Friday, 30 December 2011

Tesco Betrayal!

Anger rises as Tesco keeps its £140,000!

Tesco don't want to pay for anything! They're so wealthy yet too tight to pay for a proper plan using proper retail access from a proper retail road. They're too mean to pay for the Ransom Strip yet have apparently been led to believe that they would get permission for their rotten plan even though it flouts both Local and National Planning Policies. And now they're withdrawing the 'sweetener' that they promised, which was to 'offset' the likely losses to local retailing in Street and Glastonbury.
Will local councillors and planning committees tolerate this betrayal and still give permission for the Tesco store, even though doing so would be against Planning Policies and therefore a Misuse of Public Office and Public Funds?

Comments invited!

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

FYI - Occupation

A copy of the letter given to the Occupy group at the Avalon Plastics building and site.

More attention could be given to the issue of the bad Tesco plan that breaches both Local and National Planning Policies by driving retail traffic through an industrial site and along roads not built for such traffic (Beckery Road and Dyehouse Lane), by not having local pedestrian and bicycle access on the nearest boundary along Wirral park Road, by increasing traffic distance to travel to access the entrance to the site and thereby massively increasing emissions and wear to roads which in turn increases congestion, and by the refusal of Tesco to purchase the Ransom Strip along the front of the potential retail access of Wirral Park Road which has forced the various breaches of the Planning Policies and led to the proposed store having its back to Glastonbury.
The suggested creation of 225 new jobs, by approving the proposed Tesco store, is in stark contradiction to the Tescopoly site statistic which says that on average 276 jobs are lost in each community where a Tesco/other supermarket 'superstore' is built and operating. The jobs created may mostly be part-time and unskilled (generally agreed statistics), signifying a poor gain if any. The suggestion of such an increase in jobs would appear to be sufficiently in doubt, even taking into account a smaller store and less impact than a 'superstore', bringing further question about the only potential benefit for the area.
These issues raise other questions about the planning process that has led to the local planning committee and MDC planning office giving approval to the proposed Tesco supermarket. How can local planners approve a plan that is in breach of policies and has little or no gain, and may be seriously detrimental, for the the town and area? Who really owns the Ransom Strip and is it really so expensive that Tesco can't afford it? Why do the local and area planners not insist on proper retail access via Wirral Park Road in accordance with their own official policies? Is Public Office being 'misused' in any way? Are public funds being spent inappropriately? Who are the local and MDC Councillors who are approving the Tesco plan? Are other persons involved who are not in public office and therefore have no right to administer public funds? To what degree have local businesses and producers been consulted and included in wider opportunities for locals to make informed objection to the very bad plan?
Some folk will be asking such questions and may want to discuss the issues more widely!

The invitation to view the previous posts (going back about 2 years!) is extended to folk wanting more information on wider issues.
Comments invited!

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

Monday, 21 November 2011

Tesco 'struggling'?

Tesco 'struggling' and needing rescue from the likes of Buffet?? That's tough! LOL!

Perhaps they've grown too much and should stop!
Let's all send them that message by objecting to ANY form of Tesco being built in Glastonbury or anywhere else!

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Criticism of Tesco

Wikipedia shows that all is not well in the 'state of Tesco'!

Why would anyone in public office, in receipt of public funds, want to misuse that public office and recommend acceptance of a company as well known for corruption and litigation as Tesco?


Labour leader concerned about the "...Tesco-isation of Britain's high streets..."

The results of using cheap labour...

...can be detrimental!

Every little hurts at Tesco!

Saturday, 17 September 2011

Tesco cheap labour scheme

So this is the type of cheap labour jobs that Glastonbury T.C and Mendip D.C want for locals? Is this why G.T.C and M.D.C are flouting both local and national planning laws?

35 hours a week for £50 on top of benefits? For a 'internship' learning how to stack shelves? And maybe get a full time job at the end? It's little more than slave labour!

Surely GTC and MDC would be better investing in local jobs with local companies, local business units, companies that treat workers fairly and pay proper wages? But what is proposed instead, is useless cheap labour jobs with a well-known multinational company that on average causes 276 local job losses for every large supermarket it builds (statistic courtesy of Tescopoly) and removes money from local circulation. And the same company is famous for bringing imported foods which replace local producers and local markets!

The only explanation for allowing such an abusive and thieving multinational into local communities around Britain is the level of payoffs that Tesco gives to the local councils.
With £6m given by Tesco to Somerset C.C as an 'incentive' for the new Bridgewater super store, and with S.C.C owned by SouthwestOne Ltd (IBM), it is easy to see who is really profiting from the introduction of Tesco stores into local areas. With the extensive cutbacks in public services being implemented across Somerset, it certainly is NOT the people of Somerset who are being served by such large payoffs!

