AIUI their Yeovil site will be used as their head office.


And thus a completely different employment requirement.


So?

Life's tough. They aren't in business to provide employment.


In some ways you are quite wrong, they can't be in business if they don't
(considering they are hardly in the 'one man band' league), and ****e
employers (or those that are perceived as such) never get the best people
for the job IYSWIM.

If they wanted to up stick (which I still recon was their end goal, for
distribution reasons) they should have been open about it and not try and
blame local planning regs etc.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:04:28 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:14:42 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:


You're assuming that their existing facility just rots. It would
be very surprising if it wasn't taken over by some other business
who would presumably employ a similar number of people.


AIUI their Yeovil site will be used as their head office.


And thus a completely different employment requirement.


So?

Life's tough. They aren't in business to provide employment.


In some ways you are quite wrong, they can't be in business if they don't
(considering they are hardly in the 'one man band' league), and ****e
employers (or those that are perceived as such) never get the best people
for the job IYSWIM.

I don't know whether they are a ****e employer or not. Up until the
recent debacle, I have always found them to give good service.
We have periodically had people here complaining about deliveries that
weren't the next day, although many of these were where people had
gone for the free delivery which is a best efforts affair anyway.

Screwfix and B&Q have become the leading suppliers in their fields in
the UK and B&Q is no. 3 in the world. That isn't achieved or
maintained by not running a business reasonably properly.

A warehousing business probably doesn't need good people (apart from
at management level) but people that are good enough to get the job
done.

Do customers really care about what Screwfix does with their employees
who are made redundant? Not really. It happens every day and may
make the news for a short time but is then rapidly forgotten.

Do shareholders care? Remember that it is quite likely that people
with pension and other savings schemes are quite likely to have
Kingfisher shares in the portfolio. Answer no, as long as it
remains a good investment.



If they wanted to up stick (which I still recon was their end goal, for
distribution reasons) they should have been open about it and not try and
blame local planning regs etc.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because the impact of
the loss of 500 jobs in Yeovil is not going to have any long term
effect on SF's business anyway, either financially or by customer
retention. One or two people might not buy from them for a while,
but that's it.

In that scenario I see no reason at all why they would need to go
through an elaborate charade of blaming it on the local authority.
All that that achieves is to raise the profile of the whole issue and
make people wonder. Plus it costs money to have plans put together,
go through all the bureaucracy etc. It's much easier to simply
announce that they are closing one facility and opening another. The
public interest in that would have lasted 10 minutes,.
If the motivation was to move anyway, the latter would have been the
obvious course of action.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

In that scenario I see no reason at all why they would need to go
through an elaborate charade of blaming it on the local authority.

It was the fault of the local authority as Screwfix wanted to stay in
Yeovil, they submitted plans to expand and were turned down.

All that that achieves is to raise the profile of the whole issue and
make people wonder. Plus it costs money to have plans put together,
go through all the bureaucracy etc.

They did that.

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.

I think the local authority was quite keen but had their hands tied in
various ways as to availabilty of a suitable site and within a reasonable
timescale.
If the local authority wanted Screwfix, they would have found them land.
It
is that simple.

I wish it was that simple but it seldom, if ever, is as anyone who has
experience of the planning system knows. If South Somerset District Council
tried that the application would simple be called in by central government.

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
...
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.

I think the local authority was quite keen but had their hands tied in
various ways as to availabilty of a suitable site and within a reasonable
timescale.
If the local authority wanted Screwfix, they would have found them land.
It
is that simple.

I wish it was that simple but it seldom, if ever, is as anyone who has
experience of the planning system knows. If South Somerset District
Council
tried that the application would simple be called in by central
government.

...and it would be looked at and the government would say yes. Loose jobs?No
government likes that, except Thatcher, who revelled at loosing them.

"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

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

If they wanted to up stick (which I still recon was their end goal, for
distribution reasons) they should have been open about it and not try and
blame local planning regs etc.

But the planning issue was at the very least one of the factors in their
decision; most likely the major factor.

There are big problems with relocating an operation of this size,
recruiting and training a new workforce is a particularly big one. It
isn't a decision that is taken lightly or on a whim.

