Business

When the product bears your name


Older readers will recall the days when someone would say they were going to Hoover the carpets, or if they were going to write a letter (what’s a letter?) ask to borrow a Biro.  The trading names were so dominant that they became synonymous with an appliance or product.

Hoover

James Murray Spangler is credited with inventing the first upright vacuum cleaner in June 1908.  He patented it and made just a few machines a week. He gave one to his cousin Susan Hoover, who told her husband about it. William Hoover and his son bought the patent from Spangler and founded the Electric Suction Sweeper Company, becoming the Hoover Suction Sweeper Company in 1915.  Hoover gradually captured the mass market, with the slogan 'It Beats...as it Sweeps...as it Cleans'.

Biro

The first ballpoint pen came thirty years later, in 1938, and was invented by Ladislao José Biro, a Hungarian-Argentine inventor.   Today it is estimated that the average person has at least five ballpoint pens in their homes at all times, but then it was rather an elite product, costing over £100 in today’s money.

Frenchman Marcel Bich, believing in the potential for the ballpoint pen, adapted and improved it and in December 1950, launched his own ballpoint under a shortened and more memorable version of his own name, the BIC® brand, The quality and affordable price of the BIC® Cristal® ballpoint pen meant that it was quickly adopted by an increasing number of consumers.

As the company expanded it acquired Biro Swan in the UK, the Waterman Pen Company in the U.S and Tipp-ex correction products.  It also diversified into the production of one piece razors and lighters.

Some product names do not become generic terms but become associated with a designer, such as Dyson, or a well known user or personality.  In the music and entertainment worlds we have the Stradivarius violin built by the Italian Stradivari family and The Les Paul guitar.

Les Paul

This solid body electric guitar was first sold by the Gibson Guitar Corporation in 1952.  It was designed with input from, and endorsement by, guitarist Les Paul, who with his wife Mary sold millions of records in the 1950’s.  The Gibson Les Paul is considered by some to be the most famous guitar model after the Fender Stratocaster.  Les Paul didn’t just play guitar, he built a recording studio and was a pioneer of multitrack recording.

Marshall 

Another musical innovation was the world famous Marshall amplifier.  In 1960 Jim Marshall  opened a London music store with his wife Violet and son Terry.  The store quickly got a reputation as the place to be for young rock musicians and soon became one of the leading amplifier stores in the region.  However, these young guitarists were complaining of not getting the tone they wanted from the amplifiers available. So, Jim and his son Terry decided to build their own.  Marshall amplifiers became an international favourite with musicians.


Aynsley Lister

There’s a connection between Marshall amps and Leicestershire.  It seems that local musician Aynsley Lister also thought that there wasn’t a commercial amplifier that quite captured his musical style.  The nearest he could get was a very rare 1979 Marshall that he found in a music shop in Switzerland.  What he didn’t know was that at some time in the past the electronics had been crudely modified, and it now sounded like no other Marshall amplifier.

This started Aynsley on a five year quest for the sound he wanted, with Chris Fantana of Rift Amplification, working through many prototype stages.  The final product has been reviewed by Guitar.com who described it as “an inspiring and versatile boutique combo with tones that turn heads.”  The amplifier is now marketed commercially by Rift and is known as the Aynsley Lister Signature Amp.  

Rift Amplification is a small amplifier company based in Brackley.  All Rift products are handwired, one at a time, and this attention to detail is reflected in the price.  Just like the first ball point pens, potential owners need deep pockets.  But there is no shortage of customers with delivery periods of a minimum of 18 weeks, and in addition there’s a waiting list for the Aynsley Lister amps.

Aynsley will be touring Germany and Austria this month.  On December 10 2023 he will be performing at The Musician in Leicester.

Some sink, some swim - the tale of Leicester’s companies

Sept 2023  There are no certainties in the world of retailing, with even the biggest companies sometimes failing to weather hard times. Who would have forecast the demise of stores like Woolworths, Debenhams, Mothercare, Maplin, Toys ‘R’ Us, BHS, Comet, Focus DIY, or MFI? They were some of the 40 big names that got into trouble between 2008 and 2019. And that was before the woes of the pandemic.

