Special Town Council meeting attracts bumper attendance
Newcastle Emlyn Town Council held an extraordinary meeting on Thursday, 17 December, to discuss the resubmitted Cawdor supermarket planning application, and there was a slight air of Groundhog Day hanging over the proceedings, as a similar meeting was held back in the early part of the summer to discuss the first application.
There was once again a large turnout by members of the public, including the developer himself, Kevin Davies, and his agent, Stuart Banks.
This time round, five members of the public had applied to address the meeting, and they were called in turn by the Mayor.
Barry Rogers, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke first and pointed out some of the inconsistencies and inaccurate figures contained in the retail impact assessment which accompanies the application. For example, the report claims that Somerfield has a turnover of £380,000 per year and that it could afford to lose £1.7m of this and still survive to make way for a new supermarket.
Richard Vale highlighted concerns over the geology report, stating that the surveyors had not been made aware of old rubbish dumps on the site. The risk was contamination of the river when work started, and he said further work need to be carried out on the old tannery site to ensure that no anthrax was present.
The well-known instability of the site meant that a great deal of pile driving would be needed to stabilise the slope leading down to the river and to build the supermarket itself. The report showed that 150 piles would have to be driven, some to depths of about 100 feet, and that there was a risk of damage to surrounding buildings, as well as the prospect of residents and businesses in a large area having to endure weeks of thudding.
Tim Swann spoke about the transport assessment, which he said was deficient in a number of important aspects. It was clear that traffic calming measures would be necessary on the A484 to reduce speeds to 20mph, and the report entirely ignored the impact on the wide road network.
Helen Hatt spoke about the character of Newcastle Emlyn and its appeal to residents and visitors alike A new supermarket would destroy more than it would bring, she felt.
Finally, Kevin Davies spoke, claiming that without a supermarket, Newcastle Emlyn would lose out to other towns in the area. Once again he compared Newcastle Emlyn with Lampeter, which he said was thriving despite having two supermarkets.
Mr Davies said he could not understand why objectors kept claiming that the new convenience store would be nearly three times the size of CK’s in Newcastle Emlyn. A store that size simply would not fit onto the site. [Editor’s note: People may have become confused by reading Mr Davies’s planning application, which states that the sales area of the new store will be 1066sq. metres and that CK has a sales area of 400sq.metres. Similarly people may have become confused by a recent press interview with Mr Davies in which he gave the impression that the proposed development would double the number of car parking spaces in town. His application form says that the number of spaces in the Cawdor car park will rise from 65 to 114.]
The councillors then began their meeting, with Councillor Maureen Webley stating that the proposed development was out of scale with the rest of the town and not in character with the town centre.
Councillor Hazel Evans said she had received many representations from people opposed to the development, and was also concerned about discrepancies in the application about how many parking spaces there would be.
Councillors Alan Jones and Alan Davies both said they had spoken to people in favour of the supermarket.
The Mayor proposed that the Council send a modified version of their previous letter setting out their comments to the County Council. Councillor Alan Jones said he had nothing further to say. He evidently disagreed with fellow councillors’ criticisms of the plan, as did Councillor Alan Davies.
After further discussion, it was decided that a new letter should be drafted, and the Mayor went through a list of material considerations for objecting to a planning application. He also read a list of considerations which are not valid objections, including the morals of the developer, at which point there were audible sniggers from the public.
Councillor Hazel Evans argued strongly that the Council should send a representative to the Planning Meeting in Carmarthen, and that it was important for the town and its council to raise their profile and try to win back some of the influence and authority which has been lost to the County Council.
The meeting then closed.
I have sent the following message to Carmarthen County Council’s Planning Commitee voicing my objections to the re-submitted proposal. I have also copied it to Newcastle Emlyn’s Town Council for info and hope that they will send a delegation to the County Council’s next Planning Meeting to represent the interests of our quaint old market town.
QUOTE
Firstly, you will be aware that the initial application (W/20805) to which W/22109 relates, attracted a large number of objections and it was subsequently rejected.
It states quite categorically on page 2 of the W/22109 Application that it is a re-submission of the Application Reference W/20805 which was refused permission on 22 September 2009. However, I understand that the Council’s Planning Services is treating W/22109 as being a new application, rather than a re-application submission, due to a number of changes from the original scheme in terms of layout and the submission of several new or amended reports. If this means that any letters of objection (or indeed support) from the previous application (W/20805) cannot be “carried over” for the new application (W22109), then such a position would be absolutely preposterous. It is even more pertinent given the timing of the application’s re-submission (i.e. in the run-up to the Christmas period with an early January deadline for comments). This is a serious point of issue here and the Council needs to give very careful consideration with a view to extending the deadline to allow people extra time to consider the revised proposal and submit their views.
