14 replies to this topic

[mike]

I think that everyone in Burley agrees that the Co-op in its current state is an eyesore. As part freeholder of the shop can I inform you that for some time I've been asking the Co-op to do something about this. The Co-op had no right to alter the shop frontage as it did in 2002. This was against covenants in the lease and freehold. The shop should be painted in colours to match the flats above. Prior to 2002 the whole building looked very nice. I've been asking the Co-op to put the shop back to as it was. I want to improve the whole building, so aesthetically it adds to the village in a positive way: Correct colours, regularly repainted and even perhaps, flower baskets.

Taking legal action against the Co-op for breach of covenant is a possibility, but this should not be necessary. I've pointed out to the Co-op's head office in Manchester that if it had taken better care of its existing premises there might not be so much bad feeling and mistrust towards it in the village now.

Whether or not the Co-op remains in its current premises, I am determined to have the building put back to its original state. I hope you would all agree that it's ridiculous that I have to fight the Co-op to achieve this.

The truth about the wine chillers: Bradford Council insisted that they were switched off because they were causing noise disturbance in the flat above. The Council also insisted that no music was played in the shop for the same reason.

[Yorkshireman]

With regards to painting the store back to its original colour which was brown, did you know that our village actually has a colour scheme put forward about 10 years ago? This colour scheme was Actually green and the aim to make all shops/grocers etc the same colour. Therefore if it should be any colour it should be put to the present Co-op green to fit within our village

[spyglass]

mike, on 20 September 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I think that everyone in Burley agrees that the Co-op in its current state is an eyesore. As part freeholder of the shop can I inform you that for some time I've been asking the Co-op to do something about this. The Co-op had no right to alter the shop frontage as it did in 2002. This was against covenants in the lease and freehold. The shop should be painted in colours to match the flats above. Prior to 2002 the whole building looked very nice. I've been asking the Co-op to put the shop back to as it was. I want to improve the whole building, so aesthetically it adds to the village in a positive way: Correct colours, regularly repainted and even perhaps, flower baskets.

Taking legal action against the Co-op for breach of covenant is a possibility, but this should not be necessary. I've pointed out to the Co-op's head office in Manchester that if it had taken better care of its existing premises there might not be so much bad feeling and mistrust towards it in the village now.

Whether or not the Co-op remains in its current premises, I am determined to have the building put back to its original state. I hope you would all agree that it's ridiculous that I have to fight the Co-op to achieve this.

The truth about the wine chillers: Bradford Council insisted that they were switched off because they were causing noise disturbance in the flat above. The Council also insisted that no music was played in the shop for the same reason.

Somewhere on the forum I am sure somebody said the lease expired later this year. If the Co-op have breached their covenants presumably renewal of the lease could be refused. That would concentrate their minds!

All my posts are approved by the moderator before publication

[peekaboo]

mike, on 20 September 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I think that everyone in Burley agrees that the Co-op in its current state is an eyesore. As part freeholder of the shop can I inform you that for some time I've been asking the Co-op to do something about this. The Co-op had no right to alter the shop frontage as it did in 2002. This was against covenants in the lease and freehold. The shop should be painted in colours to match the flats above. Prior to 2002 the whole building looked very nice. I've been asking the Co-op to put the shop back to as it was. I want to improve the whole building, so aesthetically it adds to the village in a positive way: Correct colours, regularly repainted and even perhaps, flower baskets.

Taking legal action against the Co-op for breach of covenant is a possibility, but this should not be necessary. I've pointed out to the Co-op's head office in Manchester that if it had taken better care of its existing premises there might not be so much bad feeling and mistrust towards it in the village now.

Whether or not the Co-op remains in its current premises, I am determined to have the building put back to its original state. I hope you would all agree that it's ridiculous that I have to fight the Co-op to achieve this.

