In light of the assurances given by Tesco including by letter dated the 17th of August 2009 and subject to receipt of a satisfactory undertaking on its part to comply with the condition regarding deliveries, no further action is taken at present.

And

that the Director of Environment and Planning and the Head of Legal Services are given full delegated powers to take enforcement action in the event that Tesco breach the planning condition requiring no loading or unloading of goods, including fuel, to take place otherwise than within the curtilage of the site.

It was noted by one speaker that a representative of Tesco was present at the back of the meeting, but he did not announce his present, and he refused a direct invitation (by that public speaker) to speak.

[Subsequent edit: The Minutes of the meeting are now available.]

Separately, our legal action is continuing.

A very full and accurate report of the meeting has been published by independent resident, Richard Taylor, on his blog, which we recommend all supporters to read.

We agree with the comments made by one reader of that blog that

“chair Cllr Blencowe conducted the meeting in a dreadful manner. He managed to antagonise the entire crowd of about 100 people by continually interrupting speakers and preventing them making their points.”

and we are considering what action, separately, to take on that issue.

Here is the City Council’s response to our FoI request, which also contains our questions interleaved.

Key extracts from it are:

[On the question of whether the previous occupant breached the planning condition that unloading must take place within the site:]

“There is no hard evidence of a continuous 10-year breach by the previous occupant.”

[On the question of the Council's position on Tesco failing to obtain a Certificate of Lawfulness for the site:]

“There has been no decision by the City Council planning officers or others, “to reverse the Council’s position that a Certificate of Lawfulness application by Tesco in relation to 163-167 Mill Road, Cambridge, would enable the Council to “make a proper assessment of the proposed works and give an informed formal legal view as to whether or not these works require planning permission”".”

[On the question of Tesco installing air conditioning:]

“The Council has been advised at meetings that all the air conditioning plant is now to be inside the building. There has however, despite requests, been very little information forthcoming, between 1 December 2008 and 22 July 2009, about what plant is to be introduced inside the building.”

On the balance between types of stock:

• The proportion of shelf space for alcohol is inconsistent; the list down the side mentions 6 “mods” (shelving units, basically) for beer wine and spirits, but the drawing itself shows 10 “mods” for booze.]
• 10 out of 82 mods represents 12% of the store’s shelf space to be given over to selling booze.
• 12% of the store’s shelf space means booze represents twice as much as the total space planned for milk, juice, butter, cheese, meat and poultry combined.

On the basis of these figures, the place looks like an off licence/sandwich and snack shop (lots of crisps and sweets)/newsagents, with not very much of the store selling “real” food.

On the right hand side is marked “Affluence: Upmarket”.

The delivery regime also contains an admission of breaking the planning regulations: “Deliveries: Via Entrance”.

Click to view the full-size version

They are also planning to sell “deserts” …

There seem to be pipes coming out of the back (where we believe there used to be a window), leading up to the roof.

Tesco have been twice refused permission to install air conditioning when they applied.

We are seeking clarification on whether plant has indeed been installed at the back of the site, and if so, when formal confirmation was given to Tesco by the planning department that no further planning permission was needed, and any data supplied by Tesco to show that there would be no noise impacts from the plant.

• Letter of notification from Cambridge City Council

This means that there will be a second public inquiry, which will be held at some point in 2009. As with the inquiry into the original application, we have all been invited to give our written comments to the planning inspector. The deadline for comments is 11 November (Tuesday of next week).

Some suggested grounds for objection to the application in July can be found at:
http://www.nomillroadtesco.org/planning-applications/june-2008-application/

Since this is the application that is now being appealed, these objections still stand. It is worth noting that at the last public inquiry (into the application for an extension and air conditioning and refrigeration plant) Tesco confirmed that a store would not be viable unless they could use 10.35 metre lorries to make some of their daily deliveries. This means that if this application for plant is approved then Tesco will definitely use these large vehicles.

