More than 700 objections to new supermarket in Newcastle Emlyn
On Monday the Newcastle Emlyn Action Group handed in 732 letters signed in the town objecting to the proposed new supermarket on the Cawdor Garage site in Newcastle Emlyn. The application, little changed from the one rejected in September, was submitted in mid December, giving the town just 21 days over Christmas and the New Year to respond. Nevertheless, hundreds have signed up on street stalls and shop counters to register their objections to the plan.
Objectors gather in bitter cold in Carmarthen
Tim Swann, a member of the Action Group, said, “The Transport Assessment totally ignores the impact of new traffic on the narrow, congested streets of the town and it is clear that road safety will be compromised”. He added that the number of objections collected in such a short time belied claims that a silent majority in the town favoured a supermarket on the Cawdor site.
Barry Rogers, also a member of the Action Group, said that the new application still contained many of the inaccuracies and contradictions which objectors had highlighted previously. It showed a store two and a half times the size of CKs with more than six times the turnover, while the applicant himself recently told Newcastle Emlyn Town Council that the new store would only be 10% larger than CKs. The effect of the figures given in the retail impact assessment which accompanied the application was to under-estimate existing levels of trading in the town and surrounding area and to overstate the amount of revenue which a supermarket could claw back from places such as Carmarthen and Cardigan. Figures provided by the County Council’s own planning consultants also showed that the new supermarket would have to take up to half the business of some existing shops in order to become viable.
Another campaigner, Richard Vale, added that a new survey of the geology of the proposed site raised serious concerns about the stability of the land. This could only be solved by massive and prolonged pile driving, with a real risk of damage being done to buildings in the vicinity, including two chapels, an old people’s home, private houses and other businesses.
For more information and to join the Action Group, go to:
http://groups.google.com/group/nceactiongroup
If you are a journalist seeking more information please contact
Tim Swann on Tel: 01994 484358
or
Richard Vale Tel: 01239 711653
THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN NEWCASTLE EMLYN WILL CREATE MAJOR PROBLEMS IF THE SUPPER MARKET PLANS GO AHEAD. THIS SHOULD BE STOPPED.
YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION IN CARDIGAN AND TESCO PARKING TO SEE THE PROBLEMS THAT WILL OCCUR.
We already have a traffic problem in NCE – just look at the parking problems!
The proposal greatly increases the number of spaces in town, allowing us to park more easily, ‘bulk shop’ on site, whilst a short walk from the car will access the excellent butchers, bakers, veg etc already available.
As I have stated publicly elsewhere on these pages, I consider this to be the only solution to re-developing this site.
Andy.
There is no doubt that there is a considerable traffic problem in Emlyn. I’ve not seen any actual plans, but how exactly will delivery lorries get to the shop site? If it’s via the existing entrance down the side of the garage, then this will prove horrendous as they try to turn into the road.
As to Andy’s comment about easier parking allowing us better access to the excellent butchers etc, how long will they be able to survive if a supermarket is just behind them?
Finally, I have heard no comment on what happens to the existing garage business – we’ve lost all the petrol filling facilities, are we to lose the ability to have our car serviced and have to drive to Carmarthen? We have a good supermarket in CK’s – Summerfield (aka Co-op) could be better, but overall I say let’s keep it that way.
Michael
Andy, there are currently 65 parking spaces, and the planning application says there would be 114 if the supermarket goes ahead. However, that total includes 9 staff parking spaces, so the net increase is 40 spaces. A long way off the applicant’s claims in a letter to the Tivyside in November that he would “double parking provision in the town”.
The application says that parking would be free for up to 2 hours, so presumably everyone would try to park on the Cawdor site.
The scandal is that you now have to pay 30p to park for 20 minutes in the council car-parks. The result is that people will park anywhere else in preference, including on double yellow lines. If you want to nip into the newsagent to buy a paper, why pay 30p on top?
And if the Cawdor plan goes ahead, the Council will be responsible for a policy which is: free parking if you want to shop in a supermarket, pay if you want to shop in locally-owned businesses. Great.
Richard, I heartily agree – the parking charges for residents are scandalous! A work colleague recently paid the 30p to nip into NCE in her lunch hour to pick up a few bits of shopping, got delayed in a queue at check-out, over-ran by 5 minutes, and fined £26!!! Her shopping was only £8!
Surely it’s time that the Council allowed for the application of ‘free parking passes’ for residents only, who after all are already paying around £700 to £1000 per year on average in Council Tax? I can fully understand that they need to levy further taxation to maintain the infrastructure, but the charges surely barely cover the wages costs of the enforcement? I am in favour of charges for visitors i.e. non-residents, but the current system is a disgrace.
One further point by way of reply Richard – surely there is nothing to stop you from parking for free in the proposed new site, and doing your shopping in a ‘locally-owned business’, is there?
One other approach might be for the County to hand control over to the Town Council so that any profits from the car parks would stay here and benefit local people and visitors instead of being siphoned off to keep our masters in County Hall on fat salaries and pensions.
But hell is more likely to freeze over first.
Meanwhile, I’m off to counselling, as finding myself in agreement with Andy has been a profoundly disturbing experience.
Richard, I am pleased to note that at least we can agree, and agree to disagree, on all these valid & salient points! I can only express my best wishes for your obvious and much belated need for counselling!
I’m afraid any of our well intended forays into the world of politics regarding the plans of ‘the Council fat cats’ will fall on very stony ground (please excuse the wildly mixed metaphor!), but at least we can enjoy the democratic right of debate!
Kindest regards, Andy.