Residents row over Tesco plans

Artist's impression of how the proposed Northgate store could look.

Artist's impression of how the proposed Northgate store could look.

First published in Bridgwater Area News Bridgwater Mercury: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by

A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store.

Cllr Bob Filmer, who chaired the Development Committee session in Bridgwater Town Hall, had to ask the public to stop harassing the Tesco reps, who were there to answer pre-submitted questions from residents.

The four-hour Question and Answer Session provided committee members and those registered as ‘interested parties’ an opportunity to hear responses to submitted questions regarding the application for a Tesco Extra.

Subjects included noise pollution, a potential loss of green space, the impact on historical assets, local economy, design, flooding issues, delivery movements and traffic congestion.

Nick Gibson, who registered questions, said the Northgate development had left him and many others feeling “excluded, discriminated against and demoralised.”

Sedgemoor District Council said it had done its best to engage with the public through various consultation on the project and relating documents, such as Bridgwater Vision.

Planning Policy manager Nick Tate referred to the Bridgwater Vision document as identifying the Northgate and Docks area an ‘an extension of the town centre’. He also said the town centre Policy P2 identified Northgate for ‘retail led schemes’.

Economy

Many people who submitted questions were also concerned the project, which includes seven other commercial units planned for Northgate, would have a negative impact on trade in the town.

Tesco argued it would draw in up to £2.6million per annum to the town centre for local traders, since the project will offer three hours free parking. Tesco hopes shoppers will head into town and do their grocery shopping in one journey.

Questions also brought up the issue of whether jobs would be created for local people as part of the development. Tesco said this would be secured through labour agreements under legal obligations.

Others criticised the potential jobs created by Tesco as not having enough room to progress. But Melanie Chiswell, corporate affairs manager for Tesco, said at the meeting information she had obtained from Job Centre Plus suggested 70% of people looking for work in Sedgemoor were looking for retail jobs.

She said the project will ensure 260 jobs will be available – 1/3 of which will be part time. Training will be provided and employees will be assessed on ‘attitude, rather than qualifications’.

Brewery Field

Part of Cllr Ian Tucker’s questions related to concerns that some 11% of the Brewery Field will be built on in relation to the application, saying the field was currently used as ‘a free and easy play area.’ Tesco argued the area would be enhanced, with improvements made to the current play facilities. These included facilities for toddlers and young children, a football pitch, extra tree planning and footpaths.

In a statement Cllr Tucker said: “An area such as this being enhanced can mean different things to different people.

“To have nice laid out lawns, water features and wooden park seats may be good for older people, but will not be viewed as an enhancement for youngsters who want to let off steam with a football.”

It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space.

What’s next?

By the end of the session, the public were demanding another meeting to allow them to speak directly with the Tesco representatives and with the development committee.

The Development Control Committee will compile a report, taking into account what they heard last night, for the next development committee meeting on February 12.

To stay on top of the latest news from meetings, follow our reporters @MercuryKJames, @MercMCollege or @BWMercury on Twitter or find us on Facebook.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:11pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

"A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store."

Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour!

"It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. "

Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place?
"A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store." Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour! "It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. " Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place? Samej1
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Thu 10 Jan 13

MBR Extreme says...

But I bet all those people moaning will shop in Tesco when its built, bring it on Tesco and hurry up.
But I bet all those people moaning will shop in Tesco when its built, bring it on Tesco and hurry up. MBR Extreme
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sheldoncooper says...

Samej1 wrote:
"A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store."

Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour!

"It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. "

Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place?
I've not heard that one before - according to most of the discussions here over the past few months 61% of Bridgwater people don't want Tesco ??
[quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: "A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store." Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour! "It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. " Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place?[/p][/quote]I've not heard that one before - according to most of the discussions here over the past few months 61% of Bridgwater people don't want Tesco ?? sheldoncooper
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

sheldoncooper wrote:
Samej1 wrote:
"A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store."

Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour!

"It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. "

Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place?
I've not heard that one before - according to most of the discussions here over the past few months 61% of Bridgwater people don't want Tesco ??
It's a fallacy a certain poster likes to spin!
[quote][p][bold]sheldoncooper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: "A HEATED row broke out last night (January 9) at a meeting which saw Tesco representatives quizzed over proposals for a Northgate store." Impossible, I don't believe it - we've been told repeatedly here that everyone is in favour! "It emerged at the meeting that Tesco is currently negotiating the possibility of the Brewery Field being gifted to a third party to ensure it is kept as public open space. " Very magnanimous of them... remind me who owned the field in the first place?[/p][/quote]I've not heard that one before - according to most of the discussions here over the past few months 61% of Bridgwater people don't want Tesco ??[/p][/quote]It's a fallacy a certain poster likes to spin! Samej1
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sheldoncooper says...

Toowit Too...who would that be ?
Toowit Too...who would that be ? sheldoncooper
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Thu 10 Jan 13

grisleyreg says...

Supermarkets should be near centres of population not Town centres,
This plainly is not the right location it will cause even more traffic problems for the area and blight the whole area,
Tescos still will not answer the important questions
But it will go ahead because SDC do not give a dam about Bridgwater and I suspect few of the officers live here.
Supermarkets should be near centres of population not Town centres, This plainly is not the right location it will cause even more traffic problems for the area and blight the whole area, Tescos still will not answer the important questions But it will go ahead because SDC do not give a dam about Bridgwater and I suspect few of the officers live here. grisleyreg
  • Score: 0

12:07am Fri 11 Jan 13

Per2012 says...

The Council are a disgrace, vigorously acting against the wishes of the people they're supposed to work for while assisting a huge corporation in its quest for profit from the very start of this whole debacle.

