The Media Trust
Ledbury Calendar

The Market Theatre
Ice Bytes

 

Jobs Must Come First PDF Print E-mail
Supermarket Debate
Written by Colin Marschall   
Friday, 18 November 2011 15:20

I am bewildered by the article in the Ledbury Reporter today which reports on Herefordshire Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF) meeting where Mrs Crowe [Ledbury Traders Association] is reported as stating:

“Jobs must come first and housing come after. We have land for employment use allocated along the bypass; that's what we should look at first."

Mrs Crowe has previously opposed two UK companies who want to build on the very land she is talking about; one of these companies is quoted as offering up to 220 jobs, while the company it wants to move will also add a further 10 jobs to the local area if the application goes through.

 

 

Sainsbury's is the company offering these jobs, a UK national company that is one of the biggest 'grocers' in the country, who, I would say, it is very unlikely to be closing down any time soon. Some may say that this "land for employment" is meant for industrial usage, but Herefordshire Planning has already set a precedent by passing the application for Homebase, a retail outlet (which by the way attracted the same "death of the high street" comments), along the same road, so it would be difficult for it to refuse an application on those grounds.

I don't understand the mentality of someone who first opposes up to 230 jobs and then states "Jobs must come first".

 

[This article and its headline have been edited, although the essence of the article remains intact]

 

Last Updated on Monday, 19 November 2012 22:01
 
Comments (35)
Sarah
35 Monday, 21 November 2011 12:18
I never said you said it was law, I'm sorry if it came over that way. I was merely pointing out that the UDP can be overturned and Herefordshire council have already set a precedence in doing that, and it remains to be seen as to whether the Sainsburys application will be seen as "strongly justified and justifiable for exceptionally good reasons for the development plan to be gone against."

When it comes down to it, its the Planning comittee who will decide.
UDP etc legal basis
34 Sunday, 20 November 2011 20:13
Sarah Blenkinsop
Colin - I do not recall saying the UDP was law, it is however what planning applications are determined according to (along with national Planning Guidance) , and any deviation from the development plan has to be pretty strongly justified and justifiable for exceptionally good reasons for the development plan to be gone against.

Yes there are examples, but the proposed Tesco is not really one of them, nor is Sainsbury IMO. And in the opinion of the Planning Officer, backed up by a lot of national planning guidance (PPS 4 , for example) when considering the Tesco application.

Still, I am glad our exchange has made you more aware of what is actually in the Development Plan for Ledbury - and yes you should make your comments/views know to the Council as part of the LDF process - pity you missed the meeting last week!

Still time to have an input though...I suggest you do so :-)
Claire
33 Sunday, 20 November 2011 20:04
Sarah Blenkinsop
Thank you for that clarification Claire.
UDP 2007 is ridiculous
32 Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:50
Claire Ellis
Sarah, I'm sorry if you have misinterpreted my comment. It was not aimed at you personally.

I was commenting on the planning structure for the town, and as you didn't actually write it (did you?) then you have no reason to take offence.

My point was that if there are no spaces for shops to be built anywhere in town then we will soon be in a sorry state.

As Rich/Save Ledbury pointed out, the area off Lawnside Road could be utilised, but where could the community centre, the youth club and presumably the swimming pool be relocated? The swimming pool used to be on the Hereford Road and that site along with a large private allotment was used for housing.

Surely, a supermarket (that's not superstore) in town will bring in more traffic, good for all the little shops in town but as LOTS have said before, could cause issues with the buildings, roads etc.
This is just my opinion of course.
UDP
31 Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:49
Having just delved a little more into this I've found out that the UDP plan is not law it is a guide for planners and can be over ridden, as is happening in Hereford with a new rugby club and associated housing being built on land not designated for such development.

