LETTERS SPECIAL - Sheringham store views

11 March 2010

IF there is ever proof politicians have no clue how the other half lives, we discovered it at the Tesco/Waitrose meeting.

The best excuses for turning down Tesco range from the fact that it "makes our kids fat" and some 20 minutes of ranting about three trees.

I am now proposing a multi-storey car park in my garden to end Holt's car park problems. After all, planning isn't really considered by North Norfolk councillors, it's just based on what mood they are in on the day.

ANDREW LEWIS

Cley Road

Holt

THIS is the first time I have written, but after the vote to turn down Tesco it would appear that our councillors have lost their way. The majority of people in Sheringham are in favour of Tesco.

We badly need the largest supermarket in the town to do our weekly shop without having to keep going to Cromer. Why have the councillors gone against planning officials who recommended it? It looks like it will cost council taxpayers more to bail them out again.

Yes I am local, born here, and have lived here all my life. My children where born here to, so yes I do know what I am talking about.

K A NEAVE

By e-mail

I WAS under the impression children were lawfully required to attend school unless there was a good reason.

My daughter wanted to attend the Tesco in Sheringham hearing but I sent her to school as any parent should do. So, imagine my surprise to find a 15-year-old Sheringham High School student in uniform, speaking and staying for the whole day's proceedings! Furthermore, the headteacher was there too, speaking.

I will not hesitate to take my child to a meeting in future if the headteacher himself believes ruining our town with a Waitrose is more important than the job we pay him to do.

Ms SAMANTHA ROSS

Red Barn Lane

East Beckham

NOTHING to me suggests that Waitrose was approved on its plans for a supermarket. It was based upon the food academy alone. Clive Hay Smith obviously knew what he was doing by making sure it was tied to the supermarket in planning permission.

If there were serious doubts about supermarket chains in our market towns why were no questions asked about Waitrose?

We have all been foolish to believe the council could come up with a respectable planning decision.

I suggest a name change to the 'Green Wash Project' for Sheringham.

SIMON MILLS

Wood Lane

Kelling

THE low earners were the major loser on the day once again! We were told social housing was an important aspect of the Tesco debate and that 500 people were on the waiting list.

The same councillor spoke against 12 flats being demolished, yet when it was revealed the £1.2 million could be used by Tesco to provide social housing, it was ignored. Instead councillors opted for a cookery school. How does that outweigh new social housing, an improved entrance to Sheringham, a new community centre, fire station, community funding and supermarket we can all afford? Now the low earners will stump up the legal costs.

KAY WRIGHT

Weybourne Road

Sheringham

I URGE councillors and politicians who contacted me after the supermarket debate to express anger regarding the meeting to make their voices known.

You represent us. If you have fears about money and the morality of the voting you should come forward. I have received several e-mails who did not approve of the “antics” on Thursday and they need to push the fact it was not a fair trial. It will at least save their political career amongst the low-earners.

MARCUS RICHES

Holway Road

Sheringham

JUST what makes councillors think they now know better than our professionals at making decisions?

They voted against the recommendation of lawyers and planning officers who specialise in the fields of developments with no consideration for the report.

They didn't do it based on opinion or they would have voted for Tesco which had more support letters registered. So why was Waitrose approved and Tesco denied? The food academy is not reason enough. The allotments were not part of the planning application either so was not an excuse.

Do we not deserve to know why? I can only assume they didn't have one. Our taxpayers money is being thrown around with little consideration whatsoever.

NIGEL PARTRIDGE

Norwich Road

Holt

SO the small shops that launched the original attacks on Tesco have been forgotten after 14 years. After fighting to 'shop local' it will be an out of town store that requires people to drive away from the high street that now wins.

A supermarket with local produce isn't the same as the small shops. It has been found to have an adverse effect on our town - far more so than Tesco - and the electric buses and café along with a future restaurant are admission that Waitrose don't want people to return to Sheringham.

