Rutland County Council meeting Tesco Application.
Monday 8 November 2010 7:30pm - 10:30pm
Council Chamber, Oakham
A Council meeting will be held on 8 November 2010 at 7.30pm to consider the Tesco planning application and usual Council business.
Showing posts with label Tesco Application. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tesco Application. Show all posts
Monday, November 08, 2010
Rutland County Council meeting Tesco Application.
A Council meeting will be held on 8 November 2010 at 7.30pm to consider the Tesco planning application and usual Council business.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Oakham Town Council Say No, Say Yes and at Last NO! To Tesco Application
Here we go around on the Merry Go Round!
Oakham Town Council
Vote to reject Tesco planning application....
At the meeting Cllr Alf Dewis tried to sway members by discussing 106 payments that may be received from Tesco.
Cllr Dewis explained to members some information he had been given to him relating to 106 payments by the Rutland County Council Planning Officer.
It is my belief this is a serious breach of conduct by Cllr Dewis and Mr Geer the planning officer named. In front of the public and press.
Cllr Alf Dewis likes to name drop often.
And I trust Rutland County Council and the Standards Committee will deal with this.
If it is wrong for Cllr Gale a Rutland County Councillor to refer to the yellow confidential document at a RCC planning meeting then it is most certainly wrong for a Oakham Town Councillor to know the content of the 106 proposed agreement.
Who does Cllr Dewis think he is?
It certainly explains Cllr Dewis change of mind, I suggest it has nothing to do with those who live in his ward but his friends at RCC.
THE RULES CLEARLY STATE 106 PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED AT PLANNING MEETINGS THE MENTION THAT TESCO WERE OFFERING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE RAILWAY FOOTBRIDGE AND OTHER MATTERS COULD HAVE INFLUENCED COUNCILLORS. THIS WHY I SAY 106 PAYMENTS ARE A LEGAL BRIBE.
When is the Town Clerk going to stop lying about Cllr George Swiffin he is not ill! we all know he can not afford the taxi to meetings.
He should step down so his seat can be filled by a person who wants to serve this town.
Things have improved at the Council with the new members who I believe really want to serve the people.
People Like Cllr Dewis only serves his own ego and friends at Rutland County Council.
Cllr Joyce Lucas head of gossip and homophobic hate assisted by Cllr Dewis should both go.
To be a councillor you are required to be selfless neither are.
Cllr Dewis pointed out failings of another Cllr who does not serve the public, who was not present at tonight's meeting. Cllr Charles Haworth made a incorrect proposal relating to the Bandstand. He had asked for minutes of a previous meeting to be corrected and made a mistake with his correction so funny. Of course the Clerk very correctly point out to Mr Dewis the minutes of the last meeting were accurate and the full council accepted Cllr Haworth's incorrect proposal. So nothing could be changed.
Cllr Tor Clerk declared an interest and did not attend the meeting.
Cllr Matthew Taylor declared a interest and left the meeting after speaking about his support for the Tesco Application.
Not surprising, nice man but also a former employee of RCC Planning and friend of Cllr Lucas.
Cllr Sharon Spencer and Cllr Alf Dewis both voted for the Tesco application. both appeared to be very unhappy with the result. I guess Mrs Spencer was wondering how she was going to explain the outcome to the former councillor and former anti Tesco, turned supporter. Its amazing how people change minds when they are employed by Tesco. Of course if they gave me a job I probably would not be free to say this.
Of course Tesco don't really have to worry because as the Town Council web site states the final decision is made by RCC. I think this is a negative statement to publish because it highlights the weakness of The Town Council. I long for the day when Oakham Town Council is a Council that has clout and can tell RCC what it wants. There are signs of this coming from new councillors and I hope they keep up the good work. They are members of Oakham Town Council not Rutland County Council Town Council!
Oakham Town Council
Vote to reject Tesco planning application....
At the meeting Cllr Alf Dewis tried to sway members by discussing 106 payments that may be received from Tesco.
Cllr Dewis explained to members some information he had been given to him relating to 106 payments by the Rutland County Council Planning Officer.
It is my belief this is a serious breach of conduct by Cllr Dewis and Mr Geer the planning officer named. In front of the public and press.
Cllr Alf Dewis likes to name drop often.
And I trust Rutland County Council and the Standards Committee will deal with this.
