Despite having no safe and legal means of delivering to the proposed Tesco Express site, the company intend to open the store this coming Wednesday. The City Council have been aware of these plans for at least six weeks but have done nothing to prevent them coming to fruition, and formalised their position of inaction at a meeting of their East Area Committee last Wednesday.

Further to the Interim Order, the campaign is also seeking a Judicial Review of the Council’s failure to act to prevent the unsafe operation of the store.

NMRT Committee Member Richard Rippin said, “As a resident of the area for 15 years, I know how dangerous Tesco’s delivery plans are. Everyone who lives in the area knows how narrow Mill Road is and how many road accidents there are already. Everyone who lives here also knows it would be impossible to send lorries around the area’s narrow residential streets several times a day.

“We are sad to be in the position of having to take the Council to the High Court, but we feel that we’ve have been left with no alternative. Whether Tesco try to deliver to the front or around the back in these lorries, they would be doing something which they are either specifically banned from doing at the site, or which a series of relevant professionals, including their own consultants, have said would be impractical and unsafe. The council have had several weeks to take action to stop this happening. On Wednesday they again decided to delay.”

Notes for Editors:

Richard Rippin can be contacted on 07886 757987 or rich@ash.coop

The NMRT Campaign has been running since September 2007 – see http://www.nomillroadtesco.org/

During this time Tesco have lost 3 planning applications, an alcohol license application and a public enquiry. Many of these defeats have been based on the fact that there is simply no safe way to service this site with in the region of 35 deliveries per week, using large vehicles which would either have to block a major route in and out of the city centre for extended periods each day, or navigate around narrow one way streets, which Tesco themselves have said was unworkable.

Over 5000 local people have signed a petition against the proposed store.

Councillors last night dealt yet another blow to Tesco’s plans for Mill Road when they voted to reject the latest application for air conditioning and refrigeration plant. The campaign was again allowed 10 minutes speaking time rather than the usual 3, in recognition of the level of public interest, and used the time to explain some of the many flaws in Tesco’s acoustic report.  We pointed out, for example, that the measurements had been taken in the wrong place and some of the figures were inaccurate estimates (a point confirmed by the Council’s Environmental expert who was also present at the committee meeting).

We also explained how the considerations of road safety and residential amenity, so crucial to the decision to refuse Tesco’s last application for an extension and plant, were also relevant here. Tesco had also provided no details of how they proposed to store waste, including the large amounts of rotting food that would be generated by the store’s operation.  We had previously shown councillors photos of existing Tesco Express stores, proving how Tesco’s practice is to simply store all kinds of waste and delivery cages outside their small format shops.

In her speech, Sonia Cooter, campaign co-ordinator, also reminded councillors of the importance of protecting the vibrant, diverse space of Mill Road.  Other speakers against the application included Cambridge Friends of the Earth, Jannie Brightman, and a Lib Dem county councillor. Tesco chose not to bother to speak.

After two hours of speeches and debates, councillors finally voted in front of a packed St Philips church to reject the application. Tesco are now relying on overturning the previous refusal on appeal but don’t seem very confident they will win.  Needless to say, we agree with them!

You may have heard that this morning Tesco finally evicted the squatters from the Mill Road Social Centre; they had apparently booked the eviction a week ago, so were obviously confident of winning last night.

Cambridge 2 – Tesco 0

Planning Officers have again recommended approval of Tesco’s application – this time for a refrigeration plant and air conditioning unit on the existing site on Mill Road. But the No Mill Road Tesco campaign believes the report is based on two false assumptions.

Firstly, campaigners believe the assertion in the report that issues of deliveries and waste are irrelevant is simply untrue. If Tesco is 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. Deliveries, waste and other issues are as relevant to this attempt to open an Express store as they were to the last attempt. This means all the reasons why the last application was refused on delivery grounds still apply.

Secondly, planners have ignored the fact that Tesco’s acoustic report, on which the recommendation is based, is fundamentally flawed. No Mill Road Tesco approached an acoustic consultant to look at the report when it was published, and he found a number of serious problems in the way Tesco’s acoustic consultants did their tests. This is the only document the council uses to judge the noise impact of the planning application. The planning officers have recommended approval based entirely on Tesco’s own, fundamentally unreliable acoustic report.