This sort of thing is becoming all too common in the brave new ConDem world where greed is good, profiteering is virtuous and only the strongest will survive..
The Council are a disgrace, vigorously acting against the wishes of the people they're supposed to work for while assisting a huge corporation in its quest for profit from the very start of this whole debacle. This sort of thing is becoming all too common in the brave new ConDem world where greed is good, profiteering is virtuous and only the strongest will survive.. Per2012
  • Score: 0

9:34am Fri 11 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

You would expect me to Post!!
The only problems, that I saw from Wednesdays Town Hall meeting, was that the Agenda, was not reflecting, what the meeting purported to try and achieve. Which was to outline initially the Actual PLANNING Application before the Commitee from the Applicant, Tesco's .
The various, SCC & SDC Representative Officers, from Highways, Environment , Planning Depts added input. Then the Chairman
Of SDC Planning Panel, outlined the next part of the procedure, this is where, I feel the actual Purpose of the Meeting was Flawed.
The reason being, is that myself, and others were led to believe that this meeting, was as it was Publicised, as an opportunity to Quiz both Tesco's, SDC @ SCC, it was at this point that the format in the Agenda, which was only handed out on entering the Meeting, was now clear.
Members of the Public were invited PRE- the meeting, to write in to SDC Planning Officer, with any Question, Technical, or General, so that it would enable, who Evers Deptartment it was directed @ they could attend the meeting with the actual Technical Answers, where necessary. This was good, where this process now became the Error, in the Meeting, was that if one did not have any Technical or General Enquiries or matters to raise b4 the Cut off date prior the meeting, then one did'nt respond.
As we were lead to believe that having previously registered to Speak @ the Meeting, that was correct procedure.
However, late Highways matter, came in late to SDC/ SCC, ( which often happens @ Planning) with alterations to HIGHWAY MATTERS, concerning Northgate, so I was in Bridgwater House in the Morning of the 9th Weds, looking at this information, which, raised a couple of new questions from myself, now. Only minor queries, but I felt needed to be asked.
It, was now clear that , those of us who had PRE-registered, as is the only way, anyone can speak @ Planning Meetings, for 3 Minutes. To ask questions or make relevant Point's that the Commitee Members, who are there to listen to all veiws given!!!
I have written yesterday, to the Chief Executive, Kerry Richards, Chairman of Planning Commitee Cllr Bob Fulmer, Planning Case Officer Rebecca Miller, and Steve Atkonson Group Manager Planning Dept, with my complaint, that in my opinion, the Meeting was flawed, in that People who had PRE- registered to speak as requested, had that right, taken away from them. I await a response ASAP.
I believe, that the people who, had requested to speak should be allowed too, at the Full Planning Meeting on
12th February 2013, Not, just that our Letters are circulated or read out by Members of the Democratic Service Team.
3 Minutes is not long enough really, but that is the Time allowed, and we should all be given that right, either as individuals ,or as 3mins given on behalf of a Group of people, who ever they might be.
This was the format previously used by the SDC Planning Team, when we discussed the Morrisons Planning Application @ the Bridgwater College, when a similar meeting with the Public and the SDC Planning Commitee were present, of which I was a Member @ that time. Those, who had reserved the right to speak were able to do so, and the letters read out for those who were not in attendance.

Regards Blue-Owl
David L Preece
You would expect me to Post!! The only problems, that I saw from Wednesdays Town Hall meeting, was that the Agenda, was not reflecting, what the meeting purported to try and achieve. Which was to outline initially the Actual PLANNING Application before the Commitee from the Applicant, Tesco's . The various, SCC & SDC Representative Officers, from Highways, Environment , Planning Depts added input. Then the Chairman Of SDC Planning Panel, outlined the next part of the procedure, this is where, I feel the actual Purpose of the Meeting was Flawed. The reason being, is that myself, and others were led to believe that this meeting, was as it was Publicised, as an opportunity to Quiz both Tesco's, SDC @ SCC, it was at this point that the format in the Agenda, which was only handed out on entering the Meeting, was now clear. Members of the Public were invited PRE- the meeting, to write in to SDC Planning Officer, with any Question, Technical, or General, so that it would enable, who Evers Deptartment it was directed @ they could attend the meeting with the actual Technical Answers, where necessary. This was good, where this process now became the Error, in the Meeting, was that if one did not have any Technical or General Enquiries or matters to raise b4 the Cut off date prior the meeting, then one did'nt respond. As we were lead to believe that having previously registered to Speak @ the Meeting, that was correct procedure. However, late Highways matter, came in late to SDC/ SCC, ( which often happens @ Planning) with alterations to HIGHWAY MATTERS, concerning Northgate, so I was in Bridgwater House in the Morning of the 9th Weds, looking at this information, which, raised a couple of new questions from myself, now. Only minor queries, but I felt needed to be asked. It, was now clear that , those of us who had PRE-registered, as is the only way, anyone can speak @ Planning Meetings, for 3 Minutes. To ask questions or make relevant Point's that the Commitee Members, who are there to listen to all veiws given!!! I have written yesterday, to the Chief Executive, Kerry Richards, Chairman of Planning Commitee Cllr Bob Fulmer, Planning Case Officer Rebecca Miller, and Steve Atkonson Group Manager Planning Dept, with my complaint, that in my opinion, the Meeting was flawed, in that People who had PRE- registered to speak as requested, had that right, taken away from them. I await a response ASAP. I believe, that the people who, had requested to speak should be allowed too, at the Full Planning Meeting on 12th February 2013, Not, just that our Letters are circulated or read out by Members of the Democratic Service Team. 3 Minutes is not long enough really, but that is the Time allowed, and we should all be given that right, either as individuals ,or as 3mins given on behalf of a Group of people, who ever they might be. This was the format previously used by the SDC Planning Team, when we discussed the Morrisons Planning Application @ the Bridgwater College, when a similar meeting with the Public and the SDC Planning Commitee were present, of which I was a Member @ that time. Those, who had reserved the right to speak were able to do so, and the letters read out for those who were not in attendance. Regards Blue-Owl David L Preece Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

9:59am Fri 11 Jan 13

artful280 says...

