07/03/12..Thame rejects new Sainsbury’s store
FOLLOWING last night’s news that Thame Town Council unanimously recommended refusal of a plan from the supermarket chain, Sainsburys, full details of the **Motion it voted on are now available, reflecting most of the feelings expressed by the public at the meeting.
THE SUPPORTERS
Two people spoke in favour of the plans, Andrew Duffy, Area Secretary of the NFU (National Farmers Union) and Paul Vicary of GKA, on behalf of Sainsburys.
Andrew Duffy spoke about the inadequacy of the current Cattlemarket with regard to size and the fact that the facilities are out-dated. His view was that by moving onto the Thame Show Ground, a bigger, better cattlemarket could be provided and that there would be advantages for the annual Thame Show.
Paul Vicary maintained that a bigger Sainsburys would offer improved shopping choice, prevent people from travelling out of town to shop, secure the future of the cattlemarket and remove the threat of an out of town superstore being build on the DAF site.
THE OBJECTORS
Rob Wheal, a Thame resident however, said that he was “deeply cyncial” about the claim that by not accepting this proposal, the door would be opened for an out-of-town superstore.
“Tesco tried and failed,” he said, “and such store are unlikely ever to become accepted policy as they destroy town centre.”
He also questioned Sainsbury’s claim that the store would increase employment in the town.
“Any new employment would be off-set by loss of employment in the town centre,” he said.
Carol Horn, Lea Park Residents’ Association, said: “We should not be held to ransom by the threat of the loss of the cattlemarket and the Thame Show.” She was also concerned about the safety of the pedestrian route into the site from Lea Park, which, she suggested, would not be safe at night if a large building was in place.
Sonja Francis, Chair of Thame4Business, said: “I contest that Sainsbuy’s shopping survey is not robust. The 40% of respondents who said they shopped outside Thame, included people from surrounding villages as well as Thame itself so misleading because they were not asked whether they would change their shopping habits if a Sainsbury were provided on the Cattlemarket. Also, SODC’s own consultants cast much doubt over Sainsbury’s data collecting methods in its submission to the Core Strategy.”
After the meeting, she added: “It is our wonderful, small independent retailers that are the life-blood of our town and attract shoppers to come here. We must do all we can to keep it that way and see off any challenges from big, national business interests that care little about Thame and have only the interests of their share-holders at the core of their expansionism.”
A couple of last night’s speakers referred to press reports recently that Thame is ‘bucking the national trend’ when it comes to our small number of empty shops.”
Another speaker said: “People shop outside Thame for many reasons, to fit in with daily routine i.e. taking children to school, going out of town to work so may be shopping on their way home, (which a recent survey by SODC I think it was, said that more people LEAVE Thame to work, than work in the town. Many shop at Lidl, Asda, Tesco etc because they are cheaper. Sainsburys is not cheap.”
EDITOR’S comment: (because the time allotted for speakers was cut from five minutes to three with little warning): “Market town economies are very fragile and we can’t afford to do anything that might tip Thame’s the other way.”
**THE MOTION – Recommend Refusal: Thame Town Council opposes this planning application principally
on the grounds that it is in contravention of South Oxfordshire District Council?s Policy THA1 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan and the emerging South Oxfordshire Core Strategy, and it is premature in relation to Thame?s emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
Additional grounds for objection include:
1. That to approve the development would have material and significant consequences for the Thame Neighbourhood Plan, pre-determining decisions about the scale, location, phasing and delivery of development in Thame, and is therefore premature.
2. That insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the existing sport and recreation building on the site is surplus to requirements and, therefore, its loss would be contrary to PPG17 and Policy THA1 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan.
3. That the layout of the proposed development fails to take the opportunities presented by the potential re-development of the site to enhance the character and quality of the area. In particular:
? The layout fails to create a positive and engaging relationship with North Street;
? Insufficient consideration has been given to pedestrian linkages through the site; and
? The design and form of the service yard, and the relationship with North Street, would be detrimental to the character of the area and fail to enhance the locality.
4. The scale and form of the proposed development would appear overbearing from, and have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of 11-13 Moorend Lane.
5. That the loss of long stay parking is unacceptable, and the proposed measures to provide additional long stay parking across the town would:
? Compromise the operational efficiency and effectiveness of parking across the town centre;
? Have potential adverse consequences for the vitality and viability of the town centre, by reducing the extent and capacity of short stay parking;
? Through additional on-street long-stay parking have potential adverse consequences for pedestrian and highway safety, especially on main routes in to the town centre;
? Have additional adverse consequences, including adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, especially through the provision of onstreet parking adjacent to the Cricket Pitch.
7. That the evidence submitted with the application fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the capacity of the proposed car park is sufficient, at peak times, to accommodate the parking demands arising from the development without potential adverse consequences for parking and traffic movements elsewhere in the town (referencing, in particular, school dropoff/pick-up)
8. The proposed Community Centre would be totally inadequate for the needs of the town.
The full version of a report prepared by the town council’s Planning Consultant, Jake Collinge, is available on the council’s website:
http://www.thametowncouncil.gov.uk/images/stories/pdfdownloads/sainsburysttcfinalreport.pdf
The planning application is likely to be considered by SODC’s Planning committee in early April. Comments about the proposals can be submitted up until March 19, on the SODC website.
http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P11/E2086