I understand the need to try and attract other types of business .. however at this present time the only business that wants to build here and offer jobs, with pay above minimum wage, unlike many high street traders, is Sainsburys. As the land around the Viaduct etc has been earmarked for "Employment" then any new business could be sighted their creating a technology park, this, I believe would go a long way toward creating an infrastructure to help build sustainable economic growth for Ledbury. Personally I believe the current area containing the fire station, ambulance station and swimming pool should be used to create a larger car park (if necessary multi storey) this area is far enough away from the high street to not cause an "eyesore" but close enough for people to park and walk. The swimming pool should be relocated to the sports centre at John Masefield with the fire and ambulance station relocated to the area behind the Full Pitcher (currently the cricket ground), this land and including the football ground could also be earmarked for "Employment", the cricket and football clubs could be relocated to the current rugby club which has the infrastructure all ready in place to accomodate them. With a new superstore, a new larger carpark and land avaialble for employment in better positions (ie road access, location away from major housing) Ledbury would be seen as a progressive town which in turn should go a long way to attracting new investment by new businesses.
Claire Ellis - ridiculous?
30 Sunday, 20 November 2011 18:12
Sarah Blenkinsop
Claire Ellis - I do not understand the point you are trying to make in your comment aimed to me.

Are you suggesting *I* am "ridiculous"? If so, why?

If not, what exactly is it that you consider "ridiculous"?

If you do not like the way the UDP 2007 (and any successor, such as the ongoing LDF process)has laid out how planning should happen in Ledbury I suggest you join in the consultation process to make it more what you would like to see.

Obviously, if you DID comment on the UDP 2007, and/or have commented/attended meetings etc on the LDF currently being discussed then you are already part of the process - which is to be welcomed.

I suggest you read some of the planning documents, if you haven't already, so you can see what they say for yourself - they are unbiased and are based on current planning legitslation -

Comments like "ridiculous" are not usually very helpful in shaping these plans though in my experience - a bit more constructive comment is usually required.



Claire Ellis said

Sarah Blenkinsop " So there are no retail building spaces in Ledbury. This verges on the ridiculous!
The bulk of Ledbury high street is made up of tudor buildings. How many people lived here in those times? They also had shops ie Butchers Row, now long since gone. So the allocated space for the shops way back in history is not allowed to expand in the modern world?"
This beggers belief and just proves that we need more land dedicated for retail.
It Didn't Take Long Did It?
29 Sunday, 20 November 2011 17:10
Save Ledbury
Claire, it seems impossible to have a reasonable discussion without your lapsing into ridicule and bad humour. Can't you make your point without being so unpleasant?

On the jobs at Sainsbury issue, have a look at the other thread that Colin and I have been discussing which I don't have time or energy to repeat all over again here.

Re Galebreaker - Good luck to Mr Scudamore because he'll be pocketing a few millions for the land, and according to what he said at the TC meeting/presentation (at which I was present and you were not), he may be creating up to an additional five jobs in the future. Wow!

The point I'm trying to make is that plonking a supermarket on prime industrial land is short sighted and not in the best interests of the town. Why would you put shopping before sustainable economic growth? Is that the best we have to look forward to for future generations - getting a part time job down the Sainsbury's? Come on - we can all do better than that.

In terms of retail expansion, Herefordshire Council is quite clear in its report to planning committee on the Tesco application that town centre or near town centre sites should be preferred over out of town locations. The report identifies two possible options for new/expanded supermarkets - the Orchard Lane site and the Lawnside Rd site which could accommodate a larger supermarket, either Tesco or Sainsbury.

Before going off on another tangent Claire, it would be good if you could acquaint yourself with Roland Close's report to planning committee. It is not a LOTS report, we didn't 'hijack' it, it's not conjecture - but all based on policy, principle and expert evidence.
Yours sincerely
Rich
Sarah Blenkinsop
28 Sunday, 20 November 2011 16:39
Claire Ellis
So there are no retail building spaces in Ledbury. This verges on the ridiculous!
The bulk of Ledbury high street is made up of tudor buildings. How many people lived here in those times? They also had shops ie Butchers Row, now long since gone. So the allocated space for the shops way back in history is not allowed to expand in the modern world?
This beggers belief and just proves that we need more land dedicated for retail.
Economic Development
27 Sunday, 20 November 2011 16:26
Claire Ellis
So basically you are saying that Galebreaker should not move their productions to a bigger, purpose built site, thus creating more jobs but that they should scrape the idea with Sainsbury's, thus scrapping up to another 220 jobs, in the hope that someone will build a business park on Jeremy Scudamores land instead.
Good idea.
Bet he wishes he had thought of that months ago!
Economic Development
26 Sunday, 20 November 2011 15:38
Save Ledbury
Hi Claire and Colin
At the risk of straying into disputed territory, there are two truly enormous footprints where a. Tesco and b. Sainsbury want to build... what, a full size football field each or more? The folly of those two schemes is that about two thirds of the land is taken up with car park. Where's the sense in creating a great tarmac prairie right on top of scarce business/industrial land? Car parks aren't a good use of land assets. They don't support jobs very productively.