Unfortunately i could`nt come to the meeting last on wednesday evening because of other commitments but from my understanding of the letter explaining the meeting at no point was any member of the public whether they had pre-registered or not allowed to ask any questions , but all the meeting was for was to read out responses to pre submitted questions by people who had initially responded to the planning application. This to me seemed a pointless waste of money and time and could easily been dealt with by taking out a page in the Mercury with the responses.
Unfortunately i could`nt come to the meeting last on wednesday evening because of other commitments but from my understanding of the letter explaining the meeting at no point was any member of the public whether they had pre-registered or not allowed to ask any questions , but all the meeting was for was to read out responses to pre submitted questions by people who had initially responded to the planning application. This to me seemed a pointless waste of money and time and could easily been dealt with by taking out a page in the Mercury with the responses. artful280
  • Score: 0

10:32am Fri 11 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

artful280 wrote:
Unfortunately i could`nt come to the meeting last on wednesday evening because of other commitments but from my understanding of the letter explaining the meeting at no point was any member of the public whether they had pre-registered or not allowed to ask any questions , but all the meeting was for was to read out responses to pre submitted questions by people who had initially responded to the planning application. This to me seemed a pointless waste of money and time and could easily been dealt with by taking out a page in the Mercury with the responses.
In my opinion it's a great way of stifling debate - if, for whatever reason, you don't tell them you are an interested party in time you are left out in the cold regardless of the impact (positive or negative) on your life/business/home. Everything from this stage on becomes an exercise in PR for the inevitable 'approved' vote.
[quote][p][bold]artful280[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately i could`nt come to the meeting last on wednesday evening because of other commitments but from my understanding of the letter explaining the meeting at no point was any member of the public whether they had pre-registered or not allowed to ask any questions , but all the meeting was for was to read out responses to pre submitted questions by people who had initially responded to the planning application. This to me seemed a pointless waste of money and time and could easily been dealt with by taking out a page in the Mercury with the responses.[/p][/quote]In my opinion it's a great way of stifling debate - if, for whatever reason, you don't tell them you are an interested party in time you are left out in the cold regardless of the impact (positive or negative) on your life/business/home. Everything from this stage on becomes an exercise in PR for the inevitable 'approved' vote. Samej1
  • Score: 0

11:02am Fri 11 Jan 13

RustyKnight says...

Can't wait to see how they're going to put a football pitch on the Brewery Field, the path runs across the corner of the original one now and Tesco's will go back further than the path - or is it going to be a table football pitch?

As for generating free parking to bring people into the town centre, what a joke, has anyone from Tesco actually been to Bridgwater town centre and looked?

Imagine, all those local businesses that will be more boarded up shops because Tesco has taken all their trade away.

It might make more sense for Tesco to bulldoze High Street and Fore Street and build their new store there instead!
Can't wait to see how they're going to put a football pitch on the Brewery Field, the path runs across the corner of the original one now and Tesco's will go back further than the path - or is it going to be a table football pitch? As for generating free parking to bring people into the town centre, what a joke, has anyone from Tesco actually been to Bridgwater town centre and looked? Imagine, all those local businesses that will be more boarded up shops because Tesco has taken all their trade away. It might make more sense for Tesco to bulldoze High Street and Fore Street and build their new store there instead! RustyKnight
  • Score: 0

11:23am Fri 11 Jan 13

pinky pops says...

Look at the jobs it will bring to the town , or have none of u thought of this ,
Most of you complaining or commenting must sit waiting for a new story as I come across your names every day , I like to read the articles and comments ppl write bit come on give bridgwater a break , if tesco wanna build let it I bet you will be shopping in there ! Yeah u agree in traffic it is a nightmare most days maybe the council should look into making north gate a one way system maybe then the traffic won't be so bad !!!
Look at the jobs it will bring to the town , or have none of u thought of this , Most of you complaining or commenting must sit waiting for a new story as I come across your names every day , I like to read the articles and comments ppl write bit come on give bridgwater a break , if tesco wanna build let it I bet you will be shopping in there ! Yeah u agree in traffic it is a nightmare most days maybe the council should look into making north gate a one way system maybe then the traffic won't be so bad !!! pinky pops
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Fri 11 Jan 13

RobBW says...

I agree with pinky.

Give it a rest..getting bored now LOL Always the same ppl bickering between themselves, with the same old, same old...backwards, fowards, upwards and downwards!!!

I live literally 2 seconds away from the proposed site and do not have a problem. And as for the 'surveys' what surveys?? No one has ever knocked on my door or stopped me in town to ask what I think. My neighbours the same. Were we meant to visit Angel Place back along and find it in ourselves!!!!!

As for the threat of town centre shops closing down..I for one wouldn't mind a few of the phone and pound shops giving up!! If I need anything decent I have to visit Taunton or even Bristol!
I agree with pinky. Give it a rest..getting bored now LOL Always the same ppl bickering between themselves, with the same old, same old...backwards, fowards, upwards and downwards!!! I live literally 2 seconds away from the proposed site and do not have a problem. And as for the 'surveys' what surveys?? No one has ever knocked on my door or stopped me in town to ask what I think. My neighbours the same. Were we meant to visit Angel Place back along and find it in ourselves!!!!! As for the threat of town centre shops closing down..I for one wouldn't mind a few of the phone and pound shops giving up!! If I need anything decent I have to visit Taunton or even Bristol! RobBW
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Per2012 says...

