It's - The Vine

There they were today, Sunday afternoon, Dave, Chris, Pat, family and friends, putting on the second coat of paint in The Vine. The energy and determination were great to see. Opening ceremony at 10.00 a.m. next Wednesday 3rd November. It's all looking good for a very successful venture, and one that deserves strong and steady support.

End of Stokes, but the start of Chris and Dave's fruit and veg shop

What a great town! Dave and Chris and all the gang have been overwhelmed by all the support, sympathy and affection they have had from everyone. You reap what you sow in this life, and they have reaped this return on their great contribution to the town over the years. So Stokes is gone, but Dave and Chris look as if they have been successful in sorting out the lease and necessary backing, with help from the Chamber of Commerce and others of you with specialist knowledge. They hope to re-open next week, perhaps as early as Tuesday. We'll keep you posted, and when they do open make sure you congratulate them, strip the shelves, and remain loyal customers.

Partial Success

We are pleased to report that some key components seem to be falling off the Council/superstore bulldozer, in that the Strategic Planning Committee today deferred a decision on the out-of-town Wadebridge developments as they need "more information". A suspicious observer might point out that they do have a lot of information already, especially about the fatal effect of a 30% drop in custom for our everyday town centre shops, and could today have made a well-informed decision to refuse all three applications. This move does look a little like a tactical retreat in the face not of insufficient information, but of the wrong sort of information. But we must be optimistic about the probity of the process, and today's result is better than the intended one - approval of Sainsbury's and Tesco. You can be sure that we too will be offering further useful information ourselves to help things along.

Nowhere to hide!

The supermarket sites appear to have been deliberately located on high ground to maximize visual impact – the Sainsbury's store would be over 13m high, or equivalent to a 5 storey building.  It is felt that the visual impact alone would be unacceptable – there would not be many places in the town that you would not be able to see at least one of the stores from, especially at night as they tend to use a lot of outside lighting.  Planned tree lines stop short of the store frontages to ensure high visual impact (Mark Innes).

Danger to pedestrians

Traffic will increase considerably on Bodieve road if the football practise pitches are moved there. Particularly the danger to pedestrians using the very narrow footpath is an accident waiting to happen without encouraging many hundreds of youngsters to use it (Fiona Clark).  

I don't want to be based in another faceless town

Two-thirds of the allocated land will be carparking only - not making the most of good employment space. Apparently the three biggest employers in Wadebridge could fit into this carparking land, so there's a huge waste there.
Also, there's a huge opportunity cost of the type of jobs available - around 70% of the supermarket jobs are part time, minimum wage jobs. This doesn't compare to skilled jobs that have the potential to pay mortgages, boost the local economy etc. It's also likely that self checkouts will be introduced, which will cut out even more jobs. Another huge issue is the net job loss in the area, due to shops shutting, less trade so less need to hire staff etc.

Lastly, the effect that the supermarket will undoubtedly have on the community means that people may not want to stay or move to Wadebridge. Personally, I'm looking to buy a house in this area but I'm waiting to see the results of the supermarket issue, as I don't want to be based in another faceless town - I may as well be in a city that offers better job opportunities, as the reasons why I'm choosing to live in Wadebridge (lively community, great shops, quality of life, rural area etc) will be jeopardized (Harriet Henderson).

Bring real, mortgage compatible jobs

By approving the plans for supermarkets the planners would be responsible for the destruction of Wadebridge town centre. They would be sacrificing the Town of Wadebridge to pay for the mismanagement of the County's finances.

If the council were serious about the creation of jobs in the region they should insist that the company concerned should re-locate their IT department or marketing to bring real, mortgage compatible jobs to the region.

If the Sainsburys application were to be accepted Trenant Vale would have to be closed as it would be a dangerous Rat Run. It is very narrow, without any footpath and is a walking route for the school children and parents going up to the school. Any disturbance to the traffic flow on the Bodmin Road and Gonvena Hill instantly builds traffic flow to untenable levels.  A traffic monitor was placed on the Vale in school holidays after 12.00 pm on a Saturday and removed within hours. It is suspected that this could be used to tick an 'OK' box to indicate all is well! The residents will watch this space! (John Fitzpatrick-Ellis).

Look at what happened in Liskeard

This expansion of supermarket facilities will detract from the viability and vitality of Wadebridge town centre.  I believe that one very firm piece of evidence for this is what has happened elsewhere when supermarkets have been granted permission. I base my understanding of these issues on what I know about similar developments and their impact elsewhere in Cornwall.  For many years I lived in Liskeard, and traded in a small independent shop in the pedestrianised shopping street in that town.  Liskeard is a larger town than Wadebridge (more than double the population), and there is only one out of town supermarket there - Safeway now Morrisons, rather than the two that Wadebridge will have if the Planning Team's recommendations are accepted. 