Also there is industrial land zoned up beyond the viaduct as part of the new UDP (under consultation now).

But this discussion underlines the need to be having a rounded debate about options and possibilities. We're not saying ours is the only way: what we are saying is that we should all be involved in thinking about the long term future of the town, jobs, housing, schools, leisure and sports facilities, open space, transport - and retail. And it's good that we can be having at least here a civilised discussion on this issue. So thank you - seriously.

You're right Claire, there is a chicken/egg issue - the solution is to have an integrated view of all the interlocking factors, rather than focussing simplistically on one thing as the solution or the problem. Perhaps both of our campaigns now need to step back and look more widely at the long view and think what's best for the most?

We might not end up agreeing on everything but I bet there are more things that we do agree on than perhaps we realise.
Cheers
(this time it's Rich btw)
2007 UDP - Retail sites - no identified need
25 Sunday, 20 November 2011 15:36
Sarah Blenkinsop
All the central shopping area in Ledbury which is Class A (retail)usage is available for use by retailers.

There isn't any "new" retail area designated in the UDP outside the central shopping area, becasue the town does not have an identified need for further retail capacity until at least 2026 - and yes that does allow for growth of houses, population etc .

Perhaps a careful read of the Planning Officer's report as to why he recommended rejection of the Tesco application might help to answer some of your questions? It is full of good, factual, independent information about all this sort of stuff.
Technology park
24 Sunday, 20 November 2011 15:31
Sarah Blenkinsop
Would count as industrial so would be able to go on the designated Employment land.

Which is why a "land bank" of designated Employment land has to be kept available - so it is there to be used, if a new industrial based employer wants to locate in Ledbury
2007 UDP
23 Sunday, 20 November 2011 14:23
Interstingly having looked at this map I see there is actually nothing set aside for retail development and as Claire has already asked .. where would we put this technology park?
Business Park?
22 Sunday, 20 November 2011 13:05
Claire Ellis
Well that does sound really exciting, but you didn't answer my question - 'Where do you propose the technology park should be built?'

When you have decided where, can you tell me where these people will live?

There are not enough houses in Ledbury, be they privately owned or social housing. Like wise, before you decide where these houses should be built we need to build some kind of large supermarket to be able to cater for their groceries.

Chicken and egg spring to mind here!
Business Park
21 Sunday, 20 November 2011 12:14
Save Ledbury
Dear Claire

The discussion about long term economic development should be part of the Local Neighbourhood Plan. Everybody can be involved in this process. The route to economic prosperity - and decent paying jobs - in this town is to attract high value inward investment. It's the reason Hereford has just won a big chunk of Govt money for its Enterprise Zone which will be marketing itself to information and technology businesses globally. Ledbury is very well placed to benefit from that development, being in close proximity to Cheltenham, Malvern and Hereford. Locations like Ledbury in the middle of a golden triangle like this are heaven sent. We should be exploiting it.

So far is Save Ledbury is concerned - yes you've caught the drift. Contrary to the barrage of misinformation that we want to keep Ledbury in the dark ages, opposed to progress, our group is extremely concerned to build a strong economy, more decent paying jobs, and maintain a high quality of life for all groups. It's just that building a great retail shed on precious land zoned for business is economic madness. That's why the planners are so opposed to allowing an out of town retail development to spring up in this location, thus choking off any future possibility for attracting high quality inward investment there. (Not to mention the loss of jobs in the wider economy as the High Street suffers).

Do think about putting your name down for the various planning groups. It really is up to us now to shape our future - together.
best wishes
Save Ledbury?
20 Sunday, 20 November 2011 11:06
Claire Ellis
'There should be investment in broadband, public transport, active attraction of inward investment, marketing of the town as a hub for defense and hi-tech research and so on. But to make that happen, we need investment in a good quality business / technology park and workforce training. As ever, there is no magic bullet for economic growth, simply the application of a range of measures which will contribute to future prosperity.'
This quote does not sound like you want to Save Ledbury at all. Sounds like you want to turn it into a mini Cheltenham with the defense and hi-tech research.
Where do you propose the technology park should be built?
Welcome withdrawal
19 Saturday, 19 November 2011 23:23
Already done on the relevant thread.
Welcome withdrawal
18 Saturday, 19 November 2011 23:20
Sarah Blenkinsop
That's good to read Colin - will you be briefing the Fb LESS group on that as well? I think they would like to know the facts?