The truth about the wine chillers: Bradford Council insisted that they were switched off because they were causing noise disturbance in the flat above. The Council also insisted that no music was played in the shop for the same reason.

the truth about the wine chillers! someone complained they made a noise and was damaging their health hence tests where done to check levels of noise the chilled fridges made. Not enough to damage health but the coop took action to remove them, so the person in question was not suffering from any stress caused. thankyou. Facts.Music was also a problem so again coop removed speakers where this persons flat was above, no problems from other flats!! Oh and i stress i do not work for the coop but my job has me investigate matters.Bradford council and the coop have worked together on all issues raised but once it is sorted another problem arises, personnaly i think this is tit for tat!!What i dont understand is the gentlman in question is only in his 40s and lives alone, the coop was there before he was so he knew he was above a shop. why is it please tell me that everything he has asked has been done yet still he complains causing bad feelings including having complaints with jason and pam!!not just the coop.

[peekaboo]

peekaboo, on 21 September 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

the truth about the wine chillers! someone complained they made a noise and was damaging their health hence tests where done to check levels of noise the chilled fridges made. Not enough to damage health but the coop took action to remove them, so the person in question was not suffering from any stress caused. thankyou. Facts.Music was also a problem so again coop removed speakers where this persons flat was above, no problems from other flats!! Oh and i stress i do not work for the coop but my job has me investigate matters.Bradford council and the coop have worked together on all issues raised but once it is sorted another problem arises, personnaly i think this is tit for tat!!What i dont understand is the gentlman in question seems to be confused. the coop was there before he was so he knew he was above a shop i think he needs to move on with his life. why is it please tell me that everything he has asked off has been done, even though it wasnt the council who told them to do it!The coop compromised and did this and now he wants them to bow to him. yet still he complains causing bad feelings including having complaints with jason and pam!!not just the coop.i have seen him video staff which makes me look like im involved but i have to say this is a matter for the police.If he was videoing my family and me i would go to the police for harrassment,Advice from my sister who is a barrister and i would tell the coop to do this. You need permission to video and record people now. the law is there to protect people.He wants it all his own way or no way at all, no compromise on his part i feel.

[PhilD]

surely if the root cause of much of this aggro is one individual with "issues" then there must be people out there with big enough brains and/or deep enough pockets to sort him out?

the reality is that the coop will move on from their existing store - whether that is good or bad is probably not worth debating now

I for one won't buy 2nd rate supermarket meat when there is excellent fresh butcher's meat available, and hopefully anyone else with half a brain or a taste bud would reach the same decision

I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that the coop have been given any sort of preferential "inside track" on the library deal - which would not be right - but then again what is the true position here? - comments councillor (s) ?????

other than that, let's all move on & find an acceptable solution for our village, which includes the use of the (about to be vacated) coop - and let's take more than one person's views into consideration when doing so.

[catbazza]

PhilD, on 21 September 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

surely if the root cause of much of this aggro is one individual with "issues" then there must be people out there with big enough brains and/or deep enough pockets to sort him out?

the reality is that the coop will move on from their existing store - whether that is good or bad is probably not worth debating now

other than that, let's all move on & find an acceptable solution for our village, which includes the use of the (about to be vacated) coop - and let's take more than one person's views into consideration when doing so.

This forum is open to members to voice their opinions freely as long as long they don't overstep the rules of the forum to which all members are bound, be it the good or bad.

I do agree with "Lets move on" & discuss what is to become of the property when the Co-op vacate & they will vacate because plans have been submitted to BMDC, so on that presumption I will open a new topic for this on the forum.

[mike]

peekaboo, on 21 September 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

the truth about the wine chillers! someone complained they made a noise and was damaging their health hence tests where done to check levels of noise the chilled fridges made. Not enough to damage health but the coop took action to remove them, so the person in question was not suffering from any stress caused. thankyou. Facts.Music was also a problem so again coop removed speakers where this persons flat was above, no problems from other flats!! Oh and i stress i do not work for the coop but my job has me investigate matters.Bradford council and the coop have worked together on all issues raised but once it is sorted another problem arises, personnaly i think this is tit for tat!!What i dont understand is the gentlman in question is only in his 40s and lives alone, the coop was there before he was so he knew he was above a shop. why is it please tell me that everything he has asked has been done yet still he complains causing bad feelings including having complaints with jason and pam!!not just the coop.

The comments you've made are not true. As freeholder of the shop I know exactly what has gone on over the years.