With a Tesco I would have continued to visit the greengrocers and butchers. This is less possible if I am to use a Waitrose. It shows concerns for shops was just a big bluff.

LISA FOX

Holway Road

Sheringham

I FEEL I have to write about the decision made by our council. We are not to get a Tesco store, but are to get an out of town Waitrose store.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that many eons ago, Tesco proposed a very similar out of town store (only closer to many family homes and less out-of-town) only to be told this would have a detrimental effect on the town centre shops.

With every criticism the council made Tesco went back to the drawing board and came back with a new plan.

Now it has approved a new store that has many of the features of the original Tesco store. Rather hypocritical.

SCAMROD is against major retail development in Sheringham, yet backs Waitrose. How hypocritical.

Many of the working parents in this town are desperate for a small supermarket. The traffic through the new Sainsbury store is a testament to this. At present I have to go to Cromer to shop, or use Tesco online. I work six days a week and need to feed my family. When will the council realise that the town needs to move with the times?

It has now missed out on a new community centre, fire station and updated modern housing for the elderly. How does the council plan to pay for those itself?

AMANDA FAYE

By e-mail

COUNCILLORS did not vote on facts on Thursday. Instead they chose to make their own guesses as to the future of the Tesco store deciding that the store would be expanded and ignored the facts on the independent shops.

No questions were raised as to whether Waitrose would expand or whether the electric bus scheme could end quicker than proposed. I have one tip for councillors, read the facts in the report rather than guessing. Conditions could have stopped their fears about Tesco. This was not even considered an option.

FRANCIS RICHARDS

Cromer Road

Sheringham

SHOULD we really be allowing high school students who are unable to legally vote to be used to tug at the emotive heart strings of our councillors?

Should our high school headteacher really speak out for a Food Academy without commenting once on the supermarket proposal itself?

Did he really have to spend a day away from the school to sway voters away from Tesco? I feel the message of supermarkets was lost in the decision on Thursday.

Tesco wouldn't have been voted in based on a food academy and the fact that councillors voted for Waitrose is an astonishing piece of misjustice.

DUNCAN HIGH

Beeston Road

Sheringham

I THOUGHT councillors cared about Sheringham. They turned down Tesco because they thought it harmed the viability of Sheringham.

The food academy, we were told by officers, did not suffice as reason to approve the supermarket.

JESSICA WITHINGTON

Nelson Road

Sheringham

THE meeting was an eye opener to local politics. Instead of looking at Tesco and Waitrose it was whether the town needed a food academy or not.

The merits of the supermarkets were completely ignored. Now North Norfolk District Council is left with footing the bill of huge legal costs with a decision that does not reflect planning law whatsoever.

I now urge people to reconsider voting for these councillors.

LAUREN ABLESWORTH

Cromer Road

Sheringham

WHAT a farce. The sooner we get the chance to vote out these incumbents the better.

It has always been my belief that planning decisions were made on planning grounds, not personal prejudice. The decision to once again deny Tesco, which has bent over backwards to address all of the councils demands in favour of one application from Waitrose, which its own officers recommend rejecting on planning grounds, is preposterous.

It puts the lie to the 'Sheringham doesn't need…” argument and shows that in reality, the individuals calling themselves representatives of the people are just prejudiced against Tesco.

It will be interesting to see whether they will personally foot the bill if Tesco challenges this decision.

CLIVE SANHAM

Barford Road

Sheringham

WHILE supporters and campaigners of Tesco and Waitrose had reason in their opinions, there was nothing that added up in the councillors' opinions.

They spent some time avoiding facts and talking about the five independent shops that Tesco would build. They questioned whether it would become part of the supermarket in time. They said conditions would have to be used but they avoided proposing it. Yet the food academy, Waitrose property, was met with no conditions and no one questioned the fact it could become part of the supermarket in years to come.

MIKE DANIELS

Wyndham Street

Sheringham

WE have now kissed goodbye to the most attractive Tesco proposal for Sheringham and for any town in this country.