How it will 'create' jobs when trade will be taken from the existing shops supermarkets, resulting in closures and job lossesis one of those mysteries that has no explanation.

Like who the hell do the council think they are, knocking down out swimming facility, flogging off OUR land and using our council tax to pay for the planning application of one of the richest megacorporations in the world.
How it will 'create' jobs when trade will be taken from the existing shops supermarkets, resulting in closures and job lossesis one of those mysteries that has no explanation. Like who the hell do the council think they are, knocking down out swimming facility, flogging off OUR land and using our council tax to pay for the planning application of one of the richest megacorporations in the world. Per2012
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Fri 11 Jan 13

pinky pops says...

Omg really per1012
And who r you ? Yeah they took down splash but come on it needed something doing to it it was run down
They've built another one haven't they like they did when thru took our precious lido
Have u got a job ?
Wells my ppl would be pleased if they got one in tesco
Many ppl come on here and slag of our town and many ppl don't even live here like I've said before dont like bridgwater easy move out of it
Most of u On Here just wanna moan about new things coming to town you all whined about morrisons and the range and the new mulberry factory give it a break for gods sake
Omg really per1012 And who r you ? Yeah they took down splash but come on it needed something doing to it it was run down They've built another one haven't they like they did when thru took our precious lido Have u got a job ? Wells my ppl would be pleased if they got one in tesco Many ppl come on here and slag of our town and many ppl don't even live here like I've said before dont like bridgwater easy move out of it Most of u On Here just wanna moan about new things coming to town you all whined about morrisons and the range and the new mulberry factory give it a break for gods sake pinky pops
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Fri 11 Jan 13

sheldoncooper says...

I do wonder if the M&S had agreed to build on this site, whether there would have been the same amount of opposition ? I think not.

I agree with RobBW, all this constant harping on about the people of Bridgwater not wanting it...says who ?? Not I and lot of others for sure !

It's a competitive world out there, and all the Supermarkets are well versed in competing with each other so let them get on with it...surely it will benefit us the consumers.
I do wonder if the M&S had agreed to build on this site, whether there would have been the same amount of opposition ? I think not. I agree with RobBW, all this constant harping on about the people of Bridgwater not wanting it...says who ?? Not I and lot of others for sure ! It's a competitive world out there, and all the Supermarkets are well versed in competing with each other so let them get on with it...surely it will benefit us the consumers. sheldoncooper
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Fri 11 Jan 13

jimee says...

i hope they get a shift on and build it
i hope they get a shift on and build it jimee
  • Score: 0

12:00am Sat 12 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

I'm glad that fellow post'ers have responded, with their veiws, good to see.
It was interesting to see just how many people attended the Wednesday Night@ The Bridgwater Town Hall, I did'nt an actuall head count, but apart from the Members of the Planning Commitee who were sat in front of me, I would estimate there to be approximately 60-70 Maximum, with that Number including Cllrs who do not sit on the Planning Panel.
There were Members of BF Group, David Chapple (PO Union Representative, shouting out through out the Meeting, trying to interrupt, the meeting, it reminded me of my days @ BCL (Cellophane) when the place was run by the Unions. Bringing us out on strike, when there was a grievance on the Factory Floor, I was a Chef there, yet I had to down Tools , so to speak and go on strike for something that did'nt affect me. Would the Factory Shift Workers have gone on strike, on my behalf, if I had a complaint, I know that answer, NO!!
So it begs to ask the Question, if so many residents are not happy with having Tesco's on Northgate, why was not the Town Hall Packed with angry Bridgwater Residents. Perhaps it's because, the Bridgwater ( Backward ) Forward Group, have the level of Support wrong, as I suspect it to be.
That, as the people of Bridgwater, want to see growth in the Town, not out of date Idea's,
Per2012. Well, what a Post from you,
So you will not be using the new Pool in March when it opens, if you bothered to read any of the post's that I have submitted, you will know why the decision to close the Splash was made. Ad for selling off your Land as u say, it is not your land, or your Swimming Pool it is the SDC, who provide, clean, finance these services to be there, for you and others.
Job Centre Plus, have said that 70% of people on their books, would be happy to get a job @ Tesco's.
As long as there are no valid reasons presented @ the Planning Commitee on 12th February, for rejection of the Application, and it has to valid Planning Grounds, then the Commitee will see fit to give Consent for this Tesco Application. As what you have to remember, is that if the SDC Planning Commitee rule against without the Valid Reasons, then the Applicant, can Appeal the Decision and the costs will have to be paid by SDC. Which in turn means us!
Regards Blue-Owl.
Aka-David Preece
I'm glad that fellow post'ers have responded, with their veiws, good to see. It was interesting to see just how many people attended the Wednesday Night@ The Bridgwater Town Hall, I did'nt an actuall head count, but apart from the Members of the Planning Commitee who were sat in front of me, I would estimate there to be approximately 60-70 Maximum, with that Number including Cllrs who do not sit on the Planning Panel. There were Members of BF Group, David Chapple (PO Union Representative, shouting out through out the Meeting, trying to interrupt, the meeting, it reminded me of my days @ BCL (Cellophane) when the place was run by the Unions. Bringing us out on strike, when there was a grievance on the Factory Floor, I was a Chef there, yet I had to down Tools , so to speak and go on strike for something that did'nt affect me. Would the Factory Shift Workers have gone on strike, on my behalf, if I had a complaint, I know that answer, NO!! So it begs to ask the Question, if so many residents are not happy with having Tesco's on Northgate, why was not the Town Hall Packed with angry Bridgwater Residents. Perhaps it's because, the Bridgwater ( Backward ) Forward Group, have the level of Support wrong, as I suspect it to be. That, as the people of Bridgwater, want to see growth in the Town, not out of date Idea's, Per2012. Well, what a Post from you, So you will not be using the new Pool in March when it opens, if you bothered to read any of the post's that I have submitted, you will know why the decision to close the Splash was made. Ad for selling off your Land as u say, it is not your land, or your Swimming Pool it is the SDC, who provide, clean, finance these services to be there, for you and others. Job Centre Plus, have said that 70% of people on their books, would be happy to get a job @ Tesco's. As long as there are no valid reasons presented @ the Planning Commitee on 12th February, for rejection of the Application, and it has to valid Planning Grounds, then the Commitee will see fit to give Consent for this Tesco Application. As what you have to remember, is that if the SDC Planning Commitee rule against without the Valid Reasons, then the Applicant, can Appeal the Decision and the costs will have to be paid by SDC. Which in turn means us! Regards Blue-Owl. Aka-David Preece Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

10:52am Sat 12 Jan 13

Fartypants says...

