Fears over impact of Morrisons decision

Perhaps of greatest surprise was the lack of any coherent and substantive action from town centre retail businesses in objecting to this application. By contrast, Morrisons, under the veil of their investment arm, cleverly presented the few benefits this development might bring. Their PR was terrific.

This whole episode has thrown up many issues particularly in regards to Leamington Town Centre.

Firstly, that whilst many in public positions appear to praise the strength and cite the uniqueness of Leamington’s independent retail sector, there appears to be little, if any, actual support provided them. The recent growth at the Leamington Retail Park (LRP) poses a real and present threat to the town centre. Incredibly, it has been argued that the approved Morrisons store will only impact on Sainsbury’s but it is naïve in the extreme to think that it will not significantly affect the centre. Obviously shopping and town centres have critical masses : approval after approval, the critical mass is moving ever more out of the town centre.

Further, retailers in the town centre have to pay a BID levy, higher rents per sqft, probably higher business rates per sqft too and their customers must pay for their parking. At a time when retailers – particularly the independents - are vulnerable to the severe economic downturn and growth in on-line shopping, it would appear this decision is yet one more factor stacked against them. It would be easy to suggest they need protection but what they deserve and must have is a level playing field if they are to compete with out of town stores.

Secondly, Leamington Town Centre (north town) offers only one large grocer/supermarket – Tesco (yes there’s a Marks and Spencers but this is much smaller). Similarly, Old Town has the Co-op and an Asda in Sydenham. In contrast, the expanded Sainsbury’s, the new Lidl and soon to arrive Aldi and Morrisons all lie within 300m of the Foundry roundabout. Any additional requirement for grocers should be for smaller operations in town centres provided they complement, and not destroy, existing independent food stores. In that respect, the Fire station development may have some merits. It would also draw people as evidenced in Kenilworth. Why then, was Morrisons not forced to locate there or on an existing retail site? Could it have gone into the former Focus store on LRP?

hirdly, it is extremely questionable whether there is any need for the scale of store proposed by Morrisons. The consultancy Strategic Perspectives concluded that there was NO expenditure capacity for a new foodstore in Leamington! They subsequently retracted this. What’s not to believe?! And developers often make statements that are disingenuous. Once approval is granted, plans change and promises often fail to materialize. A good example was the new Tesco in Dundee where the promise to build a sizeable community health centre has apparently not been kept. How likely then, in this case, that a larger store is ultimately built and that the 100,000 sqft offices never materialize? And hotel? In phasing this development, Morrisons could renege on those other elements and ultimately apply to expand the store instead.

Fourthly, the increased congestion at the roundabout will in turn result in a barrier effect to the town centre for visitors arriving in from the South. What traffic modelling has been done?

Then there is the major claim about economic regeneration.

Firstly, the site is contaminated but this is not as serious as made out by the developer as it serves their purpose to overstate this (it would be a different matter if this was purely for residential development). Great play is also made of the fact that the site is an eyesore (was it the case when it employed 500 skilled people?). Eyesores are clearly in the eye of the beholder and in this case the developer and its supporters. Is the façade proposed for the Morrisons an architectural triumph, a suitable gateway to our town? Or will it be as inspiring as the Blockbuster / Pets at Home. I read somewhere that this development would help Leamington modernize and compete…how?

Secondly, Trilogy argues it will result in up to 1200 jobs – really? In the application, was it specified exactly how many jobs were full-time? How many relate to the ‘future’ office building? Most supermarkets employ part-time workers on low pay and offer lower employment levels per square meter compared to most independent retailers. A visit to your local butcher, fishmonger or green grocer will justify this claim. And increasingly the supermarkets are installing automated checkouts giving even fewer opportunities.

And of course the point was made originally that there is no expenditure capacity for food purchases in Leamington. So it is a real probability that these ‘new’ jobs at Morrisons will be substitutional, ie that there is no net gain in employment as other jobs will be lost at existing competitor stores. Or will Leamington eat more? If the offices do get built and a hotel then, yes, there may be jobs but again, would this be the result of a relocation leaving another building in the locality empty? Often the case. If there was a real requirement for offices in Leamington then why is there so much void space? These are simple facts, not a cynical perspective.

So, then, what employment guarantees have they made or were their claims inflated to curry positive support from the community?

I tried to object to this application. In fact I did so but to Leamington Spa Town Council (LSTC). I had assumed that this would be forwarded in full to WDC Planning and that I would be notified of the WDC Planning timings and meeting. So I missed the meeting and the date to lodge an objection.

I hope I’m wrong. What is most disappointing is that Leamington has missed a very real once in a generation opportunity to do something extraordinary on an important ‘gateway’ site into the town. In 2008, for just £2m (ie £15 per head of population in the district) we could have bought the site from Ford with the aim of attracting fresh investment on the site or creating something special to help assure the town’s future prosperity. Our own ‘land bank’. It makes you wonder where this town would be were it not for the vision and generosity of people such as Edward Willes in providing the parkland of Jephson Gardens and riverside. A simple parallel: if Morrisons / Trilogy had existed in the 19th Century they would have bought the land and developed it.

Finally, think also what message this sends out to the next generation. We all look for signals from those in government - local and central. In approving this the town is yielding land formerly designated for skilled employment to the low wage economy - what economic opportunities are we leaving this generation? Should the Town and Council not have been exhausting all opportunities before agreeing to this? The site has been redundant for only a few years in a major recession. In the same way that the national economy ruptured in its over-reliance on financial services so we should be ensuring that we maintain a diversified economy at a local level and not an over-dependence on retail. That means attracting and preserving quality manufacturing and the high value sectors.

You have to admire Morrisons on how well they handled their application: they won and Leamington has lost a major opportunity. - Matt Western, via email