Glad to have helped to clear up the confusion over Homebase, anyway :-)
Comment
17 Saturday, 19 November 2011 22:52
I will certainly withdraw my comment on the planning precedent .. but my other points remain.
Colin, are you going to withdraw your comment, then?
16 Saturday, 19 November 2011 18:31
Sarah Blenkinsop
Glad to have been of help Colin, but now you have seen how and where the UDP planning map has allocated various land for various uses,

will you withdraw your above comment that a planning precedent has been set to allow Sainsburys to be allowed to build on the Galebreaker site, because Homebase got planning permision to build in its current site by the bypass?

Will you also post the same on the LESS Fb site?

The situations are very different, as you can now see.

Galebreaker is an industrial firm, built in the correct place on land designated for such a use. The Galebreaker site is NOT the correct place (in UDP planning map and policy terms alone, apart from any other material planning considerations like vitality and viability, transport, sustainability etc considerations) for a retail business such as Sainsbury - and the same applies to Tesco wanting to move onto the Ledbury Welding site.

Homebase being sited nearby has no relevance to this particular issue.

Colin said in the original article

"Sainsbury's is the company offering these jobs, a UK national company that is one of the biggest 'grocers' in the country, who, I would say, it is very unlikely to be closing down any time soon. Some may say that this "land for employment" is meant for industrial usage, but Herefordshire Planning has already set a precedent by passing the application for Homebase, a retail outlet (which by the way attracted the same "death of the high street" comments), along the same road, so it would be difficult for it to refuse an application on those grounds."
Homebase site on UDP map
15 Saturday, 19 November 2011 16:49
Ahh .. now I see, I was looking a little further below that area, which I assume is the area next to Amcor
Colin - Homebase site on UDP map
14 Saturday, 19 November 2011 10:27
Sarah Blenkinsop
Colin I think you need to have another look - as the E3 area you refer to is NOT where Homebase is.

The dark puple E3 site you refer to is to the south of Homebase with some of the Ledbury Welding parking site between it and Homebase.

On the UDP map

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/LED1_Ledbury.pdf

the Homebase site is in the WHITE area by the bypass with some blue dots on ie not designated for anything (apart from potential flooding!)

with the current Ledbury Welding site next to and behind it (in pale purple and blue flooding dots - designated Employment land but also "area liable to flood")

I hope this helps - it is tricky to describe a map in words, for someone who isn't next to you looking at it.
Re: Green spaces
13 Saturday, 19 November 2011 00:47
Christine Stibbards
'There are a large number of areas in or around Ledbury to walk, including the riverside walk, which is pretty close to the graveyard you currently use, there is also the old railway line which, in my opinion, is a very pleasnt walk on a summers day. There isn't anywhere in Ledbury where you are more than 5 mins from countryside'

That is all very true, but only if you are fairly fit and have a car, as I do, to get you to somewhere on the trail where you can commence your walk, always supposing you can find somewhere to park. If you are advanced in years or in less than robust health, perhaps almost recovered from a heart attack or an operation, you may look at the scenery but only from a distance. It's a fair walk from the Deer Park Estate to any point on the town trail, and a steep climb from the New Mills Estate. Incidentally I don't walk in the graveyard, it was just the only place I could think of that is peaceful, flat and easily accessible. We are always being advised that exercise in the open air is good for us. I think we need to reserve some areas near people's homes, before all the green space is built over.
Sarah
12 Saturday, 19 November 2011 00:37
Having looked at the 2007 UDP I see that the area where Homebase is now located is designated as "Employment Proposal E3" I am unsure as to what that means, though I think it means Other Employment Land Allocations.
Future investment in industry - land needed 2
11 Friday, 18 November 2011 23:32
Christine - That bank of land is exactly where Galebraker want to build their purpose factory and from what I understand the Sainsburys store would actually be no higher than the current houses, it would also be shielded from those house by a band of trees.