So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box!
So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box! Fartypants
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sat 12 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

Fartypants wrote:
So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box!
Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned.

I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??
[quote][p][bold]Fartypants[/bold] wrote: So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box![/p][/quote]Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned. I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy?? Samej1
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Samej1 wrote:
Fartypants wrote:
So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box!
Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned.

I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??
No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision".
As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be.
You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's.
With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant.
Regards Blue -Owl
[quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fartypants[/bold] wrote: So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box![/p][/quote]Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned. I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??[/p][/quote]No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision". As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be. You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's. With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant. Regards Blue -Owl Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Just the same as Central Governments land , property, Companies, that were bailed out for Billions, and Millions over the last 50 years as firms ran into financial trouble, like the Banks that had to bailed out, in the Banking Crisis, yes technically, one could " say we the British Public now own them or a part shared ownership, but if ever the Share Price allowed the Government to sell its held interests, we would get nothing ourselves, individually.So the Local Councils Assets are the same.
Cheeers Blue-Owl.
I for one cannot wait for the Tesco's Application to go B4 the Commitee, and if Passed, the Developement starting ASAP. Bring it On !!
Just the same as Central Governments land , property, Companies, that were bailed out for Billions, and Millions over the last 50 years as firms ran into financial trouble, like the Banks that had to bailed out, in the Banking Crisis, yes technically, one could " say we the British Public now own them or a part shared ownership, but if ever the Share Price allowed the Government to sell its held interests, we would get nothing ourselves, individually.So the Local Councils Assets are the same. Cheeers Blue-Owl. I for one cannot wait for the Tesco's Application to go B4 the Commitee, and if Passed, the Developement starting ASAP. Bring it On !! Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

Blue Owl wrote:
Samej1 wrote:
Fartypants wrote:
So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box!
Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned.

I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??
No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision".
As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be.
You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's.
With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant.
Regards Blue -Owl
No that is not what I meant and you know it.

Discussions here have included:

Impact on surroundings
Landscaping
Overdominance
Site history and use
Noise disturbance and smells
Traffic and highway issues
Loss of open space
....and so on.

Name one of these which is irrelevant to the planning process?
[quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fartypants[/bold] wrote: So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box![/p][/quote]Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned. I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??[/p][/quote]No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision". As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be. You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's. With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant. Regards Blue -Owl[/p][/quote]No that is not what I meant and you know it. Discussions here have included: Impact on surroundings Landscaping Overdominance Site history and use Noise disturbance and smells Traffic and highway issues Loss of open space ....and so on. Name one of these which is irrelevant to the planning process? Samej1
  • Score: 0

9:13am Mon 14 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Samej1 wrote:
Blue Owl wrote:
Samej1 wrote:
Fartypants wrote:
So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box!
Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned.

I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??
No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision".
As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be.
You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's.
With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant.
Regards Blue -Owl
No that is not what I meant and you know it.

Discussions here have included:

Impact on surroundings
Landscaping
Overdominance
Site history and use
Noise disturbance and smells
Traffic and highway issues
Loss of open space
....and so on.