My opinion of the Retail Impact & Transport Assessments is that they do little to allay one’s fears that a new/larger supermarket would have a significant detrimental effect on existing businesses in the quaint old town of Newcastle Emlyn. It would definitely take a lot of trade away from some of the town’s local food shops such as CKs, Somerfields & Spar in particular as well as independent family-owned butchers and bakers. As such, these businesses would struggle to compete and remain open with the resulting closure and loss of jobs for the employers/employees concerned. The high street could then easily turn into a ghost town with many boarded-up shops/premises as has already happened in other parts of the UK. If the proposed supermarket was a major retailer such as Tesco, Morrison or Sainsbury, the effect would be more catastrophic as it would impact on other local non-food retailers as well.
The application states that for section 20. Employment – there are 15 existing full-time equivalent (no part-time) employees on the site for redevelopment rising to a proposed total of 20 full-time equivalent employees (supposedly comprising 10 full-time & 20 part-time). Any suggestion that this proposal is creating 5 extra full-time equivalent jobs is arguable. There will be the loss of employment for the existing 15 Cawdor full-time employees (can’t see them working for a supermarket given their existing skill base) and a potential near future loss of employment in other existing local businesses.
There appears to be a potential conflict of interest in that the Council owns the existing Cawdor car park. Presumably, the Council would be able to sell this holding at a sizeable profit but it goes without saying that this should not be seen to be an overriding factor in determining whether or not the application is to proceed.
In summary, I believe the re-submitted / new application is totally out of scale with the rest of the town and, if allowed to proceed, would tarnish its character and appeal.
I, therefore, urge you to refuse planning permission for this application to proceed and to follow the wishes of others that have raised similar objections.
UNQUOTE
i just ask that where do all the good people of NCE do there shopping at the weekends now as i see the town is so quite on fridays and Saturdays there is no problem parking or doing the “shopping” most people i talk to are split 50/50 overe the plans to have a supermarket and nearly all go out of town to do the big shop would this not be better to be spent in NCE…
i for one would still shop in butchers local to the town as this is much better meat and very good service
My Brother-in-law is a butcher and a small town and about 5 years ago a sainsbury`s Supermarket opened 100 m from his shop and he was very Concerned but has seen his trade go up 20% in fact …
and as to the comment about including the morals of the developer i think people should look at them selfs 1st as the good book says “let him with out sin throw the 1st stone”
Hmm, a thoughtful response from Mr Bingham, without really raising any new issues. Isn’t it ironic that at times of change we only hear the doubters’ or discrediters’ views, and not those in favour, or open to opinion?
And if the Cawdor site is indeed unsightly, contaminated, & dangerous, as is patently suggested by its history & current status, then shouldn’t we be pressing the Council to take the necessary steps using our (taxpayers) money? Or working hand in hand with the Council AND prospective developers in order to ensure the site is developed to our mutual satisfaction? The retail impact reports often quoted are usually slanted and subjective at best, and at worst downright misleading.
Please don’t merely dismiss this case for the sake of avoiding change or progress. Whilst I have my own doubts about the longterm suitability of NCE for a Tesco/Morrisons et al, it would undoubtedly benefit many, myself included, whilst not preventing us from also shopping at our excellent family butchers, greengrocers etc. Change CAN equal choice, and not just eradication!
Andy, Your naivety is touching. When you get into long trousers you will realise that ownership is nine tenths of the law and that large supermarket chains will not agree to anything other than short term sweeteners in order to get exactly what they want.
Supermarkets don’t work “hand in hand” with anyone other than their accountants and shareholders to squeeze the maximum profit necessary out of every community.
You also, worryingly, seem to be another of the “I’m sure there must be a silent majority” brigade using the self-fulfilling argument that they must exist because they are silent. Sure, there may be a majority of people who are silent over the Cawdor plans, but the majority of people are silent over everything, because:
(a) They don’t care either way
(b) They think that their views are being represented by other people
(c) They don’t like to stick their head above the parapet on anything outside of their family circle.
(d) They think that the planning application will go through anyway as supermarkets nearly always get their way.
