Is it Waitrose vs Tesco?

After a 14 year dispute, it seems that “Tesco” had become synonymous with the word “supermarket” in Sheringham. While there was a brief application by Budgens to put a larger store on the Station Road car park, there has been very little in the way of competition or alternative to Tesco. The choice has been Tesco or nothing – which isn’t much of a choice at all.

Now, with the arrival of a rival scheme featuring a Waitrose, the issue now seems to be Tesco vs Waitrose. As in all aspects of political life however the choice is not that simple.

The Greenhouse Community Project (www.greenhousecommunityproject.com), conceived by a local landowner,  would see an eco-friendly supermarket built on the land currently occupied by the town’s allotments, next door to the Splash Leisure Complex on Weybourne Road in Sheringham. In addition to the supermarket a ‘Food Academy’ has been proposed in partnership with the local High School.

The overriding ethos of this scheme was to build a supermarket that would give something back to the community. A supermarket the town could be rightly proud of and that would benefit Sheringham in a number of innovative ways. It’s geographic location in one of the most beautiful areas of North Norfolk, inspired a design that seeks to blend into the countryside, aided by sloping roofs covered with grass and moss. The supermarket will also be off-grid supplying its own power through solar panels and clever design. In fact it has been promised that the building will generate enough heat to be able to transfer some to the swimming pool next door, drastically reducing North Norfolk District Council’s energy bill for what is their largest leisure facility.

Being competitive on price remained an issue and to that end the project brought in the retail experience of Waitrose  (part of the British owned, employee run John Lewis group) to help run the supermarket aspect of the project, without compromising any of its ideals. As such the Greenhouse Community Project planned to offer a competitive supermarket, that would compliment the High Street, competing with Morrison’s in Cromer rather than the town it sought to serve.

In addition to the eco-friendly, affordable and ethically run supermarket, the Greenhouse Community Project offers a Food Academy. With schools county-wide facing drastic budget cuts and child obesity rising, food education is a subject that has clearly fallen by the wayside. Therefore the Greenhouse Community Project want to help alleviate the problems by offering anybody who wants it, access to first-class food and hospitality education and training facilities in the heart of an area which relies on the hospitality and tourism industries. Sheringham High School, after coming up with their own plan, have gotten right behind the scheme, noting the chance it will give pupils to grow their own food, learning all the time where food comes from, while hopefully imparting a little nutritional information along the way. The facility is to be funded in part by the profits of the on-site Waitrose supermarket, which will also offer students on-site, real-life working experience further increasing their employability.

While the vocal pro-Tesco minority continue to try and reduce the debate to Tesco and the working-class vs Waitrose and the middle/upper classes, the above shows the reality is very different. In any decision there must be comparisons and areas where the battle will be won and lost so I propose to compare Tesco to the Greenhouse Community Project on the issues I see as important, namely; Price, Impact on Sheringham, Sustainability and Legacy.

Price – while Waitrose may have a reputation for being an elite, expensive supermarket out of the financial reaches of most, a new “everyday essentials” range has brought them into line with the other national chains, including Tesco. Both therefore can offer products at a cheaper cost than is currently available to shoppers within the Town. Let’s call it 1-1.

Impact on Sheringham – this is a slightly more difficult one to measure however we can look at some quantitative data before we move onto opinion. First in terms of employment, Tesco will create 150 full and part-time jobs, the Greenhouse Community Project will create 155, but in addition to that, through the Food Academy, the scheme will increase the employability of an unmeasurable amount of individuals. I make that Greenhouse 3-1 Tesco. In terms of qualitative data, the Waitrose aspect of the Greenhouse Community Project has been designed to not sell any non-food items so as to not compete with the High Street. Tesco has promised similar, but have included 5 “independent units” in their scheme which can sell any non-food item they like on Tesco owned land, thus competing directly with the High Street. 4-1. In terms of social provisions the Greenhouse Community Project have, regardless of whether planning permission is granted, moved and improved the towns allotments. In addition to this they have doubled the size of the town cemetery. Tesco meanwhile have promised to re-build the Community Centre and Fire Station IF they get permission. Being generous and saying Tesco will fulfill these promises (they haven’t always in the past) I would make that 5-2, however Tesco will also destroy 19 units of social housing, only replacing 11, leaving a loss of 8 units of social housing in Sheringham. I consider this unacceptable, especially when over 500 people are on the social housing waiting list, and is a massive own goal for Tesco. 6-2. In terms of traffic the geographical position of the Greenhouse scheme will naturally aid the flow of traffic away from the busy Holway Road, Cromer Road roundabout that Tesco will sit on and exacerbate. Also it should be noted Tesco used traffic data which was older than the government advised 3 years when they produced traffic models for the Highways Agency. 7-3.

