I agree with everything you say and with your permission Paul am publishing your letter on my blog
I am writing to you as a former mayor of Oakham and, I would hope, speak on behalf of the silent majority who are in favour of the Tesco extension. In view of the fact that you have given much column space in the past to those that are opposed to the extension, I trust you will give a little space to my contribution. Oh, and to those of you out there that will be saying I’m writing this because I am employed (part-time) by Tesco, well so what. Tesco don’t need me to speak for them so my concerns will always be for Oakham, its character and its longevity.
In last week’s editorial and letter pages I saw the usual misconceptions and prejudices that have dogged the issue since April this year and it is obvious that there are those that won’t accept change at any cost. In particular those that are against any organisation that is successful who are always going to be a prime target for this type of protestor. Those of you with short memories (for instance certain town councillors) seem to forget that just over ten years ago the site was derelict and it was obvious, to any right thinking person, that it was perfect for a supermarket development, of some flavour. As it happens Tesco was the successful candidate so tough on the rest. It is pointless making cheap comments like, “I don’t think it should have been there in the first place” because it’s too late now or saying that the bungalow is in a conservation area to prevent the change. The bungalow that was being considered for demolition is not of significance because, until recent times, it too was heading toward being derelict itself and only a couple of years ago needed refurbishment. Ergo the bungalow is irrelevant and not part of the conservation list anyway - as far I am aware.
The town council delivered its meaningless ‘U’ turn decision last week, with only half the council thinking the application was important enough to turn up for. We have one councillor thinking that he can change history by saying, “....it shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” And another, more confused councillor, said he was concerned about the single entrance from South Street and “... was not a satisfactory solution.” This after he had previously said he didn’t want pedestrian access from Penn Street. Is he now saying he would prefer a second vehicular access there (Penn Street) instead?
The town council had no reason to turn the application down given that Tesco had altered their plans to fit in more with public opinion, all be it a minority opinion. Councillors obviously let their personal prejudices get in the way of their duty. Perhaps both town and county councillors should have visited the site last Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and try to find a parking space. It was impossible because the store was packed to the gunnels and people were driving away, probably to shop out of town. It has been proven before that the town, in its current form, cannot support three supermarkets, so for the town council to pass, without any objections at all, an application from Sainsbury’s, which in case they haven’t noticed is an out of town store, seems to be, at the very least, naive and at worst snobbish. What do out of town stores make? Yes, they make for dead High Streets. This is typical of the attitude adopted by them (OTC) and if I’m not mistaken a certain misguided loyalty to past members, who should know better when it concerns free enterprise.
The standard of conduct by certain members of the public at the meeting held on the 11th October, and even some county council members, was appalling and I trust that those guilty of misconduct at the last meeting will not use next Monday’s meeting as an open forum to fire abuse and scorn at those who follow the rules and who have respect for others opinions. One attendee incorrectly used the council’s statistics in your letter pages the following week, to show that Tesco had 57% of the market in Oakham, which, if he had looked and listened to what was being said, would have shown that he was completely wrong and obviously confused. If he had taken the ‘mean’ average he would have seen that it represented something more like 18%. The notion that Tesco takes 57% of
2.
the business in Oakham can easily be destroyed with the truth but we all know that statistics can be manipulated as he proved in his correspondence to you.
Another person, at the same meeting, suggested we all buy our goods on-line and not to use supermarkets. The silence around the room at this suggestion was palpable.
Finally, for now, there are two aspects that the town council, and others, seem to have missed. One is that there has been talk, among certain people, of so called ‘White’ and DIY goods being sold in the Oakham Tesco store after completion, and while no-one can give 100% guarantees, I believe there are no immediate plans to allow this. However, I can’t hear anybody objecting to the Cooperative Society in Oakham selling these goods for some years, in direct competition with local high street stores. As one town councillor has already said, “I am all for competition.” What sort of competition are we talking about here, the selective type?
The second and final point is regarding the whole issue of future applications for additional supermarkets in Oakham, in particular those out of town stores, so vehemently supported by the town council. If the application for Tesco is turned down and it goes to appeal how much is it likely to cost the county? Have they any idea at all – no! They have been duplicitous in their deliberations and decision making and to be quite frank appear to have not thought it through at all. What makes them think that any new applications for supermarkets will be given the go ahead if this one is refused by Rutland County Council? Be careful, be very careful and look further than the end of your noses. Actually forget that, because for Oakham town council it’s too late.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Beech