Ruth Deyermond, planning coordinator for the No Mill Road Tesco campaign commented “There is simply no sound basis for approval of this application. If you think that issues such as road safety traffic congestion, and the impact on local residents are relevant, which the planning guidance says they are, then the application needs to be refused. But even if you agreed with the planning officer that only the direct impacts of the air conditioning and refrigeration units are relevant then the application would still have to be refused on planning grounds. Tesco’s acoustic report is the only evidence on which the planners are asking the councillors to judge the application, and it simply doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.”

Sonia Cooter, campaign coordinator added “We were expecting the council’s planning department to recommend approval, but the poor quality of the report has surprised us. We are urging everyone in the Mill Road area to come along to the East Area Committee meeting on Thursday, 31st July at 7.30pm in St Philip’s Church, Mill Road, and let our councillors know – this is not acceptable”.

In a year of campaigning, the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign has attracted support from hundreds of local people.

At a special East Area Committee meeting on March 6th, over 400 local residents watched city councillors vote unanimously against Tesco building an extension, which would have made it possible for them to open a viable shop on Mill Road. That application has gone to appeal. The campaign is now preparing to fight Tesco again at the July 31st East Area Committee, where a new application from Tesco for an air conditioning and refrigeration plant will be considered by local councillors.

Campaign activist Sarah Whitebread commented, “In the past year, almost everything that could go wrong for Tesco’s on Mill Road, has gone wrong. They’ve been refused planning permission for their extension, and now with the alcohol impact zone on Mill Road, they probably won’t get an alcohol license either”.

Sonia Cooter, Campaign Coordinator added “Tesco were fooling themselves if they thought they could open on Mill Road without a fight. The amount of public support the campaign has enjoyed is proof that most people just don’t want a Tesco here. The campaign has had a hugely successful first year – but the fight isn’t over yet. I hope as many people as possible will come to the East Area Committee meeting on July 31st, at St Philips Church, Mill Road, to remind Tesco how strongly local people feel about this.”

We understand that one of Tesco’s PR representatives is currently claiming that Tesco have decided to open a store on the old Wilco site on Mill Road without the extension that they have spent almost 2 years planning and arguing for. (Their proposed extension was refused by the council in March and is currently the subject of an appeal by Tesco to the Planning Inspectorate.)

We have been told that Tesco have drawn up new plans that now enable them to bypass the planning process and open without the proposed extension – despite the fact that they previously told the council planners that this would be impossible, as the documentation sent to the Planning Inspectorate confirms.

There are a few problems with Tesco’s claim. Even if they were able to operate a profitable store despite a reduction in the proposed shop floor of nearly 40% – which would be the amount of the existing store taken up by their “behind the scenes” stock storage, waste storage, office, staff facilities, bakery, etc – they would still face the following obstacles:

1. They do not have planning permission to install their proposed refrigeration and air conditioning equipment

Even if they were somehow able to open a profitable store without the proposed extension, despite what they told the council, they still need planning permission for the installation of the necessary refrigeration and air conditioning plant. Planning permission for this equipment formed part of the application that the council rejected in March. So, they do not have permission to install the equipment that they have told the council they need in order to open the store.

Tesco would therefore have to make another planning application to the council for the installation of this noisy equipment, equipment that would be right next to local homes and other local businesses and which would run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Even Tesco’s own, last-minute report said that this equipment does not meet Local Authority standards, and there are other serious problems with it that would make its approval unlikely.

Of course, any application to install this noisy, sub-standard equipment in a residential area would be strongly contested by local people, as was the previous application.

2. They cannot deliver to the site by lorry

Tesco say that they want to make 30 deliveries per week, many in lorries more than 10 metres long and for up to 40 minutes at a time. Any occupants of this particular site are banned from delivering on the street, because of the existing planning conditions placed on the building.

So, they cannot block Mill Road at least 30 times a week for up to 40 minutes at a time – which will be a relief to anyone who has to drive or take a bus down Mill Road, or who relies on the emergency services being able to get down it.

Because of the local one-way system, they cannot deliver to the back of the site by lorry unless the Local Authority makes some changes to Sedgwick Street. As we have said from the start, the changes that Tesco want – which would involve driving 10 metre lorries the “wrong” way down a one-way street, as well as the removal of some on-street parking so that they can reverse their lorries – are dangerous and will make life harder for anyone (local residents, local businesses, shoppers) who needs to park in the area. An application to take away parking and to drive lorries into the one way system’s oncoming traffic would obviously be strongly contested by local people.