Sustainability – from the outset the Greenhouse Community Project has cited sustainability as their principle concern. An off-grid Waitrose specialising in local produce, Food Academy and improved allotments further cutting food miles, all point to an environmentally responsible development that will continue to benefit Sheringham far into the future. 9-2. Tesco’s plans, although vague, do suggest that they can meet government targets for sustainability so, again being generous, I make it 9-3.

Legacy – with the addition of the Food Academy, which will have immeasurable long-term benefits, bigger and better allotments and a cemetery which has doubled in size – the Greenhouse Community Project will leave a positive legacy on the town and region for many years to come. Tesco will of course employ 150 in the short-term, but based on Tesco in other small towns, the loss of local traders will soon off-set this gain and therefore I cannot see this as a positive Tesco legacy. 10-3.

So based on the above I make that 10-3 to the Greenhouse Community Project. A result which highlights why this is not a class war, or simply Waitrose vs Tesco but about much more than just which brand of supermarket we get in Sheringham.

Save our Sheringham, keep Tesco out.

Do Tesco Propose People Will Live And Shop In-Store?

Having just emerged bleary eyed from the recession and with a General Election just around the corner. Societies economically vulnerable have become the darlings of politics. To claim to speak for those people the tabloids like to label “hard-working families” is no doubt considered a vote winner. It brings with it the inference that the speaker cares and is a familiar cry of the Pro-Tesco supporter in Sheringham.

Both within the town, and elsewhere throughout Norfolk, the choice is simplistically seen as being Waitrose or Tesco. However this simplification glosses over the numerous other benefits a Waitrose, in partnership with the Greenhous Community Project would bring to our town. Nonetheless the choice is regarded as Waitrose or Tesco. The stereotypes thus run that those “hard-working, economically vulnerable, families” want an affordable Tesco, whilst the financially comfortable middle-classes want their premium quality products, at premium prices and to hell with those who can’t afford it. On the face of it this seems a fair assumption to make but scratch below the surface and the picture is wildly different. 

First we need a little context.

Currently over 500 people sit on the waiting list for affordable housing in the Sheringham area and North Norfolk District Council was recently listed as the 285th worst provider of affordable houses, out of the 323 councils in the UK. As this story from the Eastern Daily Press highlights: http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED19%20Mar%202010%2009:53:28:697

What does this have to do with a supermarket you might reasonably ask? Well if Tesco are given planning permission on their proposed site, 19 social houses and flats will be razed to the ground. “No worries” the Pro-Tesco supporter will cry, “Tesco are offering the council £1.2 million to fund replacement social houses”. How very noble you might think, until you realise that this £1.2million will not be given to the council, but will be spent by Tesco themselves on a replacement 8 social houses and flats. Now I am no mathmatician but to me 0 – 19 + 8 = -11. What that means in real terms is that if Tesco are given planning permission 11 social houses and flats will be lost to make way for a superstore that proposes to cater for the very people it is putting on the street. To me though that doesn’t seem overly caring. Furthermore who will pick up this shortfall? North Norfolk District Council of course. And who will pay for it? Us, the taxpayers. The same taxpayers who have just had to shell out a further £500,000 fighting another Tesco appeal against the democratic “no” they keep receiving.

This fact does not seem to have gotten through to those who still loudly shout, claiming to be the voice of the forgotten working class, that a Tesco is needed. In the spirit of comparison the Greenhouse Community Project (GCP) will tear down no social houses. Tesco will create 150 jobs, the GCP will create 155. On top of that, through the innovative Food Academy the GCP will see Waitrose invest back into the community with the provision of educational facilities which will enhance further the employment prospects of those who attend, in the hospitality industry, an industry Norfolk, and in particular North Norfolk are reliant upon.