If it is wrong for Cllr Gale a Rutland County Councillor to refer to the yellow confidential document at a RCC planning meeting then it is most certainly wrong for a Oakham Town Councillor to know the content of the 106 proposed agreement.
Who does Cllr Dewis think he is?
It certainly explains Cllr Dewis change of mind, I suggest it has nothing to do with those who live in his ward but his friends at RCC.
THE RULES CLEARLY STATE 106 PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED AT PLANNING MEETINGS THE MENTION THAT TESCO WERE OFFERING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE RAILWAY FOOTBRIDGE AND OTHER MATTERS COULD HAVE INFLUENCED COUNCILLORS. THIS WHY I SAY 106 PAYMENTS ARE A LEGAL BRIBE.
When is the Town Clerk going to stop lying about Cllr George Swiffin he is not ill! we all know he can not afford the taxi to meetings.
He should step down so his seat can be filled by a person who wants to serve this town.
Things have improved at the Council with the new members who I believe really want to serve the people.
People Like Cllr Dewis only serves his own ego and friends at Rutland County Council.
Cllr Joyce Lucas head of gossip and homophobic hate assisted by Cllr Dewis should both go.
To be a councillor you are required to be selfless neither are.
Cllr Dewis pointed out failings of another Cllr who does not serve the public, who was not present at tonight's meeting. Cllr Charles Haworth made a incorrect proposal relating to the Bandstand. He had asked for minutes of a previous meeting to be corrected and made a mistake with his correction so funny. Of course the Clerk very correctly point out to Mr Dewis the minutes of the last meeting were accurate and the full council accepted Cllr Haworth's incorrect proposal. So nothing could be changed.
Cllr Tor Clerk declared an interest and did not attend the meeting.
Cllr Matthew Taylor declared a interest and left the meeting after speaking about his support for the Tesco Application.
Not surprising, nice man but also a former employee of RCC Planning and friend of Cllr Lucas.
Cllr Sharon Spencer and Cllr Alf Dewis both voted for the Tesco application. both appeared to be very unhappy with the result. I guess Mrs Spencer was wondering how she was going to explain the outcome to the former councillor and former anti Tesco, turned supporter. Its amazing how people change minds when they are employed by Tesco. Of course if they gave me a job I probably would not be free to say this.
Of course Tesco don't really have to worry because as the Town Council web site states the final decision is made by RCC. I think this is a negative statement to publish because it highlights the weakness of The Town Council. I long for the day when Oakham Town Council is a Council that has clout and can tell RCC what it wants. There are signs of this coming from new councillors and I hope they keep up the good work. They are members of Oakham Town Council not Rutland County Council Town Council!
REVISED TESCOS PLANNING APPLICATION Oakham Town Council 7.00pm
REVISED TESCOS PLANNING APPLICATION
The revised Planning Application from Tescos will be considered at an extra meeting of the Council's Planning Committee on Wednesday 27th October 2010.
7.00pm at the Victoria Hall and members of the public are welcome to attend.
The revised plans are available to view at the Town Council offices, during normal opening hours, until the day of the meeting.
Comments may also be made which will also be considered by the Committee.
The revised application retains the bungalow at 39 Penn Street which was to be demolished for additional car parking.
Both pedestrian access to the Tesco's store and vehicular access to the T.A. Centre, from Penn Street, remain.
The revised Planning Application from Tescos will be considered at an extra meeting of the Council's Planning Committee on Wednesday 27th October 2010.
7.00pm at the Victoria Hall and members of the public are welcome to attend.
The revised plans are available to view at the Town Council offices, during normal opening hours, until the day of the meeting.
Comments may also be made which will also be considered by the Committee.
The revised application retains the bungalow at 39 Penn Street which was to be demolished for additional car parking.
Both pedestrian access to the Tesco's store and vehicular access to the T.A. Centre, from Penn Street, remain.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Rutland County Council 6pm tonight Tesco Yes or No
Rutland County Council 6pm tonight Tesco Yes or No
This evening the full council will meet to decide if Tesco can go ahead with its expansion and the destruction of the green areas.
Tesco claims to be green if this true then build a bigger store and dont expand the car park.
This evening the full council will meet to decide if Tesco can go ahead with its expansion and the destruction of the green areas.
Tesco claims to be green if this true then build a bigger store and dont expand the car park.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Anti Tesco Protesters at Oakham Tesco
Today the entrance to Oakham Tesco
was rather congested as staff sort
signatures supporting the expansion of
Tesco, Tesco has been gathering around 400
signatures a day since its application was turned down
by the planning committee at Rutland County Council
Outside the store was a visible presence of Anti Tesco
supporters this one did not mind me taking his photograph.