There is a big problem with planning in the South West, where there
seems to be a focus on 'keeping it pretty for the tourists at the
expense of real industry'. I find this incredibly annoying, since it
stifles business and increases the region's reliance on tourism. Relying
on tourism as your major industry is a) extremely dangerous and
unstable, and b) a terrible long term strategy which can only lead to
the region's economic decline.


--
Grunff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:04:28 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because the impact of
the loss of 500 jobs in Yeovil is not going to have any long term
effect on SF's business anyway, either financially or by customer
retention. One or two people might not buy from them for a while,
but that's it.

In that scenario I see no reason at all why they would need to go
through an elaborate charade of blaming it on the local authority.
All that that achieves is to raise the profile of the whole issue and
make people wonder. Plus it costs money to have plans put together,
go through all the bureaucracy etc. It's much easier to simply
announce that they are closing one facility and opening another. The
public interest in that would have lasted 10 minutes,.
If the motivation was to move anyway, the latter would have been the
obvious course of action.


The point is, it costs a great deal of money to move buildings let alone to
a different part of the country (and it's not done at the drop of the hat
either), what I'm saying is that I suspect SF knew that they would not get
their planning application though but still applied in the hope that the
loss of 500 local jobs would twist the arms of the planners and that *if* it
had gone through it would have allowed SF to save a considerable amount of
money IYSWIM. It would also make life easier when dishing out redundancy
notices, they were able to just say 'Not our fault, sorry'.

For little real cost they have been shown as a company who were, at least on
the surface, probably wanting to employ more local staff (directly or
indirectly), are a successful company who are expanding and not at fault
when chucking making over 500 people redundant - all very much the win, win,
win situation...

Perhaps I'm just a cynical old sod ?! :~)

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

In that scenario I see no reason at all why they would need to go
through an elaborate charade of blaming it on the local authority.

It was the fault of the local authority as Screwfix wanted to stay in
Yeovil, they submitted plans to expand and were turned down.

They could have, but not at their (then) current location, if they wanted to
enlarge the building. There was nothing to stop them developing another site
locally AIUI.

Yeovil is not exactly without large 'heavy' industry you know, I suspect
they have a thriving 'rotary club' you know IMM....

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:56:53 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:04:28 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because the impact of
the loss of 500 jobs in Yeovil is not going to have any long term
effect on SF's business anyway, either financially or by customer
retention. One or two people might not buy from them for a while,
but that's it.

In that scenario I see no reason at all why they would need to go
through an elaborate charade of blaming it on the local authority.
All that that achieves is to raise the profile of the whole issue and
make people wonder. Plus it costs money to have plans put together,
go through all the bureaucracy etc. It's much easier to simply
announce that they are closing one facility and opening another. The
public interest in that would have lasted 10 minutes,.
If the motivation was to move anyway, the latter would have been the
obvious course of action.


The point is, it costs a great deal of money to move buildings let alone to
a different part of the country (and it's not done at the drop of the hat
either), what I'm saying is that I suspect SF knew that they would not get
their planning application though but still applied in the hope that the
loss of 500 local jobs would twist the arms of the planners and that *if* it
had gone through it would have allowed SF to save a considerable amount of
money IYSWIM.

Interesting idea. Although they did attempt two applications, which
would be seem to me to be a lot to do to achieve that.

It would also make life easier when dishing out redundancy
notices, they were able to just say 'Not our fault, sorry'.

I'm not sure that most companies are hugely bothered about that.


For little real cost they have been shown as a company who were, at least on
the surface, probably wanting to employ more local staff (directly or
indirectly), are a successful company who are expanding and not at fault
when chucking making over 500 people redundant - all very much the win, win,
win situation...

It seems like a lot to do just to achieve that.

There seem to be a number of planning applications in the works for
various things including an office extension (although of course that
could be let out), so it isn't as though the area is being vacated.



Perhaps I'm just a cynical old sod ?! :~)


I guess we'll find out over the coming months.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , Grunff
writes

There are big problems with relocating an operation of this size,
recruiting and training a new workforce is a particularly big one.

Well Screwfix can now certainly confirm that......
--
Chris French, Leeds