Name one of these which is irrelevant to the planning process?
Exactly, they are ALL Relevant , and will be considered by the Commitee Members, and the Planning Case Officer, when He or She makes her Proffessional Opinion to the Commitee, with the Planning Dept recommendation to Pass or Reject the Application B4 them, or the Rec. to the Commitee, Stipulations that need to be imposed, so as to ensure that no breaches of the regulation ensue, either by Tesco's or their Contractors, etc.
The Members, will then either accept, the Planning Officers recommendations, challenge them, amend them, and then vote, on the Application, individually, no pressure or Political Pressure, whatsoever, the only Members, of the Commitee, who may have to Declare, an interest, or a Predetermined Mind, would be the Labour Members of Bridgwater TC. Who, will have been possibly part of a discussion, within the TC, and subjected to pressure from their own Group, and the Bridgwater ( Backward 3Steps) Forward Group, as I refer to them!
If this is the Case, those Members of the Planning Commitee would have to leave the meeting, and not take part in it, as they would or may have PRE- Determined their opinion, as opposed to this Application.
I have indeed raised this Point ,last week with, SDC.
I have looked in detail at the plans submitted, and Personally I think overall the Developement, is positioned well, they have protected the Blacklands Residents, from noise and pollution, as the Site abutting has the proportion of above ground parking on that side. The row of 7/8 shop- Office Units, along the Spire Walk, will also be a sound Wall, from any noise generated from the Tesco building and underground parking itself.
After, looking last Wednesday, at the Highway Amendments submitted, I like others , who thought, that as we had actually PRE- Registered to speak prior to Weds meeting last week, would have liked to put forward, a proposal, with ref to access and egress from the HGV deliveries, that a restriction be put into the Planning Conditions, that HGV, all not just Tesco's Lorries, be restricted to not go onwards to Penel Orlieu past the Police Station, but have to go left over the River Parrett, past Sainsbury 's to access the A38 to North or South, Bristol or Taunton directions, so as to minimise any disturbance to residents who live on Northgate, as in particular, there is considerable rattling which comes from empty HGV, loaded only with empty wheeled Cages.
Hopefully, I can add this to my Letter, which I shall further submit b4 the 22nd Jan Deadline. So as it will be noted on the 12th Feb when the Application is B4 the Commitee.
Regards David L Preece
Blue-Owl.
[quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blue Owl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Samej1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fartypants[/bold] wrote: So the land isn't "ours" (i.e. the publics) it's SDC's to do with as it will (bearing in mind that SDC and its councillors are our representatives and employed by us) by but the costs paid by SDC are "ours" to find? So the Local Authority's assets, the purchase and maintenance of which will have been paid for through taxation, are not public assets but the costs associated with the Council's management of them are? Nonsense. The Council does not exist in isolation and councillors who forget that fact tend to get found out and fail at the ballot box![/p][/quote]Spot on, we may not have direct rights but the assets of the council are publicly owned. I thin Blue Owl is being alarmist in implying that if we don't roll over and allow the store, the council tax payer will end up paying more... is this a Conservative policy??[/p][/quote]No, that is not what I said and you know it. what I actually Said, Was " there has to be Valid Planning Reasons as to why this or any other Application before the Planning Commitee Members, or any Applicant has the right to Appeal that decision". As for the Land, the Assets, yes they are the in the Ownership, of either, SCC, SDC, Or Bridgwater Town Council, because with ownership, also comes responsibility and costs.. All the 3 Councils are there to Administer, one of those responsibilities is to make Sound Financial Decisions, and make good use of Assets, if this means selling land, buildings or Property, that is how it must be. You, may not like, certain things, but that is the way it is done up& down the Country, whoever Political Group is Control of the Council's. With regard to the Tesco's Application to Planning, it just does'nt cut the mustard to object, just because you as an individual don't agree with it, or even 100- 200, unless your reason for Objecting is Valid. This is not different in this case or any other Applicant. Regards Blue -Owl[/p][/quote]No that is not what I meant and you know it. Discussions here have included: Impact on surroundings Landscaping Overdominance Site history and use Noise disturbance and smells Traffic and highway issues Loss of open space ....and so on. Name one of these which is irrelevant to the planning process?[/p][/quote]Exactly, they are ALL Relevant , and will be considered by the Commitee Members, and the Planning Case Officer, when He or She makes her Proffessional Opinion to the Commitee, with the Planning Dept recommendation to Pass or Reject the Application B4 them, or the Rec. to the Commitee, Stipulations that need to be imposed, so as to ensure that no breaches of the regulation ensue, either by Tesco's or their Contractors, etc. The Members, will then either accept, the Planning Officers recommendations, challenge them, amend them, and then vote, on the Application, individually, no pressure or Political Pressure, whatsoever, the only Members, of the Commitee, who may have to Declare, an interest, or a Predetermined Mind, would be the Labour Members of Bridgwater TC. Who, will have been possibly part of a discussion, within the TC, and subjected to pressure from their own Group, and the Bridgwater ( Backward 3Steps) Forward Group, as I refer to them! If this is the Case, those Members of the Planning Commitee would have to leave the meeting, and not take part in it, as they would or may have PRE- Determined their opinion, as opposed to this Application. I have indeed raised this Point ,last week with, SDC. I have looked in detail at the plans submitted, and Personally I think overall the Developement, is positioned well, they have protected the Blacklands Residents, from noise and pollution, as the Site abutting has the proportion of above ground parking on that side. The row of 7/8 shop- Office Units, along the Spire Walk, will also be a sound Wall, from any noise generated from the Tesco building and underground parking itself. After, looking last Wednesday, at the Highway Amendments submitted, I like others , who thought, that as we had actually PRE- Registered to speak prior to Weds meeting last week, would have liked to put forward, a proposal, with ref to access and egress from the HGV deliveries, that a restriction be put into the Planning Conditions, that HGV, all not just Tesco's Lorries, be restricted to not go onwards to Penel Orlieu past the Police Station, but have to go left over the River Parrett, past Sainsbury 's to access the A38 to North or South, Bristol or Taunton directions, so as to minimise any disturbance to residents who live on Northgate, as in particular, there is considerable rattling which comes from empty HGV, loaded only with empty wheeled Cages. Hopefully, I can add this to my Letter, which I shall further submit b4 the 22nd Jan Deadline. So as it will be noted on the 12th Feb when the Application is B4 the Commitee. Regards David L Preece Blue-Owl. Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Bridgy old Boy says...

The thought of having a "pre-determined mind" is an interesting concept. I can see the vote at the planning committee being split on Party political lines with the Labour and Independent members voting against and all the Tories voting in favour. If this is the case then one has to ask "who has the pre-determined mind"? Is it the Labour members who may for samej's very good planning reasons object or the Tories who for desperate financial reasons ie Sedgemoor have to pay for the new pool somehow approve it. So Blueowl perhaps you can advise me who has a "pre-determined mind"?
The thought of having a "pre-determined mind" is an interesting concept. I can see the vote at the planning committee being split on Party political lines with the Labour and Independent members voting against and all the Tories voting in favour. If this is the case then one has to ask "who has the pre-determined mind"? Is it the Labour members who may for samej's very good planning reasons object or the Tories who for desperate financial reasons ie Sedgemoor have to pay for the new pool somehow approve it. So Blueowl perhaps you can advise me who has a "pre-determined mind"? Bridgy old Boy
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Mon 14 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