What evidence is there that the people who hold these views are overwhelmingly from one side of this argument rather than the other? None. So we are left with the vocal majority who represent the feelings of the community.
It’s called democracy Andy. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.
Dylan, many thanks for your valued input! At 44 years old, & with 16 years experience to date working directly with the self employed in the financial sector, I have long since outgrown both ‘naivety’ and short trousers!
I merely point out that without the help of the Council and/or the financial ‘clout’ of a major developer, the eyesore that is the Cawdor site will remain a blot on the town landscape, and since this is now one of the only practical parking areas in the town, the state of the site is noticed & frowned upon by many people on a daily basis.
I completely understand the initial impact such a development may have on many local businesses, but like your so-called ’silent majority’ I can also recognise the plus points of a major supermarket resource. And believe me, from my frequent discussions with colleagues & clients many ARE in favour of it! The fact that they are not vocally demonstrative is unfortunately typical of current times, but does not change their valid viewpoint on this issue, even if unstated publicly.
Finally, I am well aware of the principles of democracy, and don’t need this to be underlined by you. I would once again reiterate that the existence of a well stocked cost effective and convenient superstore holds absolutely no compulsion for any of us to shop there, but since many of us now shop online or drive to Cardigan or Carmarthen for our major restock of household goods on a weekly or monthly basis it provides, in my opinion, an incentive for the existing family businesses to promote their products in a proactive manner to attract our custom, whilst encouraging more of us to shop in NCE rather than travel miles in order to do so.
To dismiss such an argument out-of-hand would appear to contravene the very principles of democracy you rightly state.
Well said Dylan!
Here is another important point which I wish to bring to everyones attention.
When the planning application was initially submitted for consideration under Planning Reference No: W/20805, one of the reasons for its refusal involved the Newcastle Emlyn Conservation Area.
The County Council Planning Committee stated that “Part of the application site is located within the Newcastle Emlyn Conservation Area while the majority is outside it but the boundary of the area surrounds the site. Due to the design and layout of the proposed development it is considered the scheme would have an adverse affect on the area and would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area”.
Interestingly, in a recent edition (16/12/09) of the Carmarthen Journal it was reported that plans submitted by a Newcastle Emlyn cafe (Harrison’s Bistro; ref: W/21918) to renovate the rear of the property had been refused by the County Council Planning Committee. The paper reported that it was due to “the scale of the proposals not being acceptable for the town’s conservation area”.
An actual extract from the County Council’s “Refusal of Full Planning Permission” report states ..”The proposed extension contains construction materials and architectural elements and features of an alien nature that would not respect the historic and architectural character of the host building, or of the Newcastle Emlyn Conservation Area”.
One other reason for refusal states …”The scale and proportions of the proposed extension contrast significantly with those that characterise this part of the Newcastle Emlyn Conservation Area”. …etc.
Now, I am not sure whether the re-submitted plans for the Retail Convenience Store under Planning Reference W/22109 have materially altered the proposed site layout to the extent that it totally falls outside the Newcastle Emlyn Conservation Area. Whether or not they do is surely irrelevant in this instance. The scheme is still very likely not to blend in with the surrounding area and character of the town and should therefore again be one of the major reasons for its refusal.
What should also be of concern to those that oppose the building of a retail convenience store is as follows:
It states quite categorically on page 2 of the W/22109 Application that it is a re-submission of the Application Reference W/20805 which was refused permission on 22 September 2009. However Carmarthen County Council’s Planning Services is treating it as being a new application, rather than a re-application submission, due to a number of changes from the original scheme in terms of layout and the submission of several new or amended reports. This means that any letters of objection (or indeed support) from the previous application (W/20805) cannot be “carried over” for the new application (W22109). Such a position is absolutely preposterous and is even more pertinent given the timing of the application’s submission (i.e. in the run-up to the Christmas period with an early January deadline for comments). This is a serious point of issue here and the County Council needs to give very careful consideration with a view to extending the deadline to allow people extra time to consider the revised proposal and submit their views. Otherwise, there is a very real danger that the proposal will be approved with very little opposition.
That is a very salient point Mr Bingham, & whilst somewhat in favour of the scheme (with reservations) I can concede that it is extremely narrow minded of the Council to deem this a ‘new’ application, & therefore completely disregard the earlier lodged feelings of the town’s Action Group! Simply unacceptable in my view.
