In Stephen's absence, Jerry has just been interviewed for Atlantic FM to be broadcast sometime over the weekend. The gist of the conversation was about the three pronged attack by the supermarkets, what we are doing about it, and the meeting next Thursday.
Supermarkets, Supermarkets, Supermarkets. This is now becomming really tiresome. I'm sure I read somewhere that this group is not anti supermarket. I have now seen enough to see that this is not the case and this suggests that the group is not truly representative of the local population and interests.
It may be argued that some towns have been negatively effected by big stores arriving but remember Penzance and St Austell? These were two towns who turned their nose up at a store you might have heard of.....M&S! Truro was the place that saw sense in the end. Its nice there with a range of big brands and small independent traders in harmony. Anyone been to St Austell lately ... its still rubbish even after a several million pound makeover! Come on guys there must more to your loving Wadebridge than this!
Lovewadebridge's underhand tactics revealed! Full details at http://old.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/1/b/00587_pt_1a_public_consultation.pdf The Love Wadebridge organisation has vowed to contest any proposal for “out of town” supermarkets and is actively campaigning in this regard. Some “friends” of this campaign did come to the public exhibition and complete the comments forms made available. However, the group also took away a copy of the comments form and subsequently attached it to an email distributed to its supporters, encouraging “friends” of Love Wadebridge to complete and return the forms and make copies available in their neighbourhood. The email also informed recipients that further copies of the comments forms were placed in a number of shops around Wadebridge, including Stokes, Elixir Health and Relish Food and Drink. . *See Appendix 7 for copies of these emails sent by Love Wadebridge. In providing comments forms at the public exhibition, the intention was that those who took the time to visit the event could look at the information on display and speak to the professional team such that they understood the details of the proposal and then give their informed opinion about the scheme. It was not survey, nor a questionnaire, simply a form on which to write any comments about the proposal as presented at the public consultation exhibition. It was never intended that members of the public who had not had the benefit of seeing exactly what is being proposed complete the forms, or that it would be taken as an opportunity to petition either for or against the proposal. For this reason, forms that have been completed as a result of Love Wadebridge’s attempt to use the opportunity to canvass opposition to the scheme, by distributing and making the comments forms widely available to their supporters, have not been included in the overall results, but copies of these forms are shown in full in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6. It should be noted that several of these responses were sent in more than once and that we have not shown the duplications in this report. Whilst it is entirely legitimate for those in opposition to the proposals to express their objections and views, it should also be noted that individuals who completed the forms included in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 did not attend the exhibition and as a consequence are unlikely to be well informed about this complex scheme.
Ooooh..... I wonder if this was mentioned in the radio interview?!! This just confirms for me what I said before, this group represents a select bunch who seem to be preoccupied with supermarkets. Not for me I'm afraid....I given it a fair chance. I love Wadebridge but obviously in a different way to these guys!
For a so called debate site there is not much debate going on....maybe they are all too busy making cardboard cut outs of themselves to increase their support base at the forthcoming meeting!!
Uke, I also remember the business with M & S and St Austell but you have slightly misremembered it. M & S wanted to open a store within St Austell itself and were, mistakenly as you say, turned down. But Sainsbury's et al want to build outside the town to create out of town shopping areas easily accessible from the by-pass (a bit like Asda in St Austell now). This is what I object to. I can't speak for anyone else who has signed up to LoveWadebridge.
Traceyin Cornwall. Sorry but I couldn't really understand what you were getting at. You seem to be saying that nobody is really entitled to an opinion unless they went to Sainsbury's presentation but I'm sure you can't really be saying that. I went to it and didn't see or hear anything to convince me that an out of town development would be beneficial to Wadebridge which is why I joined LoveWadebridge. I'm sure other people would have reached the same conclusion from past experience or simply from reading round the subject. I also wasn't clear on whose behalf you were writing. It seemed quite official so I assume you are a representative of either Sainsbury's or the council.
Either way, please don't dismiss people's strongly held opinions or assume that they are all part of some concerted anti-supermarked conspiracy. Most of us are just concerned about the town's future and aren't convinced that supermarkets on the outskirts of town are compatible with a thriving town centre with independent shops. I'm afraid I don't know Penzance very well so I can't say whether it has it's own butchers and greengrocers, but I do know that St Austell has out of town supermarkets and has really struggled to regenerate its town centre.
So based on what you are saying if a supermarket were to acquire the Bradford's Quay site and wanted to build there you guys would be supporting it?
Tracey (not speaking for her but my interpretation) I think was saying that while people are entitled to an opinion there are those that are informed and those that are not or heavily based on the spin of others. An analogy might be rating a wine you have not tried or simply not buying French wine because it is French (no offense to anyone who is French or really likes French wine, personally I don't mind it).