Jessops

In 1935 Frank Jessop transformed his chemist shop into a photography shop, and under the leadership of Jessop's son, Alan, it quickly grew into a cut-price retailer of photographic equipment. By the 1970s, it had outgrown its premises and moved to a new site on Hinckley Road in Leicester, which was named as the largest photography store in the world by Guinness World Records. The firm had ceased being a family-run business in 1996 after Alan Jessop retired and was sold in a management buyout. Within ten years the company began to struggle to compete when other high street and internet competitors entered the market. Now most people have a camera in their pocket or handbag. In 2013 Jessops went into administration, but the brand of Jessops, and various assets, were acquired by PJ Investment Group. The number of stores has reduced from 315 to 8, with the emphasis now being online sales and services.


Wilkinsons 

The 1930’s also saw the birth of Wilkinsons Cash Stores in Leicester’s Charnwood Street. By 2022 a profit of £16 million(2016) had been turned into a loss of £32 million. Most shoppers will be familiar with the Wilko brand, and some will have bought their decorating materials there since they first launched their own brand paints in 1973. The company grew from a few shops in the 1930’s to around 400 across the country.

Thousands of employees now face an uncertain future as the administrators struggle to find new owners for all or part of the company. No doubt the reasons for the failure will be debated, with the rise of competitors such as B&M Stores and Home Bargains playing a part. Gordon Brown, Wilko's managing director from 1992 to 2007 told The Mail on Sunday that Wilko was a convenience store where you went to buy bits and pieces for your house for a low price. “They paid consultants who helped them bring about a new format for stores, but they were less aggressive on pricing and their approach on the shop floor,” adding that they lost “their successful model of low price, low cost.”

Dunelm

Some companies sink, but others swim, and despite turbulent times for Leicester’s traditional manufacturing industries and long established retailers, there have been new companies that have gone from strength to strength. It may seem as though the days when a business like Marks and Spencer could go from a market stall to one of the country’s best known stores may be over, but Dunelm, born on Leicester market, proves otherwise.

Bill Adderley and Jeany Adderley founded Dunelm in 1979. They traded in home textiles on Leiceter market and five years later opened the first store in Churchgate, Leicester, eventually growing to 177 stores by 2023 and employing almost as many as Wilko..

Dunelm opened a new head office and warehouse in Syston in 1999, and two years later acquired Bellbird producing custom-made curtains, blinds, and accessories, with the facility being known as Dunelm's Manufacturing Centre. By 2022 the company had gone from a market stall to a giant with an annual profit of £171 million.


Marks Electrical

No doubt Mark Smithson will be hoping for just as much success, and judging by his achievements so far this might not be a wild dream. He founded Marks Electrical in Leicester in 1987 reselling used products in a rented premises. Readers might remember the King Richards Road store. By 2000 he had bought a further 4 stores, launched a website in 2003, and moved to a 200,000 sq ft warehouse and showroom opposite the Beaumont Leys Shopping Centre a few years ago.

The last annual turnover published was over £97 million, with £5.16 million profit after tax. This may seem like small beer when compared to the turnover of Curry’s and AO, but both those companies last reported losses, not profits.

Over the last three years Marks Electrical share of the online major domestic appliances market has more than doubled to 4.7%, so there’s plenty of scope for expansion. Unlike many competitors the company has no satellite warehouses. “We cover 99 per cent of England – we go to where the people are and that’s one of the secrets of the business,” said Mark. “We can run all of that out of Leicester, and that’s another major benefit because we can have just one big warehouse in the middle of England and get to the vast majority of the population.”

Wilkinsons and Jessops built their success on their family roots, and these are evident at Dunelm and Marks Electrical as well.

“I love doing this. It’s fantastic. My sons work in it now as well – Jack is 29 and Oliver is 25 – so it’s got a real family feel to it. It’s great, and it just makes you work even harder in all honesty” said Mark. “They love doing what they’re doing at the moment, but whether they actually want to take over and run it is another thing. But I’ve got no plans to go anywhere.”

Shoppers have been hit by the cost of living hike and most have less to spend in real terms. This makes them more careful over what they spend and where they spend it. It isn’t all about price – they want both fair prices and good service. Wherever they shop lets hope the future continues to be bright for all new Leicester companies tasting success and the local jobs they create.

Inspector dismisses appeal against Borough Council decision

In November 2017 Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council refused to grant planning permission for a change of use of premises at 15 Ratby Road from retail shop to referral veterinary clinic. An appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal.