The wine chillers and music caused the occupant living above the shop considerable stress. The Council and (eventually) the Co-op management agreed and so both were turned off. It's not the occupant's fault that the Co-op has not invested in new quieter chillers. Also, the occupant has lived there since Leeson's owned the shop. Leeson's were always considerate and there was no disturbance to the flats above. The Co-op have been terrible neighbours. The occupant of the flat simply wants a quiet life and the Co-op to abide by the terms of its lease. If the Co-op didn't like those terms, then it should not have taken over the shop in the first place. A shop has to have consideration for people living above it or near it.

The occupant has asked the Co-op to do several things in accordance with the terms of the lease and the Co-op has only done the things that the Council have asked it to do regarding reduction of noise disturbance. Several issues remain unresolved. These include refurbishing the shop. The occupant is in agreement with everyone in the village about the state of the shop and he's the only person that's tried to do something about it. Peter Ryan promised a refurbishment of the shop back in January 2009. We all now know why this hasn't happened.

The occupant wants a modern, accessible shop that is pleasant to visit and also to work in. He has sympathy for the staff that work in it.

[StopTheRot]

The application is made but this does not automatically mean any approval - due process WILL be implemented. Plenty of good reasons to object, so make them known quickly.

[catbazza]

StopTheRot, on 22 September 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

The application is made but this does not automatically mean any approval

You wanna bet.

[peekaboo]

mike, on 22 September 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

The comments you've made are not true. As freeholder of the shop I know exactly what has gone on over the years.

The wine chillers and music caused the occupant living above the shop considerable stress. The Council and (eventually) the Co-op management agreed and so both were turned off. It's not the occupant's fault that the Co-op has not invested in new quieter chillers. Also, the occupant has lived there since Leeson's owned the shop. Leeson's were always considerate and there was no disturbance to the flats above. The Co-op have been terrible neighbours. The occupant of the flat simply wants a quiet life and the Co-op to abide by the terms of its lease. If the Co-op didn't like those terms, then it should not have taken over the shop in the first place. A shop has to have consideration for people living above it or near it.

The occupant has asked the Co-op to do several things in accordance with the terms of the lease and the Co-op has only done the things that the Council have asked it to do regarding reduction of noise disturbance. Several issues remain unresolved. These include refurbishing the shop. The occupant is in agreement with everyone in the village about the state of the shop and he's the only person that's tried to do something about it. Peter Ryan promised a refurbishment of the shop back in January 2009. We all now know why this hasn't happened.

The occupant wants a modern, accessible shop that is pleasant to visit and also to work in. He has sympathy for the staff that work in it.

thankyou for this comment and yes i agree the gentleman who lives there needs to be happy and content in his own home, this i agree firmley, i do know that the council did not inforce the coop to do anything as the noise was not sufficient to cause health issues ect, but because the coop have a heart they made the compromise themselves to help this gentleman, firstly turning off the fridges at 5pm so no noise upstairs. Obviously for reasons i cannot say, that was not good enough so the fridges where taken out! The coop not council has you can quite freely find this to be the truth. The council are reading this along with many others, Like i said i do not work for the coop but i do know what has happened in the past.This gentleman has had reasonable adjustments, to make it easier on him, causing customers to make complaints as the bread, milk, and newspapers had to be delivered much later.I could go on and on but it wouldnt be fair on him.I agree with some of his complaints as i would hate to live above a shop... but to be fair... the coop have done all they could, yet it seems this gentleman doesnt seem happy ever.Its a shame as i dont know him personnaly and i wish him luck with his future. If the coop stay where they are i think this issue will never go away, if the coop go what will this gentleman do with new owners???ohhh and one more thing, this gentleman complains to poor pam and jason too and their staff!! so it makes me wonder what and why this happens, its not just the coop.He seems to have upset alot of people....Well like i said i truly wish him luck for the future ahead, lets see what happens next.