One of the female protester said "Tesco had been using names of dead
people to support there application" I hope its not true, It's bad enough they sent
Mrs Bean to lie to Councillors
Friday, October 01, 2010
Tesco Oakham Staff Raise A Petition For Support of Expansion.
Tesco Oakham Staff Raise A Petition For Support of Expansion.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tesco Sensible Cllr Lucas Oakham Town Council v Rutland County Council
This weeks Rutland Times publishes a report about Tesco planning application.
It includes the following:
Oakham Town Council voted to support the plans.
Councillor Joyce Lucas, who represents Oakham north west ward on the town council, said: “I think the decision being referred to full council is a sensible idea.
“This is a democracy and it needs to be debated properly.
“I voted in favour of the plans because from doing surveys in my ward and from letters I have received people in north west Oakham want the expansion.”
Yes Cllr Lucas it would have been sensible if Oakham Town Council had debated the matter correctly in the first place and then the public would not have thought you and others were stupid.
Have you forgot how you and Cllr Dewis stood in consultation with the public one Saturday morning earlier this year trashing any thought of any development at Tesco.
At your first meeting you voted against the application. It's a fact you had the casting vote. The public thought you were crazy not because of your vote because of the way you chaired the meeting.
If Oakham Town Council had not messed up over the revised plans. You would not have been able to change your vote.
I trust you are a very proud tree warden voting to destroy a conservation area.
So I don't think you are qualified to speak to the press and suggest how Rutland County Council should conduct its planning matters.
As Oakham's tree warden you should be tying yourself to the trees that will be chopped down, I would start with the rare Elm.
The land behind the house in Brook Road would make a lovely Community Orchard. Much more suitable than a car park.
It includes the following:
Oakham Town Council voted to support the plans.
Councillor Joyce Lucas, who represents Oakham north west ward on the town council, said: “I think the decision being referred to full council is a sensible idea.
“This is a democracy and it needs to be debated properly.
“I voted in favour of the plans because from doing surveys in my ward and from letters I have received people in north west Oakham want the expansion.”
Yes Cllr Lucas it would have been sensible if Oakham Town Council had debated the matter correctly in the first place and then the public would not have thought you and others were stupid.
Have you forgot how you and Cllr Dewis stood in consultation with the public one Saturday morning earlier this year trashing any thought of any development at Tesco.
At your first meeting you voted against the application. It's a fact you had the casting vote. The public thought you were crazy not because of your vote because of the way you chaired the meeting.
If Oakham Town Council had not messed up over the revised plans. You would not have been able to change your vote.
I trust you are a very proud tree warden voting to destroy a conservation area.
So I don't think you are qualified to speak to the press and suggest how Rutland County Council should conduct its planning matters.
As Oakham's tree warden you should be tying yourself to the trees that will be chopped down, I would start with the rare Elm.
The land behind the house in Brook Road would make a lovely Community Orchard. Much more suitable than a car park.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Did Mrs Bean Tesco's Representative give false information at Rutland County Council Meeting?
At Monday's meeting Tesco's Representative Mrs Bean told the council committee and members of the public, claiming to be quoting from a retail report, Tesco staff contribute around £48,000 to the local retail economy, this was likely to increase to £59,000 if the store was expanded.
This raised a few questions from local people and prompted me to ask the planning department for a transcript of Mrs Bean's deputation or a copy of the report to see how they came to this figure.
Rutland County Councils planning department say this information is not in the mentioned report.
I am awaiting clarification from Mrs Bean.
Is this a case of Tesco playing dirty tricks or just a error on her part, maybe Tesco can send a representative on 11th October 2010 who will tell the truth at a council meeting.
I wonder how much of the rest of Mrs Bean's information was made up?
This raised a few questions from local people and prompted me to ask the planning department for a transcript of Mrs Bean's deputation or a copy of the report to see how they came to this figure.
Rutland County Councils planning department say this information is not in the mentioned report.
I am awaiting clarification from Mrs Bean.
Is this a case of Tesco playing dirty tricks or just a error on her part, maybe Tesco can send a representative on 11th October 2010 who will tell the truth at a council meeting.
I wonder how much of the rest of Mrs Bean's information was made up?