Anyway moving away from supermarkets I am interested to hear what you guys have been doing re other things that affect the town such as increases in car parking charges. This is something that I know for a fact affects people using local shops as opposed to supermarkets where you can park for free.
Also there is the underused town hall which costs us all a fortune and could be put to far better uses to the benefit of the town. As far as I know there are no plans for any supermarket to include an entertainment venue within their developments.
I don't hear or see any discussion about anything other than supermarkets thus while I'm not quite into the realms of a conspiracy I do feel that this group is anti supermarket. If you are then that's fine by me but until I have evidence that this is not the case then this is one persons support you will not have!
Uke, very refreshing to hear common sense on here! Karen, I'm not "getting at" anything. If you care to read the Morrisons planning application in detail, you will see that my previous post, as stated, is in fact extracted from that, and reveals lovewadebridge's ways and means of gaining signatures including sending in multiple copies of feedback forms........ :) nice try, lol. I would like to assure you that I am in no way connected with Sainsburys or the council, I am a resident of Wadebridge who wishes to see a supermarket come to the town. Apologies if it seemed quite official, but as you've probably grasped bu now it was not me writing this - it was taken from the public consultation part of the planning application, not written by me. Lovewadebridge is using any argument it can think of, and are clearly anti-supermarket. First it was effects on the town, then it was against losing the council office, and now the council offices are to be retained, it's back to effects on the town. It seems to be dictating in all its press releases etc. that it is speaking for the whole town. This is incorrect. In fact, 55% of those attending the Sainsburys public consultation were in favour of the store coming to Wadebridge, despite lovewadebridge's attempt to bully people at the town hall door. The town will continue to do very well, with its hairdressers, charity shops, eating establishments, clothes shops, banks, cycle hire, fireplace shop, kitchens, plumbing, heck even a gemstone shop. You may even get more footflow and therefore trade with the attraction of a Sainsburys on your doorstep. There is very little that will be affected in a negative way, by another supermarket. But Uke is quite right - the town needs to sort itself out with better, cheaper parking and better public transport in order to cope with increased numbers of people. This is what the group should be focussing on.
And finally some advice for lovewadebridge.com: be careful who you are mass mailing in future, lol
lovewadebridge.com wants to keep the heart in Wadebridge. It's dedicated to building a strong future for this Cornish town upon the foundation of its past.
Supermarkets, Supermarkets, Supermarkets.
ReplyDeleteThis is now becomming really tiresome. I'm sure I read somewhere that this group is not anti supermarket.
I have now seen enough to see that this is not the case and this suggests that the group is not truly representative of the local population and interests.
It may be argued that some towns have been negatively effected by big stores arriving but remember Penzance and St Austell? These were two towns who turned their nose up at a store you might have heard of.....M&S! Truro was the place that saw sense in the end. Its nice there with a range of big brands and small independent traders in harmony.
Anyone been to St Austell lately ... its still rubbish even after a several million pound makeover!
Come on guys there must more to your loving Wadebridge than this!
Lovewadebridge's underhand tactics revealed! Full details at http://old.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/1/b/00587_pt_1a_public_consultation.pdf
ReplyDeleteThe Love Wadebridge organisation has vowed to contest any proposal for “out of
town” supermarkets and is actively campaigning in this regard. Some “friends” of this
campaign did come to the public exhibition and complete the comments forms made
available. However, the group also took away a copy of the comments form and
subsequently attached it to an email distributed to its supporters, encouraging
“friends” of Love Wadebridge to complete and return the forms and make copies
available in their neighbourhood. The email also informed recipients that further
copies of the comments forms were placed in a number of shops around Wadebridge,
including Stokes, Elixir Health and Relish Food and Drink. . *See Appendix 7 for
copies of these emails sent by Love Wadebridge.
In providing comments forms at the public exhibition, the intention was that those who
took the time to visit the event could look at the information on display and speak to
the professional team such that they understood the details of the proposal and then
give their informed opinion about the scheme. It was not survey, nor a questionnaire,
simply a form on which to write any comments about the proposal as presented at the
public consultation exhibition. It was never intended that members of the public who
had not had the benefit of seeing exactly what is being proposed complete the forms,
or that it would be taken as an opportunity to petition either for or against the proposal.
For this reason, forms that have been completed as a result of Love Wadebridge’s
attempt to use the opportunity to canvass opposition to the scheme, by distributing
and making the comments forms widely available to their supporters, have not been
included in the overall results, but copies of these forms are shown in full in Appendix
5 and Appendix 6. It should be noted that several of these responses were sent in
more than once and that we have not shown the duplications in this report.
