I attended the public meeting at the Swan on Thursday night organised by the protest groups against the Sainsbury’s and Tesco developments.
I am an avid supporter of the Sainsbury’s development and wanted to get an alternative view from the opposition.
Despite some good speakers and very good attendance, I was not swayed one bit from my views.
I wanted to stand up to cite some opposing arguments but as one meeting attendee halfjokingly shouted out: “They would get lynched!” So I kept quiet and decided to take the opportunity to write my views instead.
One thing that became very apparent were the confusing arguments against. These included planning, shopping, tourism, congestion and conservation.
The planning department took a lot of flack and one primary argument was that planning officers must consider a site in the town centre before looking at an “out-of-town” site. I would love to know where this miraculous town centre border is situated? The proposed Sainsbury’s site is literally at the bottom of the hill, 10 minutes’ walk from St Edward Street.
How can that constitute being ‘out of town’? And I would argue that an additional centrally located supermarket would contribute more congestion and more negative competition in the town centre. The brownfield sites mentioned by the panel could be used more effectively for much-needed car parking.
It was felt that shops would close in the town centre and it would become a ghost town, similar to other towns which have had out-oftown shops built. There is a confused argument here too. Leek town centre is already well in decline, shops stand empty and the council allow charity shop after charity shop to come in and take prime retail sites. In addition, I wouldn’t dare to begin to count how many takeaways and hairdressers we have. I think there are about five hairdressers in St Edward Street alone.
Sainsbury’s is a convenient scapegoat for this Leek problem — in my view the tourism issue of Leek is totally separate and needs to be run in parallel to the development of Sainsbury’s, for example. Leek’s small individual shops would be preserved and I have seen a perfect example of this in my original home town of Lewes in East Sussex.
Leek is in a prime tourist spot and yet on a Sunday, for example, it is dead. Yet you look 10 miles away to Buxton and it is vibrant and busy and the town centre works in unison with supermarkets. The market which was also mentioned would not be at risk, it would be preserved. Bring in the canal and the railway.
Sainsbury’s would give other high-street brands the encouragement to come into the town centre. This would all encourage tourism.
The argument re: congestion in my view is utterly false. There would not be much additional traffic, some would be diverted away from the Morrisons roundabout, which was cited by the protest group as a danger, as the additon of Sainsbury’s at the other side of the town centre would provide more choice for shoppers. In fact, a roundabout at the bottom of Mill Street would in fact stem the flow going up the hill.
I would say that the problem here is the traffic at the top of Mill Street, which is an entirely separate issue and in my view could be fixed easily with traffic lights or even a oneway inner ring road system.
Conservation was mentioned by a member of the audience which, in my view, is an irrelevant argument — the fact is Sainsbury’s would be developed on a brownfield site.
People kept referring to the big corporates “taking over” but in fact I have never seen so much documentation and consultation from this kind of proposal before. Sainsbury’s have set up a website and welcomed opinions, shared plans and feedback. Indeed, a recent letter from them gave details on how to support and how to protest, which gives a very balanced approach.
Finally, there’s the impact on the businesses in the immediate area, eg Bridgend Shell Petrol Station and Mill Street newsagent. I believe there may be risk and that is unfortunate, but around 300 jobs are being created (whether full time or part time). Surely this can only be positive for the area.
As for the petrol station, Bridgend Shell have had a virtual monopoly at this end of town and the prices are higher than most other petrol stations in the surrounding countryside and town, so I would welcome a slightly more competitive approach.
Finally, the media. This latest issue has been covered in some depth by both local newspapers but I find it very cynical reporting and it always seems to look at these type of projects through “glass half empty” sensationalism.
How about more balanced reporting? After all, from latest figures, around 70 per cent of Leek is in favour.
NICK REEDE West end of Leek