Bovey Tracey

Here are the meeting notes produced by Bovey Tracey Amenities Society of the meeting held on 17th January to discuss the idea of allowing a supermarket to be built on the community land along Le Mollay-Littry Way.

BT Amenities meeting 17 1 12 summary

There will be a re-run of the meeting in the Methodist Church at 7:30pm on 7th February 2012, so that any people who weren’t able to attend (or squeeze in) the original meeting can go along and give their input.

I’ve just returned from the meeting held in the Methodist Church Hall, it was a popular session, so popular in fact that if you didn’t get there early you were locked out, because the room filled very quickly, with many having to stand at the back. In deed there were apparently so many people outside that the society quickly made the decision to hold another similar meeting on 7th February 2012, to give other people a chance to air their views.

So first things first, it wasn’t a public meeting, but the Bovey Tracey Amenities Society opened their doors and welcomed everyone, in order to allow local people the opportunity to raise concerns or voice support in relation to the current hot topic of whether or not a supermarket, such as Sainsbury’s, should be built on the community land along Le Molay-Littry Way. I think everyone was very grateful to Paul Beecher and Peter (Hall ?) for facilitating this event, they handled what could have been quite an excitable group very well and laid down the rules from the beginning, which for the most part were adhered to throughout. In his introduction, Paul Beecher made a strong point about the good work that the Town Councillors do in their roles and how isolated they must feel, doing at lot of good work, with very little thanks. However he also pointed out that there was a strong feeling within the community that the public are not welcome at council meetings, a view that was voiced several times during the subsequent discussions. He also highlighted the fact that the Amenities Society is not part of the council, it is a non-political, non-religious society, but they have clearly developed access to, and good contacts with, the council, in their 40 years existence.

More formal notes of this evenings meeting will be available from the society in due course, if you would like to be sent a copy, then email a request to paul@btamenities.org.uk but in the mean-time I will just present some of the points that I made notes on.

The meeting / discussion itself was run by Andrew Shadrake, in a manner very reminiscent if the countless business improvement seminars that I’d attended in previous careers, but it has to be said that this one was a lot more interesting. He started by asking us to simply list as many benefits of having a supermarket on the site as we could, which he duly wrote up on a flip chart, and then to list the negatives. After about thirty minutes and not to many diversions we had a reasonable list on both sides, I won’t try to put them all down here, I’m sure that the full list will be available in the meeting notes, but here’s a taster:

Points in favour of a Supermarket:

• Creation of jobs
• Convenience
• Increased footfall to the town
• Free parking, within walking distance of Fore St
• More competition leading to price reductions
• Section 106 advantages

Points against a Supermarket:

• Job losses (in the town)
• Noise & light polution
• Not needed
• An eyesore
• Once built it could expand
• Road network couldn’t cope
• Benefits Sainsbury’s shareholders not our community

We then looked at what other use the land could have, suggestions included:

• Community Hall
• Craft Centre
• Green amenity land
• Nature reserve / orchard
• School (with comunity hall)
• Allotments

The final part of the meeting was do discuss what should happen next, what did we want the society to do with the views and opinions expressed at the meeting and what else needed to happen. The main desire seemed to be that the council be informed of what was said, though it is worth noting that about seven of the fourteen (?) councillors were present anyway. There was also a suggestion that the younger members of the community should be given an opportunity to express their views, perhaps by making use of the internet. Hmm. Another point that had all round support was the need to gather more facts and to get a definitive answer on the status of the covenant.

I suggested that it might be interesting to have a brief show of hands to give a rough indication of support for the supermarket and despite a few mild objections we did just that. It had been clear from the earlier discussions that there were more people in the room against the idea of a supermarket than for it, but there were certainly some very vocal and strong opinions in favour and it was difficult to guage the level of support. There wasn’t a count, but from where I was sitting it looked like about 80-90% were against the idea of a new supermarket, but it’s worth bearing in mind that this was far from a representative selection of the community.

I’ll post some more information tomorrow, it’s late now (or is that early).

If you read Tony Allen’s column in The Cottage Magazine he gives the impression that the whole Sainsbury’s supermarket incident was imposed upon the council and you come away with the impression that the council were never really that interested.

It does seem that Sainsbury’s has for some time been considering Bovey Tracey as a potential target…

It’s agent (Storegap) made an initial enquiry…

an approach was made about the possibility of using council owned land…

How does that sit with the email, sent by the town clerk to Storegap, where he appears to be not only interested but actually quite keen (emphasis mine):

As I am fairly confident we will wish to progress further this business opportunity, can you give me details of the next stages which we will need to progress the matter.

One of the other points that Tony Allen makes in his article in The Cottage Magazine, distributed this week, is that discussions with Storegap have discontinued:

While dialogue with Storegap has been discontinued, the Council…

It gives a sense of permanence doesn’t it, but how did the Mayor phrase it in the “Quality Update” :

At present we are seeking clarification over the covenant on the land. Therefore, there are currently no negotiations taking place with Sainsbury’s representatives Storegap

If I was a little more cynical I might also read into both of these statements the fact that they only deny discussions with Storegap,  not Sainsbury’s themselves, or even Aldi, who usually jump in where Sainsbury’s bail out .

Incidentally, as of today there are 504 signatures on the GoPetition website here objecting to this use of the land. Out of a population of 7,000 that’s quite small really. If the majority of residents want another supermarket so close then I will begrudgingly go along with it, but what concerns me is that the promises of consultation, being listened to and having our say are just patronising words. What I would really want is a vote.

I’ve mentioned The Cottage Magazine a few times, so it’s only fair that I provide a link, unfortunately Tony Allen’s article only appears to be in the printed version, so here is a link to Sally Morgan’s related article instead

UPDATE
Tony Allen’s article is now available, so here is the link.