Incidentally, in my own humble mitigation my entire christmas food shopping has been in NCE this week, and I have nothing but praise for the staff & owners of Somerfield, Spar, the butchers, and the excellent veg providers for their ever helpful and kind service! Thanks to you all!
I wish you all a very Happy Christmas & New Year, & will continue to follow these proceedings with great interest via this excellent website, and hope this contentious issue can be resolved to the good of all!
Merry Xmas! Andy.
Many of my friends have said they can almost buy everything they need in Emlyn and rarely go to Cardigan/Camarthen. In fact many of us hate Tescos. I personally went to all the shops to get my Christmas presents and food and for those I couldnt find – shopped online.
Has anyone noticed by the way the Tesco bus collecting people for Cardigans Tesco (free ride)! Why can’t we have an alternative to another supermarket on this site?
There was a Carmarthen Council promotion for the town a few years ago held in the Holy Trinity Church – I went along and I was shocked as to how many people came and put forward their views on what they thought the town should have in the future. From memory I believe many people were in favour of a community/arts/music centre especially a place within it for young mums with children can go.
Also a decent swimming pool – a revamp of the old one which in my opinion is disgusting. Emlyn needs so many other things for the local community to use. What happened to all the research from that day? It seems that nothing has changed since we put our views to the council. Yet again, we are not considered to be on the map at all – no promotional brochures like those shops have in Cardigan – nothing. We have the Castle and recently the Dragon Festival which was brilliant. We need more events like they have in Llandeilo.
Most important we need that car park and more spaces on that Cawdor site. Pull down all the showrooms and put a car park on that! We have lost our mart car park on the mart days and many of us don’t even bother to come to Emlyn on those days.
We need a coach park to bring more people into town – they always go to Cenarth to see the falls and be lucky to get a seat in the small cafe there. Emlyn has the cafes etc to cope with large coach loads of people and its a lovely little high street with some interesting shops now. The carmarthenshire council sure know how to kill the town and just keep it for a supermarket on the car park which they own and run! As for the recent icy conditions of the pavements again – no grit. The Cawdor Car park had not been gritted at all. I feel so angry with our Council for their neglect of the town and what we the community are asking for.
I do agree with much of what others have written here – the council aren’t listening and its frustrates me that they think we are invisable. I feel like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Could you not put a suggestions box asking the local community like myself on this website? It would be very interesting to see what others would like to see.
I must say I was surprised and saddened to see the Harrison’s Bistro application turned down. The plan was to knock down the old green tin shed and replace it with a cedar-lap building, with a cafe terrace overlooking the water meadow. Surely this is exactly the sort of development we do need in the town.
Meanhile a bit further along we have a proposal for a 1400 sqare metre shed, euphemistically called a “convenience store”, slap in the middle of the town conservation area but ring-fenced off by its own local boundary. So was it coincidence that Kevin Davies stated at the Town Council meeting that the proposed supermarket would definitely not have a cafe?
This was in the same speech in which he said that the store would be “just about ten percent bigger than CKs”. Yet in his own Retail Impact Assessment – on the council website at http://tinyurl.com/CawdorDec09 – Kevin says that the store has a projected store turnover of £11.8m (page 10) compared to CKs at £1.8m (page 11). i.e. financially it is more than six times the size of CKs, despite being only (!) two and a half times the floor area.
Why two different, conflicting, lies? Well, for the application he needs to downplay the size of CKs so that he can claim there is plenty of spare cash in the town to be spent at the new supermarket. While to the town council he needs to downplay the size of the supermarket so that they won’t oppose it.
Whatever will he tell us next?
Mr Swann, what a ridiculous play on basic statistics! Since when did the floor area of any store have any relevant bearing whatsoever on business turnover? I can agree that the Harrisons proposal is a good one, & I think the council need to clarify their objections. But to raise the points you have is in my opinion commercially naive at best, & negatively compromised at worst. and idealistic in the extreme! And to use the term ‘lies’ may indeed be libellous and I strongly suggest you retract it.
Please people have an objective view!!!
Andy, I was at the meeting along with 40 other witnesses. Tim Swann was also there and he has read all the documents with their conflicting versions of the reality. You were not, and have not.
Tim is correct on every point, and his choice of words is not ill-judged or inaccurate in my opinion. Statements are deliberately being made which have no evidential basis. Lies is a perfectly good term to use I think.