Bridgy old Boy wrote:
The thought of having a "pre-determined mind" is an interesting concept. I can see the vote at the planning committee being split on Party political lines with the Labour and Independent members voting against and all the Tories voting in favour. If this is the case then one has to ask "who has the pre-determined mind"? Is it the Labour members who may for samej's very good planning reasons object or the Tories who for desperate financial reasons ie Sedgemoor have to pay for the new pool somehow approve it. So Blueowl perhaps you can advise me who has a "pre-determined mind"?
This is the reason being a Councillor is not the easy position, as everyone thinks. This matter of PRE- determined is a tricky one, which is why it is there.
It means that, if u as a Councillor, have taken part in any discussion,@ say a Parish Council Meeting, or an meeting
Held Say By Bridgwater Forward, and have held a view with regard this and expressed an opinion, which ever way for or against, then u have to declare this to the Councils Monitoring Officer, ie; SDC Solicitor, then you are not allowed to sit on a Planning Commitee, when that Matter is considered.
However, you are allowed to attend, the Parish / open meeting and observe only, taking no actual part in the discussion, nor voting, that is ok, as you have not declared an opinion @ that time.
Therefore, you are deemed, not to have a PRE-judged, or predetermined view, so you can still listen to all and any information presented to the Planning Commitee by Officers, or Highways for example.
As a Member of the Commitee, it is when all the relevant facts have been
Considered, can a discussion between the Members take place, asking further points of clarification to be addressed.
Then members can Vote, either For , Against or abstain.
The point you make about, voting along Party lines, I can assure you never, and I mean Never occurred whilst I sat on the Planning Commitee,
For 6-8 years. Amongst the Conservatives Members, however, the same can not be said for the Labour Councillors, as I can recall that whenever, the BTC were expressing a view that an Application should be denied, then each of the Labour Councillors, would Vote against the Planning Application. So, one might say, they were guilty of Predetermination. !!
Samej1, Posts, I have agreed are all points the Commitee will, have to look at and consider on the 12 Feb, but will only be deemed relevant, if they are found in this Applicate to breach any guidelines. Members, tend to vote with their heart, mind, after listening to the Whole Picture Presented !! Any Major Application, puts extra pressure on Members to get it right, as any Applicant, as I posted before, has a right to Appeal, If the Commitee recommend Against granting the Consent.
I can also say that the Tory Councillors are more than capable of making difficult decisions, it comes with the Job. Of being an Elected Councillor, it is not for me to guess the Labour Councillors position, but they should be the same, as you have to 'Swear an Oath, when Elected. To uphold the Position to which you have been Elected. Hence why there is always a Monitoring Officer (Solicitor to SDC) at every Meeting, whether Planning, Scrutiny, Full Council etc.
Regards David Preece Blue-Owl
[quote][p][bold]Bridgy old Boy[/bold] wrote: The thought of having a "pre-determined mind" is an interesting concept. I can see the vote at the planning committee being split on Party political lines with the Labour and Independent members voting against and all the Tories voting in favour. If this is the case then one has to ask "who has the pre-determined mind"? Is it the Labour members who may for samej's very good planning reasons object or the Tories who for desperate financial reasons ie Sedgemoor have to pay for the new pool somehow approve it. So Blueowl perhaps you can advise me who has a "pre-determined mind"?[/p][/quote]This is the reason being a Councillor is not the easy position, as everyone thinks. This matter of PRE- determined is a tricky one, which is why it is there. It means that, if u as a Councillor, have taken part in any discussion,@ say a Parish Council Meeting, or an meeting Held Say By Bridgwater Forward, and have held a view with regard this and expressed an opinion, which ever way for or against, then u have to declare this to the Councils Monitoring Officer, ie; SDC Solicitor, then you are not allowed to sit on a Planning Commitee, when that Matter is considered. However, you are allowed to attend, the Parish / open meeting and observe only, taking no actual part in the discussion, nor voting, that is ok, as you have not declared an opinion @ that time. Therefore, you are deemed, not to have a PRE-judged, or predetermined view, so you can still listen to all and any information presented to the Planning Commitee by Officers, or Highways for example. As a Member of the Commitee, it is when all the relevant facts have been Considered, can a discussion between the Members take place, asking further points of clarification to be addressed. Then members can Vote, either For , Against or abstain. The point you make about, voting along Party lines, I can assure you never, and I mean Never occurred whilst I sat on the Planning Commitee, For 6-8 years. Amongst the Conservatives Members, however, the same can not be said for the Labour Councillors, as I can recall that whenever, the BTC were expressing a view that an Application should be denied, then each of the Labour Councillors, would Vote against the Planning Application. So, one might say, they were guilty of Predetermination. !! Samej1, Posts, I have agreed are all points the Commitee will, have to look at and consider on the 12 Feb, but will only be deemed relevant, if they are found in this Applicate to breach any guidelines. Members, tend to vote with their heart, mind, after listening to the Whole Picture Presented !! Any Major Application, puts extra pressure on Members to get it right, as any Applicant, as I posted before, has a right to Appeal, If the Commitee recommend Against granting the Consent. I can also say that the Tory Councillors are more than capable of making difficult decisions, it comes with the Job. Of being an Elected Councillor, it is not for me to guess the Labour Councillors position, but they should be the same, as you have to 'Swear an Oath, when Elected. To uphold the Position to which you have been Elected. Hence why there is always a Monitoring Officer (Solicitor to SDC) at every Meeting, whether Planning, Scrutiny, Full Council etc. Regards David Preece Blue-Owl Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