[mike]

peekaboo, on 22 September 2011 - 04:49 PM, said:

thankyou for this comment and yes i agree the gentleman who lives there needs to be happy and content in his own home, this i agree firmley, i do know that the council did not inforce the coop to do anything as the noise was not sufficient to cause health issues ect, but because the coop have a heart they made the compromise themselves to help this gentleman, firstly turning off the fridges at 5pm so no noise upstairs. Obviously for reasons i cannot say, that was not good enough so the fridges where taken out! The coop not council has you can quite freely find this to be the truth. The council are reading this along with many others, Like i said i do not work for the coop but i do know what has happened in the past.This gentleman has had reasonable adjustments, to make it easier on him, causing customers to make complaints as the bread, milk, and newspapers had to be delivered much later.I could go on and on but it wouldnt be fair on him.I agree with some of his complaints as i would hate to live above a shop... but to be fair... the coop have done all they could, yet it seems this gentleman doesnt seem happy ever.Its a shame as i dont know him personnaly and i wish him luck with his future. If the coop stay where they are i think this issue will never go away, if the coop go what will this gentleman do with new owners???ohhh and one more thing, this gentleman complains to poor pam and jason too and their staff!! so it makes me wonder what and why this happens, its not just the coop.He seems to have upset alot of people....Well like i said i truly wish him luck for the future ahead, lets see what happens next.

Again, your comments are not true. The occupant in the flat above the Co-op complained for nearly a year about the noise from the wine chillers and music. He told managers that the noise disturbance caused great stress and that in doing so the Co-op was in breach of covenant. Co-op managers told him that they would not turn them off. Food deliveries also took place from 5am, 7 days per week - large trucks would park underneath his bedroom window and bang about for ages. Life for the occupant became impossible. He asked Bradford Council for help and it set up a meeting between himself, its environmental health officer and 3 of the Co-op's managers. At this meeting in January 2009 everyone agreed that the noise disturbance from the chillers and music was unacceptable. The environmental health officer also said that food deliveries had to be made at a more reasonable time. They are now made from 7am. On a weekend, newspaper deliveries were made during the night and these were stopped, again, only at the behest of the environmental health officer. There's still an issue regarding 5am newspaper deliveries. These could be made quietly but are not. The environmental health officer has taken sound recordings and based on these has tried to impose changes to the way the papers are delivered.

The occupant has made several complaints about the Co-op and all have been reasonable. He's done something about the cardboard boxes that used to be dropped and left on the pavement and road outside the shop. He's done something about the posters that used to come lose from the windows and blow down the road. As much as anyone else, he wants to live in a nice village with a nice shop. He has pressed the Co-op to clean up its act. Of course, this has created some friction between himself and some of the shop's staff - but all he has ever asked is that they keep noise disturbance to a minimum and pick up their rubbish.

He has also pressed for a full refurbishment of the shop and has been promised one since January 2009. This hasn't happened because the Co-op has had its eye on 2 other properties - the carpet shop and the library. The occupant of the flat has been treated very badly by the Co-op and has been fobbed-off and mis-led for nealy 3 years regarding the shop's refurbishment. Working as a teacher is almost impossible when he's woken up at 5am 7 days a week. He doesn't even get any peace on a weekend.

His relationship with Jason and Pam has always been a good one. There was a small disagreement regarding a leaking roof but this was resolved. The only complaints he's made to Costcutter staff are over them using his back yard to have a cigarette and dropping their butts (perhaps I should re-phrase that!).

Mr/Mrs Peekaboo - I suspect you get your information from the shop's staff. This information is not accurate and seems to be rather biased. Please note, that comments made on a forum can be acted against legally. So please stop posting innaccurate and offensive comments. The occupant of the flat is a reasonable fellow and has the interests of the whole village at heart. He has grounds to terminate the Co-op's lease but has not done so because he doesn't want staff to lose their jobs. He also realises that many villagers rely on the shop. He's tried to resolve issues in the correct manner but the Co-op's management have not reciprocated. For example, the shop's lease states that disputes should be settled by the appointment of an independent surveyor appointed by the Leeds Law Society. The Co-op have refused to agree to this. This alone, is grounds for forfeiture of lease.

[peekaboo]

mike, on 23 September 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

Again, your comments are not true. The occupant in the flat above the Co-op complained for nearly a year about the noise from the wine chillers and music. He told managers that the noise disturbance caused great stress and that in doing so the Co-op was in breach of covenant. Co-op managers told him that they would not turn them off. Food deliveries also took place from 5am, 7 days per week - large trucks would park underneath his bedroom window and bang about for ages. Life for the occupant became impossible. He asked Bradford Council for help and it set up a meeting between himself, its environmental health officer and 3 of the Co-op's managers. At this meeting in January 2009 everyone agreed that the noise disturbance from the chillers and music was unacceptable. The environmental health officer also said that food deliveries had to be made at a more reasonable time. They are now made from 7am. On a weekend, newspaper deliveries were made during the night and these were stopped, again, only at the behest of the environmental health officer. There's still an issue regarding 5am newspaper deliveries. These could be made quietly but are not. The environmental health officer has taken sound recordings and based on these has tried to impose changes to the way the papers are delivered.