The impact on Liskeard has been large – just have a look around it and you will see boarded up shops.  A greengrocer in the town confirmed that his turnover had halved since Morrisons opened. The proprietor of a small newsagents reported that her takings had plummeted since they opened, and felt that it was sheer greed on the part of the supermarkets.   I would guess that hers is a view commonly held by the people of Cornwall,  who think that there is more to life than profit .  

Supermarkets offer facilities that town centre shops cannot.  They offer free car parking on a flat and level site.  They appear to offer convenience and ease of shopping.  It is no contest, and the danger is that once the supermarkets are established,  the key shops start to disappear in a town.  Once this starts to happen there is less and less incentive for people to shop in the town because they cannot find the goods they need.  The effect is cumulative and is a downward spiral.  

We have a thriving and vibrant town here in Wadebridge, which is increasingly well known.  Cornwall is at last getting a reputation for the place to be, to live.  It is starting to be seen as a forward looking place. The reputation of Cornwall Council is on the line here, and they should consider how they would like to be judged in 20 years time.  Would they like to be remembered as the enlightened planning committee who did all they could to preserve the uniqueness of Wadebridge by refusing the supermarket applications?   Or would they like to be remembered for pushing Wadebridge toward a tipping point from which it could not recover? (Tony Faragher). 

Democratic figleaf

As a parish councillor for St Breock, I can relate the fact that the parish council unanimously rejected the Tesco application.
Planning law appears to be in favour of supermarkets who subject cash starpped councils to endless appeals in order to force through their applications - hence I feel the meeting last Thursday was a 'democratic figleaf', and this is just the latest example of Cornwall's gradual subjugation to big business (Simon Malloni).

Fighting a desperate battle

We are fighting a desperate battle to save the town we, and so many visitors, hold dear. I ask the question, why should this be necessary when logic, legality, common sense and emotion all combine to show that the creation of more out of town stores will destroy our beloved community? When right is so palpably on our side, but we have to strive so hard to convince our elected representatives and their cohorts that it is, I begin to wonder if there is not one or more agendas we are not being told about and, if there are such things, they should be dragged from under their stones kicking and screaming into the democratic light of day.

We live in what purports to be a democracy and it simply is not right that powerful commercial interests shoud be allowed to throw precious communities that have evolved over hundreds of years into the dustbin of history at the behest of a council which, for some reason, is refusing to listen to the people who elected them (Lawrence Gordon Clark).

Conflict of interest for Council

The planning officer has recommended the approval Sainsbury’s planning application. There is no denying the fact that there is an important conflict of interest for the Council.  The Council therefore needs not only to ensure that the reasons for its decision are open, honest and transparent, but also, like Caesar’s wife, it needs to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is the case.  There must be no suspicion that any decision is primarily financially driven.

In a number of important respects this application goes against the Council’s own planning guidelines.  Why do we have these guidelines, if they are to be ignored?

If the Council’s own policies are to be cast aside, we need to have the full reasons and justification for this exposed to public gaze. The Council’s Principal Design Officer also states that he is unable to support the Application.

Finally, there is a considerable level of dispute between the figures that the Applicant has put forward and the figures of some objectors.  These need to be examined robustly and their accuracy fully tested.  Both sides cannot be right.  We need to see hard evidence as to whose figures are correct.  After all, these figures are being used by the Applicant to justify their case.  We should not proceed without ensuring all information is accurate.  I do not believe this is currently the case (John Fairbanks).

Main points re out of town superstores

1. They destroy the heart of the town. They destroy small businesses and the jobs they provide and replace them with ill-paid part time work at a ratio of over two to one.

2. Their profits go back to their shareholders instead of recirculating in the local economy.

3. They bring in their foodstuffs from miles away at horrendous environmental cost and largely ignore the produce of our local farms.

4. They only serve people with cars. The old, the poor and the disabled and townspeople who don't want to drive will not be able to use them and will have to find what they can among the the hoodie patrolled wilderness of betting, charity shops and tourist traps that our beloved town centre will become (Lawrence Gordon Clark).

300% increase in local superstore space

Firstly, I find an increase of 300% in the local supply of superstore space to be unnecessary verging on the ridiculous. Secondly, but more importantly, the proposed out of town location is my main objection.  This siting will kill the centre of Wadebridge and the many small shopping villages around Wadebridge as it has done for Bodmin and St. Austell. Further, as an example, in St Kew Highway (where I reside), we have the benefit of a Costcutter, Post Office, hairdresser, pasty shop, surgery, dispensary, and a vehicle workshop, all of which revolve around, and on the site of, a fuel service station.  If the plans proposed go ahead there is no way that the independently owned service station can compete with the loss leader fuel policies of the supermarkets, two of which will be within two miles of St Kew Highway.  Lose the service station and we will lose all the other facilities. Another dead Cornish Village! (Francis Healing).