All comments welcome...

Thursday, 15 September 2011

Support locally...

With the extreme pressure on the British economy as a result of bank bailouts and support for unlawful wars, it really is time to support local production and local independent retailers.

Local resilience means that as much as possible it "Must Be British"!

Sunday, 4 September 2011

Wednesday, 31 August 2011


The more the message gets out the better. When folk see each other taking a stand against corporate theft of local revenue and jobs, and the threats against local producers and markets, then even more will act!

Please feel free to download/save as any of the images/posters from this site, print them and put them in your windows (car, house, shop, etc), and on noticeboards!

Join this blog site as a follower to post responses yourself and give your email address to get notified of new posts.

Saturday, 27 August 2011

Questions, questions...

The questions in some peoples' minds will be as to what has changed so much that Tesco are being allowed to resubmit their truly stupid plan?
Why are Tesco resubmitting a bad plan during a holiday period?
Could it be that the new personnel involved (in GTC and MDC) are going against their own guidelines?
If 'public servants' are going against their own guidelines and therefore against their 'conditions of office' (oaths), can they be held to account for Misuse of Public Office and Misappropriation of Public Funds?
Why are Glastonbury councillors in favour of a corporation taking revenue out of the area and causing job losses in real terms?
With Tesco's record of 'incentives' and large payoffs to local councils, how much have MDC and GTC been offered?
Why is the issue of the Tesco's refusal to pay for the Ransom Strip along Wirral Park Road and retail access via a retail access route, still not being addressed?
What do local councillors know about the Ransom Strip and its conditions, who owns the Ransom Strip, and what are they asking Tesco to pay for crossing it?
How will small roads into an industrial estate cope with a volume of traffic that they were not designed for?
Why will local pedestrians have to walk all the way to the crossing on Street Road and then come back along Beckery New Road in order to get to the site, when the logical entrance to the site is via Wirral Park Road?
Why is Dyehouse Lane even being considered as a viable access route to the proposed Tesco carpark and entrance?
Is the boss of Avalon Plastics still pushing for Tesco plan acceptance because he faces some form of liability should Tesco not be granted permission to build its badly designed store?
Are there other individuals in the town and council with vested interests in the Tesco plan?
Why are local councillors, planning committee and planning officers, being allowed to make a mockery of carefully considered and laid out planning policies at local and national levels?
Why are local councillors, planning committee and planning officers being allowed to ride roughshod over significant local opinion and local business interest, at a time when the economy has been virtually ruined by criminally acting corporations and when the resilience of local economy is vital to protect/enhance?
How many of the more recently elected councillors (Green, independent, LibDem, Labour), who outnumber the Tories on GTC, actually in favour of the proposal? If so who are they?

Other folk may have other questions. Feel free to post them!

Thursday, 25 August 2011

Comment: It's the same bad plan!

Tesco is at it again, now with their new 'sympathetic' Planning Officer!
Whatever the new application, the plan is still against National and Local Planning Policies, directly because it forces retail traffic through an industrial estate and along roads that cannot accommodate two lanes of traffic.
The only reason for any change in Mendip D.C planning is because there are private for profit corporations operating local councils and they have private interest (are receiving substantial 'incentives') for allowing Tesco into communities whether there is any benefit or not. This sad story smacks of corruption at the highest level!
As already presented very clearly, Tesco offers no jobs of any worth, costs local jobs in far greater numbers than the few part time jobs it creates, impacts very negatively on local economies (just look at Shepton Mallet!), buys up land around the country to speculate on the destruction of local communities and retail outlets, and repeatedly attempts to flout planning policies!
The bottom line that all interested folk need to know is that the Tesco plan is NOT lawful. It is against our own local guidelines!
If implemented it WILL impact negatively on the local economy, on traffic and roads, on local resilience and sustainability. The plan is unworkable!
Yet again Tesco is using a bad plan to save paying the cost of the Ransom Strip on Wirral Park Road. It will have its back to Glastonbury with no proper access for local people!
Why anyone is supporting this flouting of planning laws is incredible!

Just posted message

From Glastonbury Noticeboard:

The application by Tesco to establish a store on the former Avalon Plastics site (near B and Q) is going to be heard by the Planning Board on 31 August (next Wednesday) at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Shepton Mallet.

Unfortunately the new Planning Officer at Mendip, Les Kimberley, is approving this application. There is a maximum of three minutes for all opposing to speak against this and Nick Cottle says he will speak, which seems very appropriate as he is on the Council, was formerly Mayor etc. But it would obviously be great if some of those who are opposed could be present either outside - as a protest group - or in the Chamber. Sadly I can't be there but if anyone is interested in organising something please do so!!

