Earlier this year Sainsbury’s approached North Cornwall District Council with an offer to purchase the offices at Higher Trenant. Apparently initial contact with the council was encouraging for the supermarket chain, and the proposed sale went to Full Council with a recommendation for approval. After a pretty good debate we narrowly voted to reject the offer. However, with the seven councils in Cornwall fast approaching the switch to unitary status, Sainsbury’s decided to try their luck with Cornwall County Council. (In fact, Sainsbury’s had been in discussion with Cornwall County Council before this came to the vote at NCDC – I know because I was shown the papers!)The County Council (now Cornwall Council) has said very little on this matter beyond a broad statement to the effect that they have received an offer from Sainsbury’s but that there have been no further discussions. Nevertheless Sainsbury’s seem to have drawn some encouragement from somewhere because they have drawn up plans for the site and taken the step of launching a public relations campaign, including a recent exhibition in Wadebridge. Despite the Council’s assertion that no further discussions have taken place, and despite the clear earlier involvement of the County Council, Sainsbury’s representatives at that exhibition were freely stating that they were in continued negotiations with the local authority. Someone is clearly mistaken here…

So, assuming there’s an offer and assuming it’s a good one, what’s the problem with the Council cashing in? There are a few issues here, and they tend to broaden the more you examine them.

The first is the effect on the market town of Wadebridge. As this link shows, the town currently boasts a diverse selection of independent shops and businesses which would all surely come under threat if a new supermarket was to be built just outside the town. This has been demonstrated in so many other previously thriving towns across the country. Would Wadebridge still be able to support two butchers, a greengrocers, two bakeries, two newsagents and all the other ‘niche’ businesses in town?

Some may question why it matters how these services are provided. If a new supermarket offers most of the things currently available in town, then what’s the problem? And wouldn’t a new Sainsbury’s provide many new jobs? This is where the deeper effects of any development start to become clear. Currently the (mostly locally-owned) businesses will spend their profits in the local area and many of them will source their produce locally. Supermarkets, on the other hand, will source their goods from whichever providers offer them the best profit margins, and those profits won’t find their way into the local economy – they will go to out of county shareholders. As for the jobs question, there may be a short-term gain but many of these jobs will be temporary and part-time, and most independent research shows that these kinds of developments normally result in a net loss of jobs for the local area once the wider effect on local traders and suppliers is taken into account.

The other aspect of this is the provision of local government services in the North Cornwall area. I supported the change to unitary for Cornwall, but I did this on the basis that services would not be centralised at County Hall. Unfortunately the new administration seem to see this centralisation as a great opportunity to cut short-term costs regardless of the wider effects on the economy. Higher Trenant is one of the best purpose-built facilities in the new Cornwall Council’s portfolio, and there is a golden opportunity for the new Council to prove its commitment to localism by retaining this building and continuing to provide services to the North Cornwall area.