The occupant has made several complaints about the Co-op and all have been reasonable. He's done something about the cardboard boxes that used to be dropped and left on the pavement and road outside the shop. He's done something about the posters that used to come lose from the windows and blow down the road. As much as anyone else, he wants to live in a nice village with a nice shop. He has pressed the Co-op to clean up its act. Of course, this has created some friction between himself and some of the shop's staff - but all he has ever asked is that they keep noise disturbance to a minimum and pick up their rubbish.

He has also pressed for a full refurbishment of the shop and has been promised one since January 2009. This hasn't happened because the Co-op has had its eye on 2 other properties - the carpet shop and the library. The occupant of the flat has been treated very badly by the Co-op and has been fobbed-off and mis-led for nealy 3 years regarding the shop's refurbishment. Working as a teacher is almost impossible when he's woken up at 5am 7 days a week. He doesn't even get any peace on a weekend.

His relationship with Jason and Pam has always been a good one. There was a small disagreement regarding a leaking roof but this was resolved. The only complaints he's made to Costcutter staff are over them using his back yard to have a cigarette and dropping their butts (perhaps I should re-phrase that!).

Mr/Mrs Peekaboo - I suspect you get your information from the shop's staff. This information is not accurate and seems to be rather biased. Please note, that comments made on a forum can be acted against legally. So please stop posting innaccurate and offensive comments. The occupant of the flat is a reasonable fellow and has the interests of the whole village at heart. He has grounds to terminate the Co-op's lease but has not done so because he doesn't want staff to lose their jobs. He also realises that many villagers rely on the shop. He's tried to resolve issues in the correct manner but the Co-op's management have not reciprocated. For example, the shop's lease states that disputes should be settled by the appointment of an independent surveyor appointed by the Leeds Law Society. The Co-op have refused to agree to this. This alone, is grounds for forfeiture of lease.

this gentleman has issues oviously, and i will leave it at that. I feel people will know the rights and wrongs and like i said i wish him luck for his future. I do say to you i dont get information from the staff, my information comes from the job i do. It seems inappropriate to tell you where i get my information from, but it is not from the coop or staff. The information was not biased in any way like i said i would hate to live above a shop and i wish the gentleman luck. please also note i do work within the legal system, this forum is for freedom of speach to all and i feel a threat in your last post....A forum is discussion, assembly, meeting place for public to air views.

[ex-user]

When in a hole
stop digging!

When I said something like;
"obviously confidentiality"
"isn't the Coop's strong point"

Peeky said

"I heard it whilst queuing"

Now we are led to believe
confidentiality isn't Peeky's strong point
he/she learn't all this info
at work
And they're in the law business!

[peekaboo]

greenhowleadman, on 23 September 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

When in a hole
stop digging!

When I said something like;
"obviously confidentiality"
"isn't the Coop's strong point"

Peeky said

"I heard it whilst queuing"

Now we are led to believe
confidentiality isn't Peeky's strong point
he/she learn't all this info
at work
And they're in the law business!

legal system, i thought you where intellectual, and i stress everyone on here has said alot regarding hear say! yet i dont see anyone been stopped, my information is not all from work, as i said in previous posts i know alot of burley people old and young. Ear to the floor, eye on the ball! I hope you get your milk and i wish the coop good luck in the future, i am away again with work and by the time im back i hope alot of new people are on here airing their views.Although this site is very insupportable... very onesided with false statements. I Think i may get under peoples skin alittle on here but i was hoping for a good debate and open issues,no intention on my part to cause offence but some people are just blind to the truth.i have to say some of the old users on here need to get out more as all they do is moan, and like i said very one sided, which doesnt make for a debate!! so bye for now and good luck to new beginnings.

Edited by peekaboo, 25 September 2011 - 10:07 AM.