So, Tesco cannot deliver to the store by lorry. They could, presumably, decide to make their deliveries to the store by small van – although this would require them to make far more than the 30 deliveries per week they say they will make if they can use lorries – but this is the only way they could legally get goods into the store. As anyone who has ever worked in this type of store knows, this isn’t how they operate

3. They do not have a license to sell alcohol

Stores like this rely heavily on alcohol sales. We assume that if Tesco were able to open a store with a 40% smaller shop floor than the one they wanted, then they would be particularly dependent on alcohol sales in order to be profitable.

This is big problem for them. The police have asked the council to extend its Cumulative Impact Policy to Mill Road. This would mean that the council would have a presumption that any new applications for alcohol licences on Mill Road would be refused, unless the applicants could make a case for allowing one in particular instances.

Given both the well-known street drinking problems in the area and huge local opposition, we wonder whether the council will really want to make an exception to its policy and give an alcohol licence on Mill Road to the company that brought Britain the 22p can of lager.

So, apparently, Tesco are planning to open a store almost 40% smaller than the one that they planned on, with no air conditioning, no refrigeration, no alcohol licence and to which they will only be able to deliver by small van. Even one of these obstacles would make the opening of a store very unlikely. Together, they mean that it is not even remotely viable.

So why are Tesco saying this?

We assume that these supposedly new plans are different from the “secret plans” Tesco’s PR representatives announced immediately after Tesco’s embarrassing defeat in early March, which also apparently enabled them to bypass the planning process and open without the extension – although since these first “secret plans” apparently allowed them to open without the extension, we are surprised that they needed to announce the existence of a new set of plans now.

We find the timing of this announcement interesting, and not just in relation to the local elections. Tesco will now have received copies of all the evidence submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by local groups and local residents. They will have seen that both local and national planning guidance clearly confirm the council’s decision to refuse the plans as the correct one. As a result, and since it is – as Tesco themselves pointed out – a decision that has to be made on the basis of the planning guidance and not who can shout the loudest, they clearly expect to lose their appeal.

Tesco have spent almost two years and, we assume, a lot of money on their existing plans for this site. They have said that the proposed Mill Road store would not be viable without an extension. When the council turned these plans down, they pursued an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, asking for the longest, most complex form of appeal process, a public inquiry. Tesco have obviously failed to undertake due diligence when purchasing the lease for this property and should not be surprised to incur losses on what is clearly an unsuitable site.

If they were confident in their case they would not now be attempting to sidestep the appeal process that they themselves called for. Tesco are likely to lose this appeal, and their actions show that they know it.

It was early, not yet busy, and I was able to stop and talk with a couple of the people who run the shops, who have become friends over the years. They were pleased about the decision of course, but rightly concerned that this was far from the end of the matter. At last, one of them said, “the campaign’s done a good job, but Tesco will win in the end”.

Some of the coverage of the Council’s decision gives the impression that Tesco has won already. Tesco told one local newspaper that they “could open the store tomorrow”.

This is how Tesco works, with spin and distortion which wears people down with the nagging fear that their eventual victory is inevitable.

But it isn’t. The people who actually designed the proposed store told the council planners that the store couldn’t open without the extension.

No extension = No Tesco.

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.

And the same reasons which led the council to reject this application to extend the store will apply equally to any future application.

Local planning guidance says “the extension of existing buildings will be permitted if they […] retain sufficient amenity space, bin storage, vehicular access and car and cycle parking”. Tesco can’t extend the building and still do all this.

Secondly, the councillors said there was no way of safely making deliveries to the site. Tesco has said the site will need 30 deliveries a week, half of them in 10 metre lorries. (The true figure, based on deliveries to the Tesco Express in Cherry Hinton, is likely to be a lot higher.)

Tesco’s own figures suggest that each delivery takes around 40 minutes, meaning Mill Road would be blocked by large lorries for long periods several times a day.

In a clear –and typical- attempt to subvert local democracy, Tesco has gone over the heads of the Council, and appealed to the Planning Inspectorate to let them build the extension, because the council didn’t decide on the application quickly enough.

But all the councillors voted to contest this appeal on the same grounds that they turned down the application for an extension. This means that they will tell the Planning Inspectorate that the extension is inconsistent with planning guidance.

So will Tesco win in the end? We don’t think so.

Several of the councillors on the committee 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.

And we don’t think that the Planning Inspectorate is going to tell Cambridge Council that they have to break their own (and national government) planning rules.

Tesco has lost, and they will lose any future attempts on the same grounds.