9:41am Tue 15 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

I Hav'nt seen or heard, how the BTC
Planning Commitee/ Panel have viewed this Appl for Tesco's?. But, I'm sure that Bridgwater (Backward 3 Steps) Forward (0) have been to every BTC Meeting for the Last 6 Months, along with Cllrs Smedley @ Cllr K Pearce, who seem to be of a one voice, as all the written questions last Wed Submitted were jointly asked, I wounded, if there is a marriage forthcoming, I love a good Wedding, not that I would be invited.!! But any way good wishes to them.!
Really interesting to see at the meeting on 12th Feb. Planning Panel SDC.
Regards David Preece
Blue -Owl
I Hav'nt seen or heard, how the BTC Planning Commitee/ Panel have viewed this Appl for Tesco's?. But, I'm sure that Bridgwater (Backward 3 Steps) Forward (0) have been to every BTC Meeting for the Last 6 Months, along with Cllrs Smedley @ Cllr K Pearce, who seem to be of a one voice, as all the written questions last Wed Submitted were jointly asked, I wounded, if there is a marriage forthcoming, I love a good Wedding, not that I would be invited.!! But any way good wishes to them.! Really interesting to see at the meeting on 12th Feb. Planning Panel SDC. Regards David Preece Blue -Owl Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Tue 15 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Interesting that so many Labour party members claim not to want tesco but are voting for developers to build at the side of the fairfield and put a road across what is land belonging to the public on the field itself..youd almost think they were hypocrites..Dont want building in the town but its ok to trash greenfield sites..Today at the development control meeting they voted to allow green field to be built on..hypocracy writ large..They also promoted the meads project that relies on developers 106 money to exist..I think the whole Bridgwater vision project is a trojan horse for developers..I dont want the brewery field developed but its worse to build on greenfield which labour members support.
Interesting that so many Labour party members claim not to want tesco but are voting for developers to build at the side of the fairfield and put a road across what is land belonging to the public on the field itself..youd almost think they were hypocrites..Dont want building in the town but its ok to trash greenfield sites..Today at the development control meeting they voted to allow green field to be built on..hypocracy writ large..They also promoted the meads project that relies on developers 106 money to exist..I think the whole Bridgwater vision project is a trojan horse for developers..I dont want the brewery field developed but its worse to build on greenfield which labour members support. noleaders
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Tue 15 Jan 13

windswept and interesting says...

Blimey....29% horse meat in their burgers......I wonder if that will put the planners off ??
Blimey....29% horse meat in their burgers......I wonder if that will put the planners off ?? windswept and interesting
  • Score: 0

8:05am Wed 16 Jan 13

bygeorge says...

Tescos, "Horse meat burgers", Shows how low they will stoop to get what they want and maximise profits.
Tescos, "Horse meat burgers", Shows how low they will stoop to get what they want and maximise profits. bygeorge
  • Score: 0

8:27pm Wed 16 Jan 13

MBR Extreme says...

Nothing wrong with a bit of horsemeat very tasty....Naaaaayyy!!
Nothing wrong with a bit of horsemeat very tasty....Naaaaayyy!! MBR Extreme
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Wed 16 Jan 13

windswept and interesting says...

I had some last week but they gave me the trots :)
I had some last week but they gave me the trots :) windswept and interesting
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Samej1 says...

It gets worse - they put UniQuorn in the veggie burgers :)
It gets worse - they put UniQuorn in the veggie burgers :) Samej1
  • Score: 0

12:43am Thu 17 Jan 13

Blue Owl says...

noleaders wrote:
Interesting that so many Labour party members claim not to want tesco but are voting for developers to build at the side of the fairfield and put a road across what is land belonging to the public on the field itself..youd almost think they were hypocrites..Dont want building in the town but its ok to trash greenfield sites..Today at the development control meeting they voted to allow green field to be built on..hypocracy writ large..They also promoted the meads project that relies on developers 106 money to exist..I think the whole Bridgwater vision project is a trojan horse for developers..I dont want the brewery field developed but its worse to build on greenfield which labour members support.
Yes, it will be interesting to actually see who voted in favour of this Application.
On the matter of the "Horse Burgers" obviously, it has been a breach of I sure very strict rules and regulation, with regard to this, Tesco's and other retailers, have obviously been caught up in something that has happened without their knowledge. The Food factory/processor has allowed some one to compromise the supply food chain by not carrying out stringent testing, on sample batches off the production line.
Heads will roll, very shortly, I'm sure!!
Regards Blue- Owl
[quote][p][bold]noleaders[/bold] wrote: Interesting that so many Labour party members claim not to want tesco but are voting for developers to build at the side of the fairfield and put a road across what is land belonging to the public on the field itself..youd almost think they were hypocrites..Dont want building in the town but its ok to trash greenfield sites..Today at the development control meeting they voted to allow green field to be built on..hypocracy writ large..They also promoted the meads project that relies on developers 106 money to exist..I think the whole Bridgwater vision project is a trojan horse for developers..I dont want the brewery field developed but its worse to build on greenfield which labour members support.[/p][/quote]Yes, it will be interesting to actually see who voted in favour of this Application. On the matter of the "Horse Burgers" obviously, it has been a breach of I sure very strict rules and regulation, with regard to this, Tesco's and other retailers, have obviously been caught up in something that has happened without their knowledge. The Food factory/processor has allowed some one to compromise the supply food chain by not carrying out stringent testing, on sample batches off the production line. Heads will roll, very shortly, I'm sure!! Regards Blue- Owl Blue Owl
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Thu 17 Jan 13

noleaders says...

Im hoping the mercury will persuade councellors to own up or just expose them because this is important for wildlife and people who dont want the fairfield built on....The whole Bridgwater vision, core strategy etc seems to some of us just to be constructed to facilitate the destruction of green field by countryside raping developers.
Im hoping the mercury will persuade councellors to own up or just expose them because this is important for wildlife and people who dont want the fairfield built on....The whole Bridgwater vision, core strategy etc seems to some of us just to be constructed to facilitate the destruction of green field by countryside raping developers. noleaders
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree