is this true

In my view there are always to sides to the story and the way I see things though I could be wrong, but wont believe it until some hard evidence come to light.
Council Bickerton has in fact been doing what everyone wanted and is trying to get a supermarket in Featherstone. Netto have shown interest so he has done what he can to help them achieve their goal and give the people what they want.
The rest of the letter seem typical business to me.
Netto want to build a supermarket Mr and Mrs green have the land.
Number 5 comes up for sale, Netto see that this property would benefit them for access to the land if they should acquire the land from the Green's. The Green's also see the property as a ideal opportunity, they would be in a much better bargaining position if they were to own number 5. Number 5 was sold to the highest bidder Netto. The Greens aren't happy about this has they want to sell the land to Lidl (most likely the highest bidder for the land) As number 5 is owned by Netto and this could cause problems for access to the land by Lidl The Green's could loose out.
Paragraph 5 says a lot to me. The Green's are saying if consent isn't given to Lidl then Featherstone won't get a supermarket. They will not enter into discussions with Netto, and will hold onto the land for residential development. Which says to me they have no intention of selling to Netto or any supermarket chain that shows interest.
So I ask who is forcing who here, because to me it looks like the Green's are trying to force planning into passing Lidl's plans and rejecting Netto's.