Unfairness of the planning process

Unfairness of the planning process, i.e. David against Goliath, in terms of resources available.  Also, all of the profits of the supermarkets are exported from Cornwall & not spent here (Duncan Burwood).

How strong is the democratic process?

Is the democratic process strong enough to overcome the financial clout of supermarkets and protect the livelihoods of town centre traders and the wishes of the local residents? If Cameron wants a Big Society there can only be one outcome for this sort of problem (Val Tomlinson).

Equality of opportunity

It is of serious importance to consider ‘equality of opportunity’ when thinking about who will be able to use a supermarket placed on the outskirts of the town. Those town dwellers without cars; who are aged; with little money to spare; who are  infirm, would be far less likely to be able to visit an out of town site.  A town centre site would be fairer, as more people would be able to get there more easily. This applies, for example, to the following groups of people - those in motorized wheel chairs who could independently access a town site; those who walk only with difficulty, and those for whom buses a non starter; and people on very restricted incomes for whom town shopping does not necessitate transport.  This would perhaps mean that dis-aggregation would have to be considered, but that that would be a small price to pay in a world where opportunity should be for all…. not just the able majority. Also, an in-town scheme would encourage people living out of the town to explore and utilize Wadebridge (Liz Cleves).

Danger of Wadebridge becoming "Clone Town"

There is a serious danger of Wadebridge becoming "Clone Town" if independent retailers and food outlets are forced out. Threat of closure faced by thriving village shops-cum-post offices in St Mabyn, St Tudy, Chapel Amble + farm shop at St Kew. Need to consider reducing food miles and encouraging more consumption of local, seasonal food. The pioneering work of Camel Community Supported Agriculture at St Kew Highway, a community food growing initiative with a weekly veg box scheme, could also be hit by additional supermarkets (Charlotte Barry).

Not a supermarket town!

Wadebridge sould remain a Market town not a supermarket town! (Janet Hulme).

Leaving Wadebridge to the wolves

As regards the football club, it strikes me that if they really need to provide a facility for, as it seems, the whole South West, then the funding ought to be provided centrally. I must admit, that my first reaction was why on earth does a town the size of Wadebridge require any more teams and facilities than it already has. In any event, it should have no connection with these applications. Indeed, to accept the bribery of the proposed funding offers, for a minority benefit, leaving Wadebridge to the wolves would be a travesty (David Oram).

Supermarkets on Cornish skylines

Wadebridge, like many towns in Cornwall, is very dependent on tourists. Call me a cynic but I don’t think that people spend hours traveling to Cornwall to look at supermarkets on Cornish skylines, which is the view they’d get approaching Wadebridge from any direction if Morrisons and Sainsburys open. Tesco already dominates the west side of the Camel, along with the appalling new Travelodge, and the horrendously conspicuous industrial units near by. The planners should ashamed at the siting and architecture that has been approved in the last few years. It’s arguable that the Camel Trail will always attract tourists, but many visiting for the first time come upon it by chance when they visit the town. With the town surrounded by supermarkets its highly unlikely tourists will be bothered to come in at all (Phillip Gough).

Dunstable closed down by similar developments

I have actually seen what happens when a town get surrounded by out-of-town supermarkets, I used to live in Dunstable, its now a shopping desert, boarded up shops, lots of charity shops, no greengrocer, butcher, fishmonger, ironmonger, they have all closed down. Therefore the health of shopping center was not protected (Graham Boaden).

Flood risk in Trenant Vale

The obvious increase in flooding, due to acres of tarmac, and traffic up and down Trenant Vale will make it extrmely unpleasant for us (being the nearest residential property) but, more to the point, extremely hazardous for the many children going to and from school using the footpath. As for the overall picture I am sure they will see sense and realise that Wadebridge does not need any of these ridiculous monstrosities (Rod Adams).

Only Sainsburys provided an Energy Statement

It proved quite enlightening.  There expected energy use would be 3.6 million kWh per year, which roughly equates to the electrical energy used by 37% of the houses in Wadebridge.  If you add in what Tesco currently use, plus that of the planned extension, then it is likely that these 2 stores alone would use about the same amount of energy as all of the dwellings in the town.  Bearing in mind future energy scarcity, and rising costs, would this be a wise move, especially when the existing Tesco is only particularly busy for very brief high-spots in the tourist season?  Bearing in mind the downturn in retail expenditure, how can it be justified to vastly increase retail floor area, with all that implies for energy consumption, when all the stores, existing and new, will be trading at a considerably thinned out level (Jerry Clark).