There are a large number of areas in or around Ledbury to walk, including the riverside walk, which is pretty close to the graveyard you currently use, there is also the old railway line which, in my opinion, is a very pleasnt walk on a summers day. There isn't anywhere in Ledbury where you are more than 5 mins from countryside.
Future investment in industry - land needed 2
10 Friday, 18 November 2011 23:17
Christine Stibbards
There is already an ideal bank of land for our existing industry to expand onto. But it isn't right behind the New Mills estate, building up to people's back fences. It's up on the Bromyard Road, where the County Council want to put 800 new homes. Without the infrastructure to support them.

Looking at Googlemaps satellite view, there's hardly any room left to build anything on an industrial scale on the land near Galebreakers' current site.
Where are the green spaces reserved for parks and public amenities in this town?

Not all Ledbury residents are fit enough to go yomping through Coneygree Wood. Some of them might appreciate a green area or two in the town for quiet reflection and a daily stroll. The only place I can think of that's flat, easily accessible and not a designated children's play area is the graveyard.
Can You Believe Sainsbury's Jobs Claims?
9 Friday, 18 November 2011 23:14
Come on now, lets get this right. Sainsburys are offering upto 220 jobs and as I have been informed they cannot be specific on the number because it depends on the hours people want to work (pretty flexible attitude if you ask me)and lets also remember that anything upto 30 hours a week is still considered part time and their rate of pay is well above minimum wage levels (current rate as of July 2011 = £6.88) and more than many of the 'local' shop owners pay (I speak from experience on this matter), they have also scrapped the 16-18 rate so now even a 16 year old can be paid the £6.88 rate. My partner worked in a clothes shop in Ledbury with an hourly rate of £5.95 and currently works in one of the cafes on a rate of £6.25 an hour, well below what Sainsburys are offering.

The link you have posted is interesting, but it really depends on what you consider a "living wage", if I lived in London my idea of a living wage would be a lot higher than living in Ledbury.
Can You Believe Sainsbury's Jobs Claims?
8 Friday, 18 November 2011 22:49
Save Ledbury
No.

For Ledbury Superstore, Sainsbury claim 220 jobs for a 3000 sq metre superstore.

Meanwhile down the road at Chipping Norton they're offering 150 jobs for a whopping 5145 sq metre monster. (Note - these are NOT full time positions).

Could it be possible that Sainsbury are telling us Ledbury people a little jobs porky to try and get us on side?

Here's the link:
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9320662.Councillors_bid_to_stop_Sainsbury_s/
Future investment in industry - land needed
7 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:37
Sarah Blenkinsop
Investment in industry is vital for Ledbury to thrive and have new jobs to offer - but to do that Ledbury needs to have a "land bank" of land available, for new Industry to build on or for existing industry to expand onto.

Which is why areas of land are designated for such purposes and are "safeguarded" from any other development.
reply to Colin
6 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:35
Colin I have posted on the other thread ......I thought we were still on there. It is difficult when you want to discuss a meeting that you did not attend and I hope you will come along another time.
Valerie .. Again
5 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:30
Having just read Ricards & Sarahs post I can see a little clearer now.
reply to Valerie
4 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:24
No I wasn't there Valerie, but there were other members there and a number of items they have reported back on are pretty shocking to say the least.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the context of Mrs Crowes statement then .. because from where I and a number of other people are the context cannot be misunderstood.
Supermarkets are Retail, not Industrial.
3 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:23
Sarah Blenkinsop
The Employment land on the Lower Road TE is allocated for Industrial use.

The site where Homebase now sits is not and was not designated as part of this Employment land area in the 2007 UDP

Which is how Homebase were able to open their RETAIL business on that site.

The Galebreaker and LW sites are within the area designated as Employment land by the UDP - allocated for Industrial premises and activities -

Which was one of the reasons why the Tesco planning application was recommended for rejection by the Planning Officer - and the same reason applies to the Sainsbury proposal. To put it simply, the land is not allocated for Retail use.

Maybe confusion arises because, obviously, Tesco and Sainsbury both offer employment prospects - but that is not the meaning of Employment land in planning terms.