Tesco has had one success however, which certainly wasn’t intended. It has helped to create a strongerMill Road community, with a clearer sense of its own identity. Or as one shopkeeper said: “I will say that all this has really brought us traders together.”

Find out more on

http://www.nomillroadtesco.org/resources/planning-decision-faq/

Local residents in the Mill Road area celebrated a first win for the No Mill Road Tesco campaign last night as their councillors voted against Tesco’s application for an Express store on Mill Road. Over 250 people attended the meeting to watch the councillors make the decision.

All seven voting councillors of the East Area committee unanimously rejected Tesco’s planning application to build an extension to the rear of the proposed site. As Tesco have said themselves that the extension is crucial to their plans for opening the store, a no from the councillors is a No to Tesco on Mill Road.

Councillors voted on the grounds of the threat to local residents and highway safety posed by Tesco’s plans, as well as the need to preserve parking spaces and other facilities. They also noted the arguments made by the campaign on the threat to the vitality and viability of the local area – they acknowledged the importance of a recent All Party Parliamentary report which found that the closure of small shops is ‘inevitable’ when one of the Big 4 supermarkets open for business nearby.

Sonia Cooter, coordinator of the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign said ‘We’re thrilled that our councillors listened to their constituents and voted against Tesco. We would like to express our thanks to them and to the thousands of people who have writen letters, signed the petition and made their voices heard. Today is a real win for local people and local democracy.’

www.nomillroadtesco.org

ENDS

Notes for editors;

1. The East Area committee meeting was held on Thursday March 6th at St Phillips Church on Mill Road.

2. All planning arguments made by the No Mill Road Tesco campaign can be found at www.nomillroadtesco.org

3. The report by the All Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group can be found here:
http://www.nfsp.org.uk/uploads/pdfs/High%20Street%20Britain%202015%20report.pdf

4. PHOTO attached: the 250 members of the public attending the meeting held up signs when the vote was cast to tell their councillors what to say to Tesco’s plans.

5. Please contact Shilpa Shah on 07779 658211 for more information

The No Mill Road Tesco campaign have condemned the Council planning officers’ recommendation of approval for Tesco’s Mill Road plans as unsound, based on flawed interpretation of planning guidance and key factual mistakes.

The Campaign’s report, sent to East Area Committee councillors, who will be voting on the decision on Thursday, concludes that it would be unreasonable “to approve proposals with the capacity to so seriously damage residential amenity, highway safety, and the local centre, when approval is based on such incomplete and seriously flawed advice”.

No Mill Road Tesco campaign coordinator Sonia Cooter said: “The more we looked at the report, the more amazed we were that the planners could recommend approval on such shaky grounds, especially after the problems with the last report.” On 16th January 2008, the City Council withdrew the planning officers’ previous report on Tesco’s applications, following a formal complaint by the No Mill Road Tesco campaign.

“They are saying that councillors should approve the plans for the store,” Sonia Cooter continued. “But the proposals contravene the Council’s own planning guidance, as well as national guidance, on matters as basic as parking and deliveries, and they haven’t answered obvious questions such as how they would deal with the store’s waste, how much the noise pollution would affect local residents, and other important matters.

“The delivery issue is typical of the problems with the report. The planners say it would be acceptable for Tesco to unload their 10 metre lorries on Mill Road, even though the Council’s own guidance says very clearly that this won’t be allowed, and despite the fact that the Highway Authority have said that making deliveries to the front of the store would be dangerous for pedestrians. They say it has to be allowed because that’s what the last occupiers of the site did, which seems like a strange argument to us and isn’t actually true, in any case – they made deliveries to the car park at the back.

“We all know how narrow and congested Mill Road is already. In effect, the planners are saying that they are happy for Tesco to block this section of the street for up to forty minutes at a time, several times a day, and that there won’t be congestion or safety problems. We don’t understand how they can think this is acceptable. There is nowhere for Tesco to make deliveries safely and legally to the site, but the planners say councillors should approve the plans anyway. Local taxpayers don’t pay – and local voters don’t vote – for the council to make the roads more dangerous and congested than they already are.

“In every case where the planners acknowledge there is a problem they say ‘on its own, this isn’t enough of a reason to refuse the application’. But when you add together each individual problem you get a very big, cumulative problem with the application, and the planners simply haven’t taken any account of this cumulative impact.

“The job of councillors is to represent their constituents and to balance this with the demands of planning regulations. This is often a very difficult task. In this case, though, both the constituents and planning regulations are clear