Jeremy, I fully appreciate your comments, but have indeed read most of the documents relevant to this issue, both here and elsewhere. And whilst I concede that statistics are inherently a method of ‘manipulating’ or ‘massaging’ the facts, as a responsible administrator of this website I am quite frankly surprised at your statement that “lies is a perfectly good term…”, given today’s litigious society. And I would reiterate my point that floor area has absolutely no bearing on business turnover whatsoever!
PostScript: just to clarify my comments above, I meant of course that Mr Clulow is the administrator of this excellent website!
Andy
I would admit my remarks are intemperate, but I was shocked by the council meeting.
The point is, if you look at the Retail Impact Assessment provided by Kevin as part of the application – it is on the council website at http://tinyurl.com/CawdorDec09 – we have:
Page 4: 1066 square metres … net retail floor space
Page 11: CK Supermarket Sales Area (m2) 400
i.e. the proposed store would physically have two and a half times the retail floor area of CKs. No problem with that.
But we also have:
Page 10: …projected store turnover of £11.8m
Page 11: CK Supermarket Total Turnover £1.8m
i.e. the projection is for more than six times the turnover of CKs. (6.55 times)
The projection of £11.8m is reasonable for a store of that size (though other consultants suggest it would be a little larger). But the figure of £1.8m for CKs is a gross understatement. £4m is nearer the mark.
So in reality the new store would be some two and a half to three times the size of CKs depending on whether we use area or turnover.
So it would neither be “just about ten percent bigger than CKs” as stated to the meeting of the town council nor have more than six times the turnover of CKs as per the figures in the Retail Impact Assessment.
I believe both the statement and the document to be seriously and deliberately misleading. Is there a shorter word for that?
It is good to see so much lively debate and interest in the town’s future. We should all say a big “Diolch yn fawr” to Mr Clulow and his mighty organ.
Thanks also to Andy Unett whose contributions have convinced so many that the Cawdor supermarket is a terrible idea.
I wonder if Andy would mind clearing up one point for the rest of us? A debate is raging on whether his middle name is Colin or Charles. Or possibly Christopher.
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda i chi gyd/Happy New Year to all
Very funny Richard, thank you for your kind comments!
Since I seem to be the only ‘dissenter’ of the Action Group’s arguments who regularly contributes to this site , I expected some flak, but not of a personal nature, only wishing to bring some balance to an already heated debate. I have made no secret of the fact that in my opinion a redevelopment of the Cawdor site by a supermarket chain may prove to be a good thing in the long term, clawing back shoppers from trips to Cardigan & Carmarthen, and attracting new ones. In this I agree with the Retail Report, although I concede that some of their figures are slightly strange.
And for your kind information my middle names is James, so no chance of any anagrams/wordplay there, sorry!
Kind regards & Happy New Year, Andy
Andy, I always welcome and support dissenting voices. On quite a few occasions they have saved me from making a complete prat of myself. On many others, I have made a prat of myself regardless
Without dwelling on the point, what has annoyed me is not the dissent, but the slightly sinister tone of a few of your remarks. However, the way you responded to my cheap jibe leaves me feeling that that tone was not intended, and I therefore owe you an apology.
A world in which everyone agreed on everything would be very boring, and so with some hesitation, I hope you will continue to be a pain in the butt in 2010.
Happy New Year to you too.
I can’t help feeling dismayed by the shortsightedness of the suggestion that it is in the “long term good” of Newcastle Emlyn to have a major supermarket in town. In my view, such a statement shows either complete ignorance of or total disregard for the twin crises of climate change and peak oil, as well as an altogether suspect estimation of the social, ethical, economic, and aesthetic value of a major supermarket to the town. Of these latter issues, the potential economic value is the only possible point in favour of the proposal, and even here there seems to be overwhelming evidence to suggest that supermarkets are never anything but an economic black hole within small town communities, in both the short and long term! Their negative ethical, social, ecological and aesthetic effects on both local communities and the wide world are incontrovertible.
Regarding the serious challenges of climate change and peak oil, these issues must surely play a central role in determining any long term vision for the town. The long-distance transportation of food and other goods is unsustainable due to its heavy reliance on the finite resource of cheap oil. Our town needs to concentrate its energy on building alternative structures rather than supporting failing ones. Our existing local shops and producers need our continued support, while new local shops and producers need our wholehearted encouragement. The opening of a supermarket would severely jeopardise those very resources we most need to strengthen and preserve at this time. To say that people would still have the choice to buy local instead of from the supermarket is to disregard the dark undertow that carries shoppers to these shiny emporiums of convenience.