A unique design praised by officers, a small solution in our high street, five independent shops, a huge amount to replace social housing, a new community centre and fire station plus a charity scheme and extra houses.

With the community centre deal due to run out this summer we never will get that opportunity again.

This Tesco proposal was something we could have all felt proud to have achieved after 14 years of fighting for a reasonable solution.

Shame on you councillors for letting your personal interests get in the way.

GEORGE PARKER

Cromer Road

Beeston Regis

SCHOOLS make enough fuss when pupils are taken out for family holidays.

Last Thursday Waitrose used a schoolgirl for the day and a headteacher who surely is employed to teach, not to preach. His salary is for education, not to involve himself in local politics.

MICHELLE HOUSE

Abbey Road

Sheringham

THE circus-like debacle at the North Norfolk planning committee meeting last Thursday has left a bitter and nasty taste in many people's mouths.

The councillors still have not justified or explained their extraordinary decision and questions need to be answered without delay.

Why have these councillors ignored all the considered advice given and made available to them by a host of more qualified people?

Tesco has spent 13 years and upwards refining its plans, taking on board all the objections and planning concerns and listening to local people and their requirements. At last it has a planning application in place that not only meets those requirements but which also has the backing and support of the planners, the council's own retail expert, the Highways authority and the bulk of the local community.

The Greenhouse project is flawed to the hilt but the councillors clearly do not care. I personally believe that they have acted illegally and hopefully a judicial enquiry might just prove my point

Quotations from the planners and others in authority include:-

The 'Greenhouse Project' was found not to be the best 'sequentially available site' closest to the town centre.

It is poorly served by public transport.

It would harm the town centre causing 'substantial closures' of food and convenience shops.

It is against national and local planning policies.

It is not in a 'sustainable' location.

The Tesco plan is considered to be the best yet, having met all the requirements asked of it.

Acceptance of its proposals would breach planning policy.

Let us now take a step backwards. Are many of these criticisms not precisely the same as those levelled at Tesco over a period of 13 years causing applications to be refused? They all sound very familiar to me.

It would seem, on the face of it that it is pretty clear which application should be successful.

But the arrogance of our district councillors has proved that they think they know best.

I rest my case!

NEIL BATCHELOR

Water Lane

West Runton

AGAINST the recommended advice of planning officers and the retail consultants, the decision by councillors to approve the greenhouse development and to once again turn down Tesco we find incredulous.

The revised Tesco proposal ticked all the right boxes on the changes the council required. How could a little-known complex plan only some 12 months ago, go from zero to planning permission in such a short space of time?

Our elected representatives have done the town no favours.

So what is Sheringham left with: an eyesore of a site on the Cromer Road; no new community centre or fire station; an "out of town" store which few people want, is not practical and will not be price competitive; and the loss of much needed additional car parking space near the town.

We hope that Tesco will have the courage and tenacity to go to an appeal or even ask for a legal review of the planning process.

In the meantime unfortunately we will still add to our carbon footprint and have to use Tesco at Fakenham or Stalham.

C and O THOMPSON

Campion Way

Sheringham

THE business rates and council taxpayers of North Norfolk have already paid for the NNDC executive to recommend the Tesco bid. Now the business rates and council taxpayers of North Norfolk will pay for the NNDC executive legal fight to justify councillors refusing the recommendations of its own executive.

Either way our money will continue to pay for this ongoing circus. Time for a statement from Philip Burton and Louise Wolsey detailing how much of our public money has been used on both sides of this.

ROB McEVOY

North Walsham

HOW far from reality are our councillors? The first proposition against Tesco was that it “made our kids fat”. So it is suddenly just one supermarket leading the way in obesity?

How does that make sense when our area was found to be one of the major areas in the country for obesity?

If councillors had a sense of reality they would know children go straight to Whistlestop in the town for their sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks after school and stand on what was once Ottendorf Green.

Tesco would have been only over the road and would have provided healthier affordable food as a choice too.