It seems to me that the Pro-Tesco supporters are missing the bigger picture. If the argument for Tesco is on price, and lets be honest what else could it possibly be based on? Waitrose have a range of “everyday essentials” which are competitive with any Tesco value range you care to mention. In addition to that the GCP, of which Waitrose is only a part, provides numerous positive benefits to the community in a sustainable, environmentally responsible and ethical way without tearing down existing community provisions. In fact the only community provision that was affected by the GCP was the allotments which the GCP have already replaced, not promised to replace at some point like Tesco have with the community centre and fire station they also propose to demolish. They have also more than doubled the number of allotments available and given each holder the option of a free, eco-friendly shed, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

The choice is a simple one, after all people can’t live in a supermarket.

Before I am strung up as someone who is well-off and clearly out-of-touch with those on low-incomes, it is worth pointing out I currently work part-time on a wage barely above the minimum for someone of my age while burdened with a debt far above my annual salary. I am a low-earner. I need affordable food, but one-day I may also need social housing, or the oppurtunity to re-train and the offer of those things are more appealing to me than a 10p tin of baked beans.

Save our Sheringham.

Tesco – The master of the broken promise

Promises, promises, promises. Tesco love them.

Here in Sheringham, their promises have been coming thick and fast as they attempt to overturn their third planning application rejection.

Tesco’s most recently rejected plans, saw an application for a superstore on Cromer Road, where there currently sits social housing, a community centre and fire station. Naturally therefore Tesco promised to replace them. Fair enough you might say. Sheringham will get a new Tesco, new social housing, a new community centre AND a new fire station. What more could they want? Well try telling that to the people of Streatham in South London, or the people in Bracknell, or Stroud who will be only too aware of what a Tesco ‘promise’ actually amounts to.

You see in Streatham, as reported in Private Eye (issue 1257, page 27), Tesco promised to fund work on a new ice-rink, swimming pool and leisure complex as part of a 2003 planning deal. The deadline for this work to be completed has been and gone with no sign of any progress being made. Lambeth Council say they are still talking to Tesco, but the discussions remain shrouded in confidentiality while the residents have, literally now, nothing to do but wait.

In Stroud a similar thing has happened, only this time Tesco ‘promised’ something much smaller than an ice-rink, swimming pool and leisure facilities. Here Tesco ‘promised’, in fact legally had to, have a replacement bus shelter in place BEFORE they opened their new store. Unsurprisingly the store is open, as is the bus-stop, with no sign of a shelter appearing anytime soon.

In a similar move in Norwich, Tesco were legally obliged not to open until an agreed date. However, given the fine for ignoring this contractual detail was smaller than their profits from a days trading, Tesco renegaded on that promise too and the store was open for business long before it was legally allowed to be so.

In Bracknell, Tesco ‘promised’ that their new stores car park would be available to use, free-of-charge, to anybody who required it, including commuters. A similar ‘promise’ has been made in Sheringham where us residents have been told Tesco will feature a car park allowing visitors 3-hours of free parking, during which time shoppers can wander up and down Sheringham High Street, forsaking Tesco completely if they so wish. In fact this offer, is a key part of Tesco’s assertion that they will not kill the High Street. Fair enough. That is until you look at whether Tesco kept their promise in Bracknell, where the answer is a resounding – no. Once the store was open, Tesco moved to make the car park free for 3-hours, with cars exceeding that point fined £40. The move effectively banned commuters, who had been ‘promised’ they could park there. Understandably the commuters weren’t happy, but with Tesco already in all that was left was for a Tesco spokesperson to state that while Tesco “help where we can our priority has to be our customers”. Hear that Sheringham? Tesco’s car park is for Tesco customers, not High Street moochers. Bye-bye High Street.

Added to all the above, throughout their process in Sheringham, in the face of criticism that Tesco would kill the town’s currently busy High Street, Tesco promised they would not have a cafe on site and would limit their stores sales area to an acceptable level. And yet a cafe, including tables and chairs is clearly visible on their planning drawings. Also while the main store retail size may be slightly smaller, suddenly there are five “independent retail units” on site – increasing the retail size to well over their previously rejected proposals. Also bear in mind that Tesco Pharmacy, Tesco Insurance and the like are all, in legal terms, seperate corporate entities, so could quite easily fill these units with Tesco products, which again undercut the High Street.