This is not about parochial fear of change or the selfish attempt by a comfortable few to maintain the quaint old-fashioned flavour of the town at the cost of “progress”, as some in favour of the development would have it. The very real insecurity of the global supply chains that put food and other consumables on supermarket shelves must be taken deadly seriously. Nor is this mere doom-mongering, though it will be taken as such by those who refuse for various reasons to recognise the impending urgency of the global oil and energy situation.
It is very worrying that our world leaders failed to arrive at anything like a sufficient global commitment to a sustainable future during the recent summit in Copenhagen. Also worrying is the fact that national and global mechanisms are not already abundantly in place to support the transition from an oil- and energy-hungry economy to a low energy one. But both of these political derelictions only confirm what many already believe: that in the absence of an appropriate political response, action must be taken at a local level on the initiative of individuals, small groups and local communities.
The issue of this proposed supermarket in Newcastle Emlyn keys directly into the global crisis of our times. With both the global and the local in mind, what must be foremost in our plans is to build resilience within our local communities in the face of the serious threats on the broader horizon. I can see absolutely no long term benefits to the town from the opening of this supermarket, only the further weakening of local resilience. The social, ethical, and ecological irresponsibility of those advocating the proposed development leaves me almost speechless! (Almost, but obviously not quite!)
Mr Bullen, thank you for an extremely well constructed & thought out piece, and I take all of your points on board, and indeed agree with many of them, certainly on global ecological grounds. I certainly concur that the Kyoto ‘agreement’ was beyond a joke, & the Copenhagen summit needless & expensive money for old rope & a public show at best.
However, we already have three large chain supermarkets (CK’s is currently negotiating (with the help of NISA) to become the biggest independent food store chain in Wales), so we are already subject to the ‘air miles’ food issue. Surely you’re not proposing to close these?
And with the proposed development, the possible ‘clawback’ of bulk shoppers currently travelling many miles to Cardigan or Carmarthen reduces the greenhouse CO2 emissions in terms of journey time by far if those same people would only shop locally. And by encouraging them to do so, surely they may also be re-educated in using their own ‘on-hand’ local butchers, bakers, greengrocers, etc?
I’m afraid on this basis alone the ‘global oil situation’, as you put it, just doesn’t add up. How may of us do our ‘bulk shopping’ currently in NCE? Or do we simply opt for convenience, price, range, & value, & go once a week or a month to Cardigan or Carmarthen, or shop online? I know I certainly do (monthly online to ’stock up’), but that does not prevent me from using our own excellent range of family-run local providers, many of whom incidentally I’m sure do exactly the same.
I remain convinced I’m afraid that the eyesore site at the Cawdor (at which I parked today with a colleague & shopped ‘locally’ I may add!) has absolutely no chance of any redevelopment without the unfortunate help of the ‘cash cow’ of a major supermarket chain, & whilst I do not necessarily agree with the owner’s motives for realising his asset, I think it is inevitable.
Turning now to the ‘aesthetic’ issue, how on earth is a well constructed supermarket & car park area with suitably developed infrastructure going to to have any possible aesthetic impact on the town, given where it is proposed, and the already wildly ranging sheds & buildings already on this site, many of which are empty and derelict?
I wonder if a more suitable questionnaire/survey (for those of us who have the time to do so) may be to poll local people to ask how many would indeed shop at ‘TescMorrisBurys’ NCE rather than drive to Carmarthen/Cardigan? Interesting.
Finally on a personal note, thank you Richard for your kind apology, accepted with good grace. My comments on this site are always intended with constructive input to encourage & promote the debate, & I humbly apologise in turn should you or anybody else have taken offence or found these to be ’sinister’ in any way.
Kind regards, Andy
Andy, I wonder if you could bring your expertise and experience in finance to bear on this. Let’s pretend I am a businessman coming to you, my favourite listening bank, with a business plan with a view to asking you to lend me a couple of million quid.
My plan involves building a supermarket in a small town. Now, before you ask, I cannot tell you which supermarket it is or even whether a supermarket has already expressed an interest in my plan.
The store would serve a catchment area with a population of 13,200. It is estimated (by consultants) that per capita spending on convenience goods is £1,700 p.a. That means just over £22m a year is being spent in the area on convenience goods.
Consultants reckon that existing shops are taking only about £5m, leaving the remaining 70% as leakage to other towns. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Because I’m a modest man, I reckon my store would capture about £11.8m of business. Most of this would come from leakage, but around £3.4m-£4m would come from existing convenience goods shops in town. They are over-trading, and would not be expected to close as a result. Those figures are not mine, by the way, but were produced by some very respected consultants.