On 8 May the Planning Inspectorate announced their decision. For the reasons given in the decision document, and having regard to all other matters raised, the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Inspector's Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matter

2. Both the application and appeal forms name the appellant as ‘C/o Agent’ and the Council also uses ‘C/o Agent’ on the refusal notice. Therefore, I have exceptionally referred to the agent within the above details.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the vitality or viability of Groby Village Local Centre.

Reasons

3. The appeal site is a small retail (Class A1) unit in the centre of Groby on the Ratby Road and within the Groby Conservation Area. The shop is currently trading as a card and gift shop and sits between a jewellers and an estate agent/building society in the centre of the village. There are shops on the opposite side of the road.

4. The Council’s District, Local and Neighbourhood Centre Review (DLNCR) of January 2015 lists by name and use 21 units in Groby, which at the time comprised some 14 Class A1 and financial and professional services (Class A2) uses and various non-residential institutions (Class D1) and assembly and leisure uses (Class D2), namely a library, village hall and social club. During my visit I observed a good range of these uses, including a Co-Op supermarket, general store, newsagent, betting office, post office, pharmacy, florists, hairdressers, physio, several hot-food takeaways (Class A5), and The Stamford Arms public house (Class A4). Most of the units appeared occupied.

5. The appeal proposal seeks to change the use of 15 Ratby Road from a retail use (Class A1) to a veterinary referral clinic (Class D1). The appellant describes the intended new use in the submitted Design & Access Statement as one where animals are referred to when more specialised treatment is required, after visiting their usual vet. Animals would be seen by appointment only, with between 4 and 8 appointments per day, of which 50% of clients would be from the wider Leicester area. No animals would stay on the premises overnight and the opening hours would be 9.30am-5pm weekdays with an option for 9am-12 noon Saturday mornings, similar to a retail unit. Non-prescription veterinary products would be available for sale over the counter to local pet owners. There would be a maximum of 3 staff on duty at any one time.

6. Policy 7 of the Core Strategy (2009) (CS) lists Groby as one of the borough’s Key Rural Centres and which also relates to Leicester, identified for its provision of key services to the rural hinterland. To focus on maintaining existing services the Council will “resist the loss of local shops and facilities…unless it is demonstrated that the business or facilities can no longer operate in a viable manner’. Furthermore, Policy DM22 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016) (SADMP) states that the loss of A1 or A2 uses in local centres, such as Groby, “will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not detract from the vitality or viability of the Local Centre in terms of the mix and type of uses”. These policies generally accord with the advice in paragraph 85 the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as revised in February 2019, of having a hierarchy and network of centres and promoting their long-term vitality and viability.

7. The appellant has not presented any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the existing retail unit is no longer able to operate in a viable manner. A shop could close and become vacant at any time for a variety of reasons, but it does not follow that that retail use or any other retail uses are unviable. Nor does closure remove its retail Class A1 use or prevent another retail operator trading from the premises. Even with changing shopping habits and internet shopping, the appellant has not put forward any case that the proposed use is a response to market demand. Whilst there is no policy requirement per se to market the property for a prescribed period of time before seeking to change its use, the appellant has not provided any substantive evidence that the property was indeed marketed as an A1/A2 use (with associated estate agent particulars, press or internet advertising for example), apart from saying it was advertised from April 2018 and the vets was the only interested party.

8. The existing D1/D2 community uses in Groby help contribute to its diversity and to its selection as one the borough’s Key Rural Centres. But their presence does not necessarily justify another D1 use. The proposed use may bring some new footfall to Groby while customers, including those from outside the Leicester area, wait for their animals. Similarly, the ancillary sale of nonprescription veterinary products may provide some service to local pet-owners. However, I have not been persuaded that the footfall or patronage of the proposed veterinary referral clinic would be greater than that for the existing retail use (or any other retail use that could occupy the unit) and to demonstrate that the alternative use would not detract from the vitality or viability of the local centre. Furthermore, the appointment-only nature of the proposal would limit the opportunity to bring significant diversity to Groby and would be of limited use for local residents. Therefore, I have not been persuaded that the proposed change of use would not detract from the vitality and viability of Groby as a Local Centre in terms of its mix and type of uses.