Monday, September 27, 2010
Tesco Stores Limited Oakham Rutland FUL/2010/0388 Planning Application
Tonight Rutland County Council Development & Licensing Committee met at the Council Chamber at Rutland County Council.
First can I say I do wish Mr Baines was there to chair the meeting and keep some sort of order.
Also Geoff Pook head of legal services where were you? Your replacement was very vague when it came to points of law.
Also the Highways Officer seemed to cross the line more than once, he appeared to be instructing Councillor Gale on how he should make his proposal. Good candidate for a town clerk?
A Senior member of the public interrupted the meeting for some time to vent his understandable frustration. A frustration shared by many members of the public present.
Many wanting to speak but unaware of the Council rules on deputations. I think councils need to look at these rule and make the public feel more inclusive. It also has to remember not all residents use the internet. You are not keeping them informed as one lady told the chair.
Two staged deputations from the following groups did not suffice them or me.
Transition Rutland?? (who did not come over very well)
and Oakham Traders represented by a local cafe did a much better job.
Unfortunately no one represented the views of the local residents.
The meeting was interrupted a few times because some paid staff are not trained to speak at a audible level even with the use of microphones.
I have very good hearing and could not hear or understand the introduction of the deputations. So no wonder the man with hearing aids had difficulty and as others did shouted complaints. I wonder if the chamber is fitted with a loop?
A mother was present with child, the child became unsettled and a Councillor became annoyed. The meeting was halted after the mother stuffed baby in pram and stormed out. A member of staff ran after the woman and brought her back. Only for her to be asked to leave later in the meeting
I noticed one very brave Oakham Town Councillor was present, He sat amongst the Tesco staff I wondered if I should tell them he voted against, then I though I could not do that to Allen!
There was no press at the press desk!
Plenty of Tesco bigwigs taking notes and Mrs Bean speaking and answering questions on behalf of Tesco.
She was grateful to Oakham Town Council for their support of the destruction of a conservation area.
(I would like to say at this point I am not against the expansion of the store I am against the expansion of the car park and the destruction of the green land that surrounds the store)
The planning department is also grateful to Oakham Town Council for its support.
Although Rutland County Councillors appeared not to be impressed with the Town Council.
Something tells me, something seriously went wrong at Oakham Town Council. Ask the Clerk is all I will say!
Members of the public asked why there had been a change? had Cllr Lucas been given a bung by Tesco?
I can not answer that accept I do remember a Rutland County Councillor once described her as like one of her trees, as thick as two planks? I said. no he replied she blows in the wind!
After listening to the deputations we had to then listen to Mrs Bean from Tesco. One fact was correct although the public seemed not to agree if Tesco was not in South Street, Gaol Street would not have become a retail shopping street. One trader did tell me she thrives on passing trade Tesco brings so Tesco maybe able to take the credit for Gaol Street. Although I can't afford to shop in any off them and walk straight past to Tesco. This is the same reason the location was chosen for the farmers market.
Mrs Bean banded a figure that Tesco wages help contribute £48,000 to the local retail economy and the expansion would increase jobs and raise that some to around £59,000 peanuts really I am hoping Rutland County Council Chief Excutive does all her shopping in the town then on her wage alone she can match that figure. Sorry not knocking our wonderful chief she is worth every penny of £120,000 I understand the Prime Minister is cheaper can the council save more money and offer him the job.
After all that we had to endure a long presentation from the Director of Community Services.
He explained to us what the planning department would like Tesco to pay for. The exact figures were given to Councillors on a yellow sheet and were confidential as one Councillor was reminded.
106 payments is the legal term given to money offered to councils by large companies and developers and some may call it a bribe I am not not sure 106 can be used if a private resident wants to build a extension.
The meeting went on and eventually all Councillor agreed to reject both applications and refer the application to the full council and they will have to make the final decision on the 11th October I believe.
It will be interesting to see if there is a different outcome, because I am sure many of the others Councillors will have interests to declare.
First can I say I do wish Mr Baines was there to chair the meeting and keep some sort of order.
Also Geoff Pook head of legal services where were you? Your replacement was very vague when it came to points of law.
Also the Highways Officer seemed to cross the line more than once, he appeared to be instructing Councillor Gale on how he should make his proposal. Good candidate for a town clerk?
A Senior member of the public interrupted the meeting for some time to vent his understandable frustration. A frustration shared by many members of the public present.