About half of this £3.4m-£4m would come from CK’s, which has an estimated turnover of £1.8m, and most of the rest from Somerfield, which has an estimated turnover of £380,000. I just hope your maths is up to this!
In no way would the loss of turnover affect the vitality or viability of the town. On the contrary, it would enhance it.
You may wonder how big my store would be. Well, it would have a net sales area of 1066 square metres, compared with 400 square metres for CK’s. So, as I said to the Town Council, my store will be only 10% bigger than CK’s, and it is ridiculous to claim it would be nearly 3 times larger. A store of that size would not fit on my site!
You may have spotted that despite being only 10% larger than CK’s, it will have a turnover 7 times greater than CK’s, which as I stated previously is clearly over-trading.
So there you have it. A cast-iron business plan, as I am sure you will agree. When will you hand over the money?
Richard, Happy New Year! As ever a thought provoking & well constructed piece, which totally misses the whole point(s) I have been trying to make!
1. I agree 100% that the “10% larger than CK’s” comment was ridiculous in the extreme, so we can quite clearly dismiss that out of hand – the figures simply don’t add up, and such a comment was quite frankly laughable.
2. I think we are all agreed that this dreadful site desperately needs redevelopment, and equally clearly the Council are unwilling to do so, so what are our options? Leave it as is, to fall further into disrepair; raise millions of pounds of public money & build a community centre/affordable housing/youth club/playground etc – simply impossible!; depend on the Welsh Assembly to divert millions of pounds into something they care little about – it will never happen!; or accept the inevitable progression of a major supermarket chain wityh their funding coming to NCE & allowing bulk food shoppers to do so locally rather than drive to Carmarthen or Cardigan? I think the answers pretty obvious.
3. Where is the proof that current stores are, as you put it, ‘over-trading’? Certainly not from the horses’ mouths i.e. staff and owners. And incidentally, the per capita market spend of around £33 per week quoted by you (and others) is massively subject to question, and in my view a gross underestimation. Can you live on £32 per week? Current World Bank figures put this as high as £108 per person per week in the UK nationally!! How much of this is spent by local people in Carmarthen or Cardigan currently?
4. Obviously there is already substantial financial backing for the proposed development, otherwise it would not have proceeded to this point with the employ of expensive consultants, architects etc., so I presume (for the sake of your argument) you will not be requiring a business loan from me?
Let me ‘cut to the chase’ as it were, and ask you & the other contributors to this site where you normally do your bulk food shopping? I for one am not ashamed to admit that at least once a month I use excellent Tesco online home delivery service to restock the cupboards/freezer, and then buy daily perishables (bread, milk etc) locally, using CK’s, Somerfield, Spar etc., as I have done for 30+ years.
Finally, can we establish whether you are opposing the development on the grounds of the business plan/market figures purely on a statistical basis, on ecological grounds, on the suggested impact on the town’s other traders, or merely as a kickback against change for the sake of it? Are you also opposed to the Castle Motor’s site plans for a Lidl store? Or is this far enough removed from the town centre in your eyes?
Interesting!
Andy
I’m glad you question the figures. That was the whole point. All these figures come from either the planning application itself or from a consultants report on the application commissioned by the Council. The same is true of the term “over-trading”, used by both sources to describe existing shops.
Here’s another one. In November 2009 the applicant wrote to a local newspaper saying:
“The town would also benefit from twice the parking spaces currently offered once the development is completed.”
A couple of weeks later, he submitted a planning application which shows that the number of parking spaces will rise from 65 to 114. This new total includes an unspecified number of staff parking spaces.
There isn’t much that’s innovative about this plan, but the maths certainly is.
Richard, I agree your point re the maths. But strange that you have avoided my primary question about exactly where you (& other contributors) currently do your weekly shopping? Are you skirting this issue purely on a matter of principle?
Andy, great discussion, despite a bit of snideness directed at you. The question about where the “anti” campaigners buy their weekly shopping is of course important because of the implied hypocrisy accusation, but it isn’t a conclusive argument for the Cawdor supermarket plan.
My solution comes from the other end of the telescope so to speak….
If most NCE residents and visitors buy most of their weekly food in big supermarkets in Carmarthen or Cardigan, it’s because of choice and price (unless they find Tesco an aesthetically and environmentally superior experience, and like driving, which I doubt).