Philippa Glasson

Saturday, 2 April 2011

Interesting letters...

The 2 newly posted letters, addressed to Edward Baker at Mendip D.C Planning Dept, and cc. to Canynge Bicknell, Peter Evans Partnership, and Beachcroft LLP, are just 2 of a number of letters of objection to the current Tesco application. These 2 are probably the most interesting and informative.

As viewers of the letters will quickly realise, MDC and its Planning Dept have known since February that there is no question whatsoever that the Tesco application goes against national and local planning policies and therefore, should permission be granted by MDC, the issue will be 'called-in' again by the Secretary of State, directly because it raises "issues of more than local concern".

Some viewers may be asking questions as to why it is that some of Glastonbury's local councillors are still attempting to fool the local population by supporting the Tesco application and pretending that they have any real say in the matter! Surely enough time and money has been wasted on this issue? Why is is that some local politicians are attempting to foist a plan upon Glastonbury that so clearly goes against national and local planning policies? Why are local councillors giving any support to such a plan when it is a cynical attempt to avoid clearly laid out policies designed to protect roads and buildings, secure proper access for local people, and ensure that industrial and retail areas are kept distinct? When Tesco is clearly trying to avoid using Wirral Park Road retail access, and the cost of crossing the 'Ransom Strip' along the front of the site, thereby flouting local planning policies, why do councillors support the application at all?
As is obvious, Tesco altered their plan (making the building a bit smaller) and reapplied because they have the impression that their plan will be accepted by MDC. Some folk may want to ask 'who' gave Tesco that impression and why!

Surely, at a time of pending local elections, local representatives need to be asked such questions, so that we can ensure that any elected official is indeed acting in the local interest?

An even more interesting letter!

Interesting letter

Saturday, 12 March 2011

Tesco is applying pressure!

It seems that Tesco will now be embarking on high pressure lobbying of Glastonbury ward councillors and the Mendip Planning Committee to try and force through their development proposals.
What they wish to achieve is actually contrary to planning rules, as they wish to get their proposals waved through on the nod as a modification of their existing plan, when the rules clearly state that they must make a new submission which would be rejected. They must be stopped from doing this.
If they are allowed to get away with it the consequences will be catastrophic for Glastonbury. We will be stuck with an unworkable road system (as clearly explained in previous posts and on GWells), and a Tesco store with subsidiary Tesco outlets all orientated towards Street and away from Glastonbury with all the concomitant negative impacts to Glastonbury town centre that that would engender !
We already know that that site will be developed as a retail outlet and that the development may even be a Tesco; if it is, let's make sure that we can at least retain the ability to determine the level of the impact that such a project will have on us !
We need to make it absolutely clear to our councillors that they will never be returned again if they betray the town and people they represent by selling out to Tesco. The only argument that they had for doing so was that a failure to concede to Tesco would see Butler and Avalon Plastics quit Glastonbury; that is no longer the case as he has already received his £6,750,000 pay off.....a full £2,500,000 more than the original assessment of the site's worth!

So yet again Tesco is revealed as a bunch of cheats who prefer to shirk the planning process and official local and national planning policies, by imposing retail access through an industrial estate and along roads that cannot take retail traffic (Beckery Rd/Beckery New Road and Dyehouse Lane), and all because they are too mean to pay for access via Wirral Park Road and cross the current ransom strip.

Shame on the councillors who support Tesco! They are a disgrace to their oath of office and to their claim to be appointed to administer public funds in any way whatsoever!

Time is now crucial ! The end game will be played out between now and early April. If we make enough effort we can win this!

One last push !

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

More time to send comments!

Turns out that there is until the 10th February to send in comments and objections. There was some confusion about the deadline as the result of dates given on the Mendip D.C website.

Please see the previous message for details.

Posted on Glastonbury Noticeboard

Tesco application - we still have time to object!

I spoke to Ed Baker, the Mendip planning officer yesterday afternoon (Monday). He said the recent (resubmitted) application from Tesco to build its superstore on the site of Avalon Plastics had only technically been received on Thursday January 20th. Once again, there seems to be a lot of confusion about this application (not surprisingly) , but according to him we now have until the 10th February to submit letters opposing the new store (ie three weeks from the submission of the application) .

So... please write to or quoting ref. 2010/2821 - the planning application no.

There is a sample letter on the Tesconbury blogsite. If you want extra information, the document to look at is on the national Department of Communities website. Their planning document PPS4 sets out new planning guidelines ( a couple of years old) which local councils are supposed to follow.

Would anyone like to help organise a petition? This has been done in other towns facing the same (repeated) challenge.


Philippa Glasson

Monday, 17 January 2011

If not letter then by email?