Mrs JOANNE DAYNES

High Street

Sheringham

I WAS at the meeting on Thursday until the break. I cannot believe that the Tesco plans, despite recommendation and a majority, were ignored.

I feel very strongly that the headteacher of Sheringham High who is a public paid employee spoke for Waitrose. He should be unbiased and not get involved with politics. There are quite a few parents of his pupils who want to see a Tesco. I wonder what the education authority would make of his involvement.

It is very selfish attitudes blocking Tesco now and none of it is down to planning. They are happy to shop out of Sheringham and not support the local shops but ignore the fact that not everyone has the public transport to do that and they still want to shop at reasonable prices and see variety in Sheringham.

I ask all those who want one to keep fighting.

SALLY WARWICK

Sheringham

By e-mail

THE meeting to debate the Sheringham supermarket issue started well. The planning officials presented the case for approving the Tesco proposal with clarity and objective, considered thought. I began to be hopeful that common sense would prevail and Sheringham could at last look forward to the town centre Tesco which so many inhabitants want.

However, when certain councillors began to speak, all common sense vanished. We were given an emotive, illogical, inconsistent - and in some cases self-contradictory - diatribe against Tesco, with very few references to actual planning issues.

Indeed, one councillor seemed confused about exactly what she was objecting to and why, and her contributions sounded frighteningly ill-prepared.

I trust lawyers will look very carefully at the minutes of this shambolic fiasco and the dubious, flawed basis on which the councillors' decision was reached.

It's hard to pick out the most ludicrous claim made during the meeting - there were so many - but I think it may be the insulting suggestion that the high-spot of the week for lonely elderly people might become a ride in an electric bus along the Weybourne Road, a remark which has already led to Sheringham being derided in the media.

ELIZABETH REES

Beeston Road

Sheringham

NOT only could we taxpayers end up stumping up the cost for Tesco's legal bills due to the councillors' awful decision but we are now expected to stump up the cash for a Waitrose that fails on planning issues.

Councillors were informed that the council would need to consider paying for CCTV for the supermarket, street lighting and a pedestrian route along the Weybourne Road, signage, a cycle path, a road widening scheme for the lorries and delivery vans, and road resurfacing.

We will also pay for the officers to try to justify councillors' reasons. They didn't just approve a supermarket against planning guidelines; they've effectively bumped up our taxes the minute they voted it in.

LOUISE KNIGHT

The Street

Hempstead

WHILE Lib Dem Sheringham councillor Penny Bevan Jones had huge concerns for three trees in Sheringham that would be touched by a Tesco, she had no consideration for our cemetery when approving a Waitrose.

The Waitrose will now be built next to the cemetery. The peaceful and tranquil site, formerly next to the allotments, will now be next to a restaurant, food academy and major supermarket.

There will be more traffic, more disturbance and no doubt more trashed graves. Furthermore, funeral processions will now be interrupted by supermarket traffic. I think this is more important than three trees.

There was no respect for the dead and grieving families. These are the real issues councillors should have considered.

Ms HANNAH MORTON

Woodland Rise

Sheringham

OUR councillors don't like being told what to do. They don't like being advised by planning officers how to vote. I have one piece of advice for them, you're in the wrong job.

The tide has changed. There were no roars in the council offices, no banging on tables like reported last time and there was no enthusiasm afterwards from either sides. Councillors were one big disappointment for all involved.

ALICIA HUDSON

Cromer Road

Holt

REFERENCE the Tesco/Waitrose fiasco: it seems to me that the spokesmen and councillors appeared to be advocating and voting for the academy rather than a supermarket which was not part of the brief.

In my opinion the academy is likely to be a huge white elephant, because I've seen no running costs or funding details other than an unspecified amount from the supermarket. Waitrose is not going to commit to a huge amount of funding, all supermarkets need profits and supermarkets operate on small margins/big turnover.

Who is going to cover business rates, rent, staff, buildings maintenance, insurance for buildings, contents and public liability, fuel and water?

