Letter - new supermarket

new supermarket

Supermarkets are undermining rural economies like Teesdale all around the country. We have one in Barnard Castle and we certainly do not need another.
Supermarkets are forcing the closure of local, independent shops through their aggressive pricing tactics and brand familiarity. They overwhelmingly source their produce from abroad, often use "in house" services and delivery networks, and favour the larger producers. They generate pollution damage and lose local communities jobs. The net result is that money that could be circulating around myriad local shops and services instead circulates around a few large businesses and leaves the local economy.
On the other hand, local, independent shops bring enormous social and economic benefits to the community. Money spent in a high street circulates around the local economy and generate more jobs, for example 81 shops in Suffolk employed 548 people and sourced food from 295 local producers.
Local authorities like DCC often grant planning permission to superstores because they mistakenly believe that they are good for the economy, or because the superstores offer vast amounts of money towards, for example, a new library in return for planning permission. In Britain as a whole, between 1995 and 2000, we lost one fifth of our local shops and services including post-offices, banks, butchers and grocers. In 1960, small independent retailers had a 60% share of the food retail market, by 2000, their share was reduced to 6% while the multiples share increased to 88%. Our local high streets and shops are dying. Local food producers are also dying. We lose a great many farmers per year. These are overwhelmingly the small and family farmers who face low farm gate prices - often below the cost of production – with the result that they either intensify production or go bankrupt. Supermarket chains have far too much power to drive down prices at the farm gate.
Some people say supermarkets offer better prices. This is simply not true. They do have the resources to offer low prices on some key items to compete with other local shops, but once they have established a local quasi-monopoly prices often rise.
Some people say supermarkets succeed because they are what people want but it is increasingly the case that they are all that shoppers get. It is all too easy for a large chain retailer to use its financial resources to drive other local competitors out of business, and then enjoy a virtual monopoly.
Some people say that supermarkets provide more choice but they just offer the same choice everywhere. Local shops offer individuality and real choice.
These are some of the general arguments against allowing supermarkets to increase their influence. We already have one in Barnard Castle and another would be a disaster when the local retailers are struggling with the impact of a severe recession. The specific local objections to the proposed Mart site being used have been well covered in Jill Cole’s letter to the Mercury recently. I hope the people of Teesdale will give some thought to the deeper issues around any proposed development so that the community can make its wishes known as soon as any concrete planning proposals emerge.
Yours sincerely
Jane Weston