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