Many wanting to speak but unaware of the Council rules on deputations. I think councils need to look at these rule and make the public feel more inclusive. It also has to remember not all residents use the internet. You are not keeping them informed as one lady told the chair.
Two staged deputations from the following groups did not suffice them or me.
Transition Rutland?? (who did not come over very well)
and Oakham Traders represented by a local cafe did a much better job.
Unfortunately no one represented the views of the local residents.
The meeting was interrupted a few times because some paid staff are not trained to speak at a audible level even with the use of microphones.
I have very good hearing and could not hear or understand the introduction of the deputations. So no wonder the man with hearing aids had difficulty and as others did shouted complaints. I wonder if the chamber is fitted with a loop?
A mother was present with child, the child became unsettled and a Councillor became annoyed. The meeting was halted after the mother stuffed baby in pram and stormed out. A member of staff ran after the woman and brought her back. Only for her to be asked to leave later in the meeting
I noticed one very brave Oakham Town Councillor was present, He sat amongst the Tesco staff I wondered if I should tell them he voted against, then I though I could not do that to Allen!
There was no press at the press desk!
Plenty of Tesco bigwigs taking notes and Mrs Bean speaking and answering questions on behalf of Tesco.
She was grateful to Oakham Town Council for their support of the destruction of a conservation area.
(I would like to say at this point I am not against the expansion of the store I am against the expansion of the car park and the destruction of the green land that surrounds the store)
The planning department is also grateful to Oakham Town Council for its support.
Although Rutland County Councillors appeared not to be impressed with the Town Council.
Something tells me, something seriously went wrong at Oakham Town Council. Ask the Clerk is all I will say!
Members of the public asked why there had been a change? had Cllr Lucas been given a bung by Tesco?
I can not answer that accept I do remember a Rutland County Councillor once described her as like one of her trees, as thick as two planks? I said. no he replied she blows in the wind!
After listening to the deputations we had to then listen to Mrs Bean from Tesco. One fact was correct although the public seemed not to agree if Tesco was not in South Street, Gaol Street would not have become a retail shopping street. One trader did tell me she thrives on passing trade Tesco brings so Tesco maybe able to take the credit for Gaol Street. Although I can't afford to shop in any off them and walk straight past to Tesco. This is the same reason the location was chosen for the farmers market.
Mrs Bean banded a figure that Tesco wages help contribute £48,000 to the local retail economy and the expansion would increase jobs and raise that some to around £59,000 peanuts really I am hoping Rutland County Council Chief Excutive does all her shopping in the town then on her wage alone she can match that figure. Sorry not knocking our wonderful chief she is worth every penny of £120,000 I understand the Prime Minister is cheaper can the council save more money and offer him the job.
After all that we had to endure a long presentation from the Director of Community Services.
He explained to us what the planning department would like Tesco to pay for. The exact figures were given to Councillors on a yellow sheet and were confidential as one Councillor was reminded.
106 payments is the legal term given to money offered to councils by large companies and developers and some may call it a bribe I am not not sure 106 can be used if a private resident wants to build a extension.
The meeting went on and eventually all Councillor agreed to reject both applications and refer the application to the full council and they will have to make the final decision on the 11th October I believe.
It will be interesting to see if there is a different outcome, because I am sure many of the others Councillors will have interests to declare.
Tesco Application At Rutland County Council
This evening Rutand County Council's Development Control and Licensing Committee
are meeting at the Council Chamber.
To make a decision on Oakham Tesco Application to expand its store.
A number of members left the meeting after declaring interests.
It has left a small number of members and this issue was raised by two councillors.
The Members Present are:
Miss C Jones
Mr Gale
Mr Oxley
Mr Parsons
Mr Wells
Mr Plews
A long report was given by The Director of Community Services
There were two deputations from the following
Transition Rutland
and
Oakham Traders
We also heard from Mrs Bean who represented Tesco
She made a point of highlighting Oakham Town Councils support
The contribution from wages to the local economy is £48,000
and would increase to around £59,000
The planning department is recommending approval of the application
subject to highways approval and transport improvements
it was also suggested the foot bridge over the railway line could be improved
Both Ward Councillor spoke against the expansion.
It concerned me the conservation officer support the demolition of the
a dwelling in a conservation area. I am not sure if this is the same officer who sort
to preserve the loo in Melton Road not used behind a shop. And refused the application
to revert the alteration of the old Grimmers property in Church Street. No continuity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)