9. I find that the loss of a retail unit, without demonstration that it can no longer operate viably, would undermine the Council’s efforts to keep a retail base in Groby, which is identified as a Key Local Centre. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 of the CS. Furthermore, I have not been persuaded that the proposed use would not harm the vitality and viability of Groby as a Local Centre. Hence the proposal would be contrary to Policy D22 of the SADMP 10. It appellant refers to the unit once being a dwelling and hence is an additional retail unit. That may well be the case, but that appears to have been some time ago and is not pertinent to the case before me. The appellant’s reference to permitted development changes from retail to residential is largely irrelevant in this instance as the appeal property is within a conservation area where such changes would not be permitted without the prior approval of the Council.

These matters are not determinative in the case.

Conclusion

11.For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

K Stephens  8 May 2019

Flint closed in March

Flint closed in March, four months later than forecast last October by the agent for the planning applicant for the property at 15 Ratby Road. 

Vet 's planning application was old news by November

You may have read a notice placed outside the Flint store on Ratby Road. It claimed that they had lost customers because  a Groby Spotlight article in November implied that that Flint “HAD or was closing immediately.” 

This is not the case. Nothing in the article suggested that the shop had either closed or would close immediately. Some of the questions that have been raised are answered below by the author of the article.

After the November article had been published it  emerged that the agent for the planning applicant told the Borough Council on October 25 that if approval wasn't given on November 7 the premises would "remain empty" until an appeal had been dealt with.

What was the article about?

A planning application for a change of use of 15 Ratby Road to a referral veterinary practice.

Was the change of use approved by the Borough Council?

No, but an appeal is being considered by the Planning Inspectorate.

Did you imply that Flint had closed or was closing immediately?

No. The article was about the change of use application. Nothing in the article suggested that the shop had either closed or would close immediately.

Then why did you mention Flint?

15 Ratby Road is hard to find as no street numbers are displayed. The words “currently occupied by Flint,” were inserted simply to avoid confusion with other properties and businesses.

Did the article say anything that wasn't already public knowledge?

Is the misleading notice still displayed outside the shop?

No. It had the potential to damage my reputation within the village community after 35 years of reporting on local affairs. Although I was advised it was defamatory, libellous, and could constitute criminal harassment I decided that the police have more important matters to pursue and so I asked for the sign to be taken down.

Why should I believe what you say?

Don't take my word for it. Read the article below and make your own mind up.

Can I ask you a question about this matter?

Of course. Just email contact@grobyonline.tk

Should I let this row stop me shopping at Flint?

No. If we want to retain a thriving retail community we need to support our local shops.

Veterinary clinic to replace Flint?

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council is considering a planning application for a change of use of 15 Ratby Road, currently occupied by Flint. The proposed use is a referral veterinary practice. The downstairs entrance would access the reception/waiting area, with the second room being subdivided into a consulting room and separate kennels area. There are no proposed changes to the external appearance of the property therefore there will be no changes in respect of the setting of the Conservation Area.

The Design Statement submitted with the application argues that, “given the location within the local centre and the modest amount of development proposed, the percentage impacts of the client traffic is considered minimal, meaning the impact of the development will have effectively ‘nil detriment’ and will not therefore adversely affect the current road network capacity.”

Groby Parish Council Planning Committee has no objections to the changes within the building and change of use, but has concerns about parking. “This committee believes that lack of any available parking, which is possibly the cause of the existing business closing, is a serious issue particularly as the new business will apparently have three staff, plus the customers. The committee notes that LCC Highways also has reservations on this issue.” The Committee goes on to suggest that perhaps the ground to the rear of the building might be utilised for parking if access via the next door property (Notts Building Society) could be obtained.

The proposal is for a referral clinic and not a first opinion clinic with a maximum of 3 staff on duty at any one time, and all clients will be seen by appointment only with between 4 and 8 clients per day. Approximately 50% of clients would be coming from the Leicester Area. If approved no animals will stay overnight and the opening hours will be 9.30am-5pm weekdays with an option for 9-12 am Saturday mornings. Non-prescription veterinary products will be available for sale over the counter to local pet owners.

The applicants feel that the clinic will attract clients to the village centre that ordinarily would not make use of the services and facilities and the addition of non-prescription veterinary products available for sale over the counter to local pet owners will be a further benefit. The Design Statement adds that “The proposed change of use will create a new use but also a complimentary one that will not detract from the mix or type of uses and by adding to the vitality and viability of the centre the application can be supported on this basis. There would be no harm to residential amenity or highway safety.”

The application (18/00915/FUL) can be viewed online on the Borough Council website.