Who are actually are going to be the end users and how much is it going to cost them?

Will Mr Roderick be going to allocate a big chunk of his school budget to allow pupils to use it - he seemed very sure that it would benefit pupils but where is the money coming from to provide transport and pay costs of using it - because I don't believe his governors will like that. I certainly don't want an increase in my council tax to pay for it.

Incidentally when parents are being exhorted not to keep pupils off school for term time holidays is it right that a schoolgirl be taken out of school for the day along with a headteacher whose job is to be at the school dealing with school business, not a private planning application.

The reasons for refusing Tesco permission are as spurious and ludicrous as the reasons for approving the Waitrose application. Refusal of Tesco: a councillor who states in seven years she has never had to give a reason, has heard all the arguments before therefore didn't need to read the accompanying documents. Three trees that would need to be taken down - not under a TPO I think and certainly not of any major importance, especially when the alternative approved site is on the edge of NT land. That the independent shops may in future be used by Tesco - well, it would easy for them to add a clause forbidding it.

Approval of Waitrose: despite independent reports and the advice of skilled and experienced planning officials recommending approval of Tesco at Cromer road and refusal of Waitrose at Weybourne road, councillors felt they knew better when it came to the impact on Sheringham town centre.

A councillor felt that pensioners who are at home all day would view a trip to Weybourne road on an electric bus as “the highlight of their week”. Now I'm not pensioner yet but I am a disabled wheelchair user and spend the majority of my time at home, I can assure councillors that we people at home have far more going in on our lives than to get excited at a trip on a bus to a supermarket! I find that an extremely offensive and patronising remark. I can't actually recall any other “reasons” for approval once we take the academy out of the equation as it should have been.

I'd really like to read a full transcript of the meeting along with a report of which way councillors voted, and what their justifications were for voting that way. I feel as taxpayers that have already funded many meetings refusing Tesco and that will probably have to pay a very expensive legal team to head the undoubted appeal by Tesco that this the very least we deserve.

In a democracy accountability and transparency of decisions by elected councillors is an obligation

JEANNIE ZELOS

Holt Road

Aylmerton

YET again we have been let down by our council and it has not fulfilled its own manifesto. It has not delivered an affordable supermarket for the residents of Sheringham or the new facilities that would have resulted from this.

Waitrose has good produce but it is expensive. The store would not be based in the centre of Sheringham which I thought would be a priority, so it's a long walk for those who do not have cars.

What criteria does Waitrose meet that Tesco does not meet? The council has let down the people of Sheringham and yet again has catered to a small minority and the local shopkeepers. I hope it understands the impact its decision is going to have on many in Sheringham.

TINA FREDERICKS

By e-mail

I WISH to support the Tesco application. We need it very much.

PETER THURTLE.

By e-mail

THE mind boggles that the council could go into the meeting without having sought legal advice and having a lawyer present. I still believe that the Tesco option would be better for the shoppers of Sheringham.

BOB MOLAND

Greenlands Way

Sheringham

WITH regard to the fiasco at the planning meeting, will we soon hear that planning officers have been sacked as there is no confidence in their ability or will the councillors who voted against Tesco resign and let the people of Sheringham have the chance to elect people who have the interest of all the residents at heart?

The decision means no new fire station or community centre. As to passing the plan for Waitrose, this is against government guidelines and if it ever opened would be a disaster having a cafe/restaurant incorporated, thus no reason to come into town. Also, it is no use to people who live in town without transport.

Have you ever tried to get a buggy 2.4 children plus shopping on an electric bus? Because of access, mobility scooter users run the risk of being injured.

Food grown on allotments cannot be used in the academy as all schools must purchase from registered food suppliers. I have a suggestion, however. We have an election due shortly and I would have thought that it would not cost a fortune to print ballot cards to enable the Sheringham population to vote on their wishes.

It would certainly be cheaper than the amount the council will spend attempting to fight Tesco.

GRAHAM McEVOY

Vincent Road

Sheringham