As many are aware, Tesco has gone ahead, been constructed and under completion, thanks to the changes in National Planning Laws introduced by the ConDemAll. The changes in planning policies have meant that what was an industrial estate can now be retail and roads that were restricted to industrial traffic only can now also be used for retail traffic. In some areas of the country there is building going ahead in gardens and greenbelt land which couldn't be built upon previously.
As well as Tesco, there is the spectre of the Premier Inn, with new pub and restaurant in direct competition with the town, being allowed by the now infamous Glastonbury Town Council Planning Committee! So much for the 'greens' in the council, eh? It seems that the Premier Inn was given permission by the local Planning Committee but not the MDC Planning Officer, despite local objections. Actually there was so much complacency locally that it was a 'smooth ride' for the project! Perhaps local folk were 'hypnotised' by the Olympics and 'Royal' celebrations?
As regards Tesco, it is puzzling to many as to how the issue of the Ransom Strip along the front of Wirral Park Road was solved. One person from Glastonbury Town Council suggested that Mayor Ian Tucker had bought the Ransom Strip and then flogged it cheap to Tesco, presumably in an attempt to get the new Tesco store up and running (he'll be cutting the ribbon no doubt!)? Which is probably just as well for Tesco, as they were too tight-fisted to pay the full asking price of the Ransom Strip, of about 33% of the value of the site (Keith Butler sold the site to Tesco for approx £6.5 million). So if Ian Tucker has flogged it off cheap then he must have paid the multinational PLC, that previously owned it, their asking price! Or was another deal worked out?
Did Tesco re-offer the '£140,000 sweetener' (previously at £70,00 each) to Glastonbury and Street councils? Did they increase the amount, or just bribe individuals?
The facts may emerge in time!
As many will remember, the SWRDA was guilty of squandering £19 million on the Morlands site before it left the mess and denied any reponsibility. What was of concern to many was the fact that SWRDA had given at least £30,000 to Common Purpose, money given to it from Public Funds, which it used for 'training purposes' with a secret organisation which refuses to publish accounts or the content of meetings.
It is this kind of history that does nothing to ensure confidence in local politicians and administrators while they abuse their offices and misuse public funds. The question on some folk's lips is "who are they really serving?".