Whilst it is entirely legitimate for those in opposition to the proposals to express their
objections and views, it should also be noted that individuals who completed the forms
included in Appendix 5 and Appendix 6 did not attend the exhibition and as a
consequence are unlikely to be well informed about this complex scheme.
Ooooh..... I wonder if this was mentioned in the radio interview?!!
ReplyDeleteThis just confirms for me what I said before, this group represents a select bunch who seem to be preoccupied with supermarkets. Not for me I'm afraid....I given it a fair chance.
I love Wadebridge but obviously in a different way to these guys!
For a so called debate site there is not much debate going on....maybe they are all too busy making cardboard cut outs of themselves to increase their support base at the forthcoming meeting!!
Hello Uke and TraceyinCornwall
ReplyDeleteUke, I also remember the business with M & S and St Austell but you have slightly misremembered it. M & S wanted to open a store within St Austell itself and were, mistakenly as you say, turned down. But Sainsbury's et al want to build outside the town to create out of town shopping areas easily accessible from the by-pass (a bit like Asda in St Austell now). This is what I object to. I can't speak for anyone else who has signed up to LoveWadebridge.
Traceyin Cornwall. Sorry but I couldn't really understand what you were getting at. You seem to be saying that nobody is really entitled to an opinion unless they went to Sainsbury's presentation but I'm sure you can't really be saying that. I went to it and didn't see or hear anything to convince me that an out of town development would be beneficial to Wadebridge which is why I joined LoveWadebridge. I'm sure other people would have reached the same conclusion from past experience or simply from reading round the subject. I also wasn't clear on whose behalf you were writing. It seemed quite official so I assume you are a representative of either Sainsbury's or the council.
Either way, please don't dismiss people's strongly held opinions or assume that they are all part of some concerted anti-supermarked conspiracy. Most of us are just concerned about the town's future and aren't convinced that supermarkets on the outskirts of town are compatible with a thriving town centre with independent shops. I'm afraid I don't know Penzance very well so I can't say whether it has it's own butchers and greengrocers, but I do know that St Austell has out of town supermarkets and has really struggled to regenerate its town centre.
Hi Karen, at last some debate!
ReplyDeleteSo based on what you are saying if a supermarket were to acquire the Bradford's Quay site and wanted to build there you guys would be supporting it?
Tracey (not speaking for her but my interpretation) I think was saying that while people are entitled to an opinion there are those that are informed and those that are not or heavily based on the spin of others. An analogy might be rating a wine you have not tried or simply not buying French wine because it is French (no offense to anyone who is French or really likes French wine, personally I don't mind it).
Anyway moving away from supermarkets I am interested to hear what you guys have been doing re other things that affect the town such as increases in car parking charges. This is something that I know for a fact affects people using local shops as opposed to supermarkets where you can park for free.
Also there is the underused town hall which costs us all a fortune and could be put to far better uses to the benefit of the town. As far as I know there are no plans for any supermarket to include an entertainment venue within their developments.
I don't hear or see any discussion about anything other than supermarkets thus while I'm not quite into the realms of a conspiracy I do feel that this group is anti supermarket. If you are then that's fine by me but until I have evidence that this is not the case then this is one persons support you will not have!
Uke, very refreshing to hear common sense on here!
ReplyDeleteKaren, I'm not "getting at" anything. If you care to read the Morrisons planning application in detail, you will see that my previous post, as stated, is in fact extracted from that, and reveals lovewadebridge's ways and means of gaining signatures including sending in multiple copies of feedback forms........ :) nice try, lol.
I would like to assure you that I am in no way connected with Sainsburys or the council, I am a resident of Wadebridge who wishes to see a supermarket come to the town. Apologies if it seemed quite official, but as you've probably grasped bu now it was not me writing this - it was taken from the public consultation part of the planning application, not written by me.
Lovewadebridge is using any argument it can think of, and are clearly anti-supermarket. First it was effects on the town, then it was against losing the council office, and now the council offices are to be retained, it's back to effects on the town. It seems to be dictating in all its press releases etc. that it is speaking for the whole town. This is incorrect. In fact, 55% of those attending the Sainsburys public consultation were in favour of the store coming to Wadebridge, despite lovewadebridge's attempt to bully people at the town hall door.
The town will continue to do very well, with its hairdressers, charity shops, eating establishments, clothes shops, banks, cycle hire, fireplace shop, kitchens, plumbing, heck even a gemstone shop. You may even get more footflow and therefore trade with the attraction of a Sainsburys on your doorstep. There is very little that will be affected in a negative way, by another supermarket.
But Uke is quite right - the town needs to sort itself out with better, cheaper parking and better public transport in order to cope with increased numbers of people. This is what the group should be focussing on.
And finally some advice for lovewadebridge.com: be careful who you are mass mailing in future, lol