If you can't send your objection and comments by letter in time today, try emailing them at:

You can send the same letter or adapted to your own points and comments, as soon as is possible, preferably by close of business on the Tuesday 19th (tomorrow!).

Friday, 14 January 2011

Draft letter to Mendip D.C, to be received by 19th Jan.

Send your letter to M.D.C at the address given on the website (as posted a few days ago).
After all, what was condemned a few months ago cannot rationally be condoned now, however prettied-up it may be. So feel free to add your own comments according to your views.
Please edit the following text as you see fit:-

Your Address
Your Town
Your Postcode

Mendip District Council

Cannards Grave Road

Shepton Mallet



18th January 2011

Re: Planning Application 2010/2821

To Whom It May Concern:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I/we wish to register my/our objection to Tesco's planning application for a retail outlet in Glastonbury on the former Avalon Plastics site for the following reasons:-

1. The concerns raised previously with regard to the impact on Glastonbury of access to the proposed Tesco development from Beckery New Road have not been properly addressed and therefore contradict government and local planning requirements for a development of this nature.
The previous government unequivocally told Tesco that if they wished to gain permission to develop the site they had to reduce the building area (which they did), and to address the issue of access. To do this they would need to reconsider the Beckery New Road option and conform to the requirement to make the store access as congestion free, un-polluting, and convenient to Glastonbury locals as possible, and to encourage out of town users to go on to visit Glastonbury town centre and other stores (which they haven't ). The only way this could be effectively achieved is through adopting the Wirral Park Road access.

2. This proposed access would effectively leave the largest retail development in Glastonbury with it's main approach orientating out of town Tesco customers away from Glastonbury town centre and towards that of Street, with obviously detrimental consequences for Glastonbury's other retail traders, cafeterias, public houses and restaurants, (in clear contradiction of the planning requirements for such a development, which could only be permissible if it were to have a positive economic effect on the town in which it were to be situated, and therefore on it's existing local commercial outlets).
Could this curious orientation possibly have anything to do with the fact that Street has a Tesco metro outlet, which will remain open despite the construction of the larger store barely a mile away in Glastonbury. It seems to rather smack of 'what Tesco wins on the roundabout it also wins on the swings', and demonstrates a singularly cavalier attitude towards the townspeople and traders of Glastonbury!

3. Proposed secondary access to the Tesco site via Dye House Lane is irrational and unsustainable in terms of traffic flow. Quite apart from the potential for congestion, there is also the issue of the unnecessary addition to the carbon footprint that such a convoluted route would engender; an argument equally applicable to the proposed primary access route.
Apart from Tesco, nobody benefits from a Beckery New Road access. Why should Tesco, alone amongst the group of retail outlets situated on Wirral Park Road, not be accessible from Wirral Park Road? Is it because access via Beckery New Road allows Tesco to be a 'one stop shop', thus ensuring that customer spend is less likely to be diluted at the neighbouring outlets - let alone Glastonbury's historic town centre?!

4. Local councillors seeking re-election would do well to consider the above. Why should Glastonbury people consider voting for them again if they approve an unwanted development that is both practically difficult to access from Glastonbury and is a detriment to the town's existing commercial heart? It is hard to envisage how the jobs that it is suggested such a development might create would off-set those established sources of employment likely to be lost as a consequence of it's arrival.
Also, Tesco is a multi-national, and therefore both the produce it sells and the profits it makes are of little true benefit to the local community!

5. Finally, the original threat by Avalon Plastics, as Glastonbury's largest employer, to relocate if access via Beckery New Road were not approved is no longer of any relevance. Keith Butler and his colleagues have long since received their multi-million pound pay-off and have been settled in their new factory for some six months and more. Their threats are no longer a part of the equation.

Yours faithfully,...................

Tesco cheats

As we can see from the dates of the recent Tesco application and period for comments, Tesco has, yet again, cynically used the minimum time allowed and a period where many are otherwise occupied and away (30th December to 19th January), especially with the issue of Glastonbury Library occupying many folks minds. This has essentially meant that for many it will be a last minute opportunity to 'comment'.
Bravo Tesco! We can see what a bunch of schemers and cheats (the UK version of Walmart) you really are!

More will follow shortly...

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

Planning Application News

Here is the latest from the Tesco Planning Application:

Comments must be submitted by the 19th January.
As this is not going to committee then comments will be important!
Please send as many as possible and encourage friends and contacts to do the same!

Last Poll results

Just to clarify about the results of the last poll.
The votes cast are NOT a reflection of support for any Tesco in Glastonbury, but the result of the actions of an irresponsible person who managed to vote 'in favour' 49 times, apparently out of spite.
This person is none other than the 'man' who goes by the name of