Why not tackle those issues in NCE by making the NCE shopping experience a more rewarding one? The Cawdor site could be used to increase the number of small shops and provide a leisure area for visitors which would attract more of them to the town thus increasing overall turnover. The increased competition would also help to lower prices, attracting more visitors and encouraging residents to spend a greater proportion of their weekly budget in the town. Specifically:
# provide more parking *seven days a week*
# use part of the Cawdor site for more small shops and outlets
# use the rest of the Cawdor site near the river as somewhere that visitors can stroll and relax with wheelchairs and prams (ever tried getting a wheelchair or pram around town or around the castle? It’s a nightmare).
The Cawdor supermarket might encourage some people to spend more of their weekly spend in town, but the cost to the town would be a diminution of the whole Newcastle Emlyn experience for visitors, which would cause a viscous circle of decline. My plan would encourage a virtuous circle of prosperity, localization and sustainability for the town.
The Cawdor site should be developed in a totally different way to what is being proposed in this application. My plan would benefit everyone in town, not just a multinational supermarket and morally deficient developer.
Thank you Dylan for your kind remarks , & very valid points. I reiterate that to have a valid & constructive viewpoint on this issue does not equate with being a proactive member of any quasi-political stance; all well propounded views are valid!
I stand some halfway between your view & that of the self-titled ‘Action Group! My proposal is this:
1. The site will NOT get any development without a major supermarket;
2. The proposed developer WILL get planning, with his high powered business contacts;
3. A supermarket chain would attract back local shoppers, & provide valuable parking;
4. It would provide wheelchair & disabled access;
5. If we complied & worked mutually, we could fight for a redeveloped walkway, with many small local outlets/bistros etc along the way, a good parking area, and maybe a small on-store cafetiere area overlooking the river;
6. The council are clearly not going to do any of this!
“The site will NOT get any development without a major supermarket”
Oh really? How did Newcastle Emlyn get to where it is now without a major supermarket? According to your theory Andy, the town shouldn’t even exist as a community or retail centre.
This proposal might seem like an “offer we can’t refuse”, but once it is accepted, no better alternative can ever get a look in. I say, like my heroine Mrs Thatcher – No, No, No!
Dylan, I agree with your sentiments entirely, and in an ideal world the vital redevelopment of this eyesore would be Council and/or National Assembly funded (by us, the taxpayers!).
My point is that I can’t see anything being done to the site at all without the financial “assistance” of a ‘major player’. With the amount of ecological work needed at the site, I can’t see the necessary funds being raised by any other means.
Andy, this is pretty boring, but for the sake of responding to your point, we shop as follows:
1. Fuit and veg. – mostly the Friday mart in NCE
2. Day-to-day stuff – mainly Co-op Somerfield
3. Dry goods – mainly Aldi in Cardigan
4. Meat – Somerfield, Jenkins or Dewi James
5. CCF in NCE – for things like oats and sugar.
With a family to feed which sometimes sees 7 of us around a table, we also do some bulk buying. (loo rolls, bread flour, etc.)
Actually very little of our shopping is done at Tesco, and what we do buy there is mostly difficult to source elsewhere (spices mainly).
So there you are. You are welcome to come and inspect our store cupboards.
When we were collecting letters in town, one elderly gentleman made a very good point about the difference between buying and shopping. Buying is whizzing round Tesco and chucking stuff into a trolley. Shopping is going from one place to the next comparing prices and quality. It takes a little more time, but you save a packet.
Oh, and our hens keep us in eggs, even during the recent cold spell.
Hope this does not sound too smug.
Thanks for responding at last to my query Richard!
I applaud your saintly devotion to shopping locally, but sadly in these harsh economic times many of us do not enjoy the luxury of the time or the funds to shop on a daily basis as you seem to do. You also make no mention of Spar NCE or CK’s, so I’m assuming these stores have no relevance to your personal crusade?
Choice of shops should surely not be an issue, so if we had a new supermarket, whoever it may be, why would you (or anybody else) feel pressured to shop there? How about if Co-Op bought the site & moved Sommerfield there – would that be acceptable? I’m afraid I cannot agree with the arguments of the Action Group in any way, but sympathise with your out-dated and old-fashioned sentiments.
And finally, I find it strange that you choose to use Tesco’s for items such as spices, when we have the excellent Riverside Health store in town able to supply almost anything!
Regards, Andy.