Tesco will try to argue that this is just a bit of air conditioning and refrigeration equipment so that issues such as deliveries, parking, and waste and other storage issues are irrelevant. It would be a good idea to mention in your letter (and in your own words) that:

The refrigeration and air conditioning plant is necessary for Tesco to open a store on this site, so any issue relating to the impact of the proposed store on neighbouring homes or on traffic congestion and road safety is directly relevant to the application. This is because approving the application would cause these effects by allowing the store to open. If the store cannot open, these effects will not occur. As a result, they should be considered as part of this appeal.

Please remember that it is not likely to be the same planning inspector as last time, so they will not be familiar with the case or the campaign. That means we need to explain, all over again, what the problems are with a Tesco store on this site (delivery impacts on road safety and traffic congestion in particular).

You can submit comments online at:
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/makerep.asp?caseaddress=COO.2036.300.8.309744

or send 3 hard copies of your objections to:

The Planning Inspectorate,
3/16 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

The Planning Reference for this appeal is 08/0794/FUL
Land at 163-167 Mill Road, Cambridge
PI Ref – APP/Q0505/A/08/2085159/NWF

(Please be aware that if you submit your comments through the planning portal, any personal information you include (such as contact details) will be visible to anyone who choses to read your objection online.)

• Detailed response to the Officer Report to July 2008 EAC

Here is a summary of two main points in our submission:

1. The planners are incorrect that deliveries, car parking, waste and other matters are not relevant to the decision

The planning officers say the impact of deliveries on road safety, congestion, car parking, and noise pollution are not relevant to this application. They also say that all the other issues objectors have identified, except those relating explicitly to the issue of the air conditioning and refrigeration plant itself, are all irrelevant. This is not correct.

As we said before, if Tesco are really serious about opening a smaller store, all the other impacts of a Tesco Express opening on this site will necessarily follow from approval of this application but would not otherwise happen (because without the plant, they can’t open). Deliveries, car parking, noise pollution, waste storage etc., are therefore “material considerations” in relation to this application. As such, they need to be considered by planners and councillors.

Deliveries, waste and other issues are as relevant to this attempt to open an Express store they were to the last attempt. Of course, because Tesco haven’t changed their delivery plans, all the reasons why the last application was refused on delivery grounds still apply.

2. Planners have ignored the fact that Tesco’s acoustic report, on which the recommendation is based, is fundamentally flawed

The report fails to address the very serious problems with the acoustic report which we raised. An acoustic consultant who looked at the report for us highlighted a number of serious flaws in the way Tesco’s acoustic consultants did their tests. We passed these on to the planners who have either dismissed them or ignored them altogether. Our acoustic consultant asked to see the detail of Tesco’s consultants’ methodology; the planners have not allowed this.

This is particularly serious because the planners say the specific issue of the air conditioning and refrigeration plant is the only relevant factor in a decision about this application. Yet their recommendation of approval is based entirely on report paid for and supplied by Tesco – a report with fundamental flaws that mean it cannot reasonably be relied on as any kind of sound basis for judgement. So, the planners are recommending approval entirely on the basis of Tesco’s own, fundamentally unreliable acoustic report, and not acknowledging, let alone investigating, the basic problems that render this report an unsound basis for approving the application.

On March 6 2008, the Council’s East Area Committee (councillors for Romsey, Petersfield, Abbey and Coleridge wards) voted on Tesco’s applications for the old Wilco site at 163-167 Mill Road.

Tesco lost. Here’s how and why.

Tesco applied for three things: to be allowed to build an extension, to install a cash machine in the front of the shop and to put up a couple of signs. The councillors have said that they can install a cash machine and put up a sign (although they can’t switch the sign on unless the shop is open).

But the councillors also said that they couldn’t build an extension. All seven councillors voted to refuse the extension. They also voted to contest Tesco’s appeal against the fact that the last application wasn’t decided in the normal time period (called a “non-determination appeal”).

1. Why did the councillors all vote against the plans for an extension?

There were a couple of reasons. Firstly, local planning guidance says that “the extension of existing buildings will be permitted if they [...] retain sufficient amenity space, bin storage, vehicular access and car and cycle parking” This application didn’t – they can’t extend the building and still do all this.