Have a look at the UDP for more details about designated Employment land.
Full Time Equivalent Jobs
2 Friday, 18 November 2011 18:23
Save Ledbury
Dear Colin,
You must draw a distinction between the total number of jobs advertised (which are always overinflated by the way - see below) and the number of Full Time Equivalent Jobs that these represent. The vast majority of the two hundred-odd jobs created here will be very part time, and paid at or near the minimum wage. The supermarkets like to keep people's hours down so they don't have to pay national insurance.

Sainsbury is not a good payer either (lower than Tesco). The shop-workers union Unite says: "In recent years staff have consistently been given a below inflation pay rise, which in these current financially strapped times is effectively a pay cut." Here is the link to their web page Sainsbury's Pay a Living Wage - http://bit.ly/mQ8ZCV

Also have a browse through the revealing comments of the youngsters discussing part-time supermarket jobs here: http://bit.ly/u1Jpa4

Neither Tesco nor Sainsbury have answered the straight question which is: how many full time equivalent jobs do their headline totals represent? If they did, we could compare the number of jobs created by them and the number which would be lost. Research (part commissioned by Tesco itself) suggests that 276 full time jobs are lost downstream of an out of town superstore opening. CPRE's research on Ledbury retail economy shows that more than 500 full time jobs are focussed on the High Street in shops and the production / supply chain. So even if a proportion were lost (which is almost certain), then the Sainsbury's investment would at least be cancelled out by the wider negative impact. For instance, if Sainsbury opens its superstore, it's almost certain that the Coop would close, and those jobs would be lost.

It’s a matter of pubic record that cost reduction and new self-scan technology are being aggressively applied by all the superstore multiples which means that employee numbers are steadily being cut back – despite a big increase in supermarket floor space. In the last year, Tesco and Sainsbury have expanded their retail floor space by over 2,750,000 sq ft while the number of people they employ has actually fallen by over 400. That trend will continue, particularly with the growth of internet grocery shopping which is set to double in five years. Ref D Telegraph http://tgr.ph/h7ru06

When they are bidding for space, supermarket operators consistently exaggerate the number of jobs they will create in order to generate local support and tap into people's understandable anger at rising unemployment. For instance recently Tesco Accrington shed 100s of jobs before the new store even opened - to the fury of the local community who felt they had been completely misled. Here's the link from the local paper. http://bit.ly/w3IYW5

The jobs issue has been an inflammatory topic since Tesco first revealed plans to relocated out of town. In campaigning against the move we have been accused of ‘nimbyism’ and being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary working people in the town by seeking to deny job creation at a time of increasing unemployment.

You have accused Annette of hypocrisy because she made a clear point concerning the need for Herefordshire Council to be putting in as much effort into economic development as they are into house-building - she said rightly that the two must go hand in hand. Simply throwing up houses is not going to generate economic growth. And in that context she said, rightly, that jobs must come first. I'm glad to have the chance to clarify the comment reported in the press.

You are right to point to deficiencies in Ledbury's business infrastructure and this is part of the argument that we need to be making to the Council - and why you should be involved. There should be investment in broadband, public transport, active attraction of inward investment, marketing of the town as a hub for defense and hi-tech research and so on. But to make that happen, we need investment in a good quality business / technology park and workforce training. As ever, there is no magic bullet for economic growth, simply the application of a range of measures which will contribute to future prosperity.

What Annette and others were talking about - and it was fully accepted by the Planners - that it would be a retrograde step to build a retail development on scarce land that is allocated for business and industry. What Ledbury needs is not hundreds of part time jobs near minimum wage but a strategy to build strong, secure, lasting and skilled employment for the decades to come.

Sorry, but this has turned into a monster post. Thanks for getting to the end.
Yours sincerely
Rich
reply to Colin
1 Friday, 18 November 2011 17:06
Hello colin
The quote in the Reporter was from the meeting on Tuesday and if only you had attended, you would not have been bewildered and would have been aware of the context and full discussion around the subject of jobs and employment land. You were not there so you really cannot be sure what was said. We have no control over what is reported in the press. I for one would like to have heard a contribution from you and I hope you will attend any future meetings relevant to planning for Ledbury, because we need to hear from all opinions in a neutral space like St Katherines or the Burgage Hall instead of on the internet where so many misunderstandings occur.