I heartily concur with every word of Stephen Flinders letter (Ilkeston Advertiser Thursday July 12). Do the planning authority think that the 39 proposed houses will provide the trade to support this proposed supermarket? It can only draw trade away from present shops and stores within the region. We are constantly told with every planning application of this nature that it will enhance the area in question and that it will create employment. Did the fabulous design of Ilkeston Tesco enhance the area? Did the bypass through the town centre enhance the area? The population of Ilkeston will only have the same amount of money in their pockets and they can only spend it once, so will the planners therefore please tell us just where the trade and jobs will come from to support this proposed new supermarket. Ilkeston already has a desperate problem of empty shops and stores and various proposals have been put forward over the last year or two to regenerate the town centre such as the Mary Portas scheme and the old Woolworths plans amongst others. Just how do they propose to turn round a rapidly deteriorating ghost town centre whilst allowing another superstore on it’s outer fringes, it’s like trying to push two opposing magnets together. As Stephen Flinders stated, we need the new housing to occupy the whole site to bring in more shoppers to hopefully help to increase trade within the existing town centre and lead to a regeneration. For many years now our so called ‘planners’ have worked against the interests of Ilkeston as a whole, the bypass, the Rutland recreation fiasco, the Albion precinct and adjacent sports centre white elephant, the town centre car parking charges not to mention the repeated attacks upon the market traders. The proposal for this new supermarket must be kicked into touch if we are to save our town from further damage, but I don’t hold out much hope for developers have very deep pockets and common sense has never been the greatest attribute of planning authorities.