Having taken the above into consideration and seen the latest “revised” (another word for ‘smaller’) plans for the community centre and realised that Tesco plans will actually see a net-loss of social housing in an area crying out for more; I cannot be alone in not trusting Tesco to fulfil their promises to my town.

Therefore if Tesco do bully their way in, you will find me stocking up on fire extinguishers.

It seems to me a Tesco promise is the equivalent of a Tesco value meal: it is packaged nicely and at that price who can argue? And yet once you get it home it is an unpalatable mess, devoid of nutritian and leaves a distinctly bitter and sour after-taste which no amount of brushing can get rid of.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=331249073573

Why fight Tesco?

My hometown of Sheringham, Norfolk has been fighting Tesco for over 14 years now, and finally an end is in sight. North Norfolk District Councillors have recently voted to reject Tesco’s plans for a store in the town in favour of a Waitrose as part of the Greenhouse Community Project – which is great news, but while the battle was won – the war is far from over.

Tesco, in their time-honoured style have launched a costly legal appeal process which shows their flagrant disregard for the views of the community they hope to settle within. All while adding yet more council outgoings, on top of what has already been a costly bill.

It is though just one more example of Tesco showing their true community colours. The phenomenom is not just limited to Sheringham, for proof of that just ask the residents of Streatham in South London who are still waiting for Tesco to replace the ice-rink their new store took away from the community A promise made by Tesco during the planning process, then promptly forgotten all about once their store was up and running. Or the residents of Stroud who continue to be forced to wait on a bus shelter Tesco promised. The list goes on and on. Unfortunately for Sheringham if Tesco get in, they have promised to replace a Fire Station, not an ice-rink or bus-shelter, here… I can see myself stockpiling fire-fighting equipment for my home now.

Back in Norfolk, similar Tesco tactics began almost from the outset of their attempt to muscle their way into Sheringham.

The process began in 1996 with Tesco purchasing a site on Holway Road. The council moved swiftly to deny Tesco permission for a store on the site, citing the damage a store so far out of town, would do to the town’s bustling centre. Tesco relented and in 2001 offered instead to replace the 11 flats situated on Cromer Road, known as the Lockerbie Flats, in exchange for planning permission to build a store on that site. The Council, having had the Lockerbie Flats valued at £620,000 by an independent estate agent, turned Tesco down. Days later, Tesco returned to the Council offering £40-50,000 for the site and threatening to return to the Holway Road site if a compromise couldn’t be reached. The Councils Chief Executive resolved that this shouldn’t be persued. Then in January of 2002, Tesco offered £200,000 for the site, which was later revised down to £150,000. Amazingly, although perhaps not when you consider Tesco was continuing to threaten to return to Holway Road, this deal was accepted in principal, causing the Councils Head of Legal Services to express concerns that no deal should be accepted before planning permission was granted to ensure there would be no conflict of interest between the Council’s landowning and planning departments. Despite this, and other warnings, Tesco pushed and pushed for the then Chief Executive to sign ASAP, sensing perhaps that with the upcoming local elections this was their last chance to bully their way into an organisation which was about to undergo a democratic overhaul. As a result the Council signed the Lockerbie Flats over to Tesco a full month before Tesco even submitted a planning application for the site, safe in the knowledge they now held the flats as leverage over the Council. In light of these practices it is little surprise then that the planners recommended Tesco, for the third time, on March 4th, 2010. Luckilly for all us Sheringham residents though the Council stood up for the future of Sheringham and rejected the proposals.

These are the questions that need to be asked. Why, unless Tesco had put the Council in a corner, would they accept almost £500,000 under the going-rate for the flats at the time of purchase? Why did they sign and exchange contracts before planning permission was agreed despite numerous, and vocal warnings? Where has this money gone?

Meanwhile, while Tesco are busilly buying up some of the social housing that is on offer in Sheringham, 500 people remain on the waiting list. There is a chronic lack of affordable social housing in North Norfolk, and yet Tesco seem intent on limiting the available housing still further in their reckless pursuit of profits.

Now we have a choice, do we want an organisation who embarks on the practices listed above, or do we want one run by Sheringham people, for Sheringham people? The choice is obvious, and as Disney always promised it would, lets hope good does indeed triumph over evil.

Sheringham, Norfolk not Tescoville, Anywhere.