Secondly, they said that there was no way of safely making deliveries to the site because the type of deliveries that this kind of store would need – at least 30 of them a week, half of them in 10 metre lorries. There is nowhere for them to make deliveries like that. The traffic problems that the store would cause if the extension was built “would seriously prejudice the safety and free flow of traffic on the public highway”.

2. What does the councillors’ vote mean?

It means that Tesco can’t open a Tesco Express on this site.

3. Why? Haven’t they said that they can open the store anyway, without an extension?

By a funny coincidence, their spokesman has suddenly started saying that since they lost the vote! But the people who actually designed the proposed store told both us and the council planners that the store couldn’t open without the extension. No extension = no Tesco. They are apparently denying that they ever said this now, but we have it in writing.

4. Why couldn’t they open the store without the extension?

Tesco said at the planning meeting that they wouldn’t open a store if it couldn’t make a profit. It can’t make a profit if there is too little floor space.

Tesco told council planners in writing that they couldn’t open a store on this site without the extension they asked for because of the nature of the site – its size and its position on the street. They said that even if all the rubbish, recycling and delivery cages were stored outside the existing store (which they have been told they are not allowed to do), the store would still be too small for them to operate.

5. But the site was big enough to be a shop before, so why can’t Tesco just use the same space as Wilco?

Because they are different types of shop. Tesco said that they needed an extension 36% the size of the existing building so that they could install things like a bakery area and refrigerators to store their stock. Wilco is a car accessories and cycle store – you don’t need bakeries and refrigerators to sell car seat covers and driving gloves.

6. So why are Tesco saying that they will open anyway?

Because they are trying to spin a really embarrassing defeat. They lost two planning applications in four days (this one and one in Macclesfield) and they are worried that their luck has finally run out.

They have to go through with the non-determination appeal they lodged. So they are trying to improve their chances by making the council and local people think that there’s no point in putting up a fight because they will just open anyway. This is untrue.

7. So what happens with the appeal?

Tesco put in the same applications last year. In January, the council planning officers produced a report recommending approval but it was so flawed that the planning department itself withdrew it, meaning that councillors couldn’t vote on it.

At that point Tesco complained to the Planning Inspectorate, saying it had taken too long (of course, that might have been something to do with the extra information Tesco kept sending the planning officers while they were trying to write their report). They also submitted identical plans for the council to vote on in March. This was because they wanted two shots at winning approval for the extension – from the council and from the Planning Inspectorate.

The result is that even though the council have told Tesco that they can’t have the extension they would need to open the store, Tesco are asking the Planning Inspectorate to let them build the extension because the council didn’t decide on the application quickly enough.

All the councillors voted to contest the appeal on the same grounds that they turned down the second application for an extension. This means that they will tell the Planning Inspectorate that the extension and its consequences are inconsistent with planning guidance.

Of course, the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign will be objecting to Tesco’s appeal, too.

8. Tesco will win, won’t they?

No, we think that’s very unlikely. From the way that Tesco are behaving, they seem to think it’s unlikely, too!

Several of the councillors on the committee that turned down the request for an extension are planning experts, and all are experienced in planning matters. They wouldn’t have refused the application if they didn’t have rock solid planning grounds to do it. We don’t think that the Planning Inspectorate are going to tell Cambridge Council that they have to break their own (and national government) planning rules.

9. So what’s next?

Stopping Tesco opening a store here has always been only one part of the picture. So, we are objecting to Tesco’s appeal. But we are also taking part in wider community discussions about how we all – local residents, community groups, local traders, faith groups, the politicians who represent us – can work together to revitalise the area.

Together, we want to make the Mill Road area an even better place to live, work and shop. The councillors have got this off to a great start by refusing a dangerous and damaging proposal by Tesco. The rest is up to all of us!

Thanks to everyone who helped achieve this first victory!

More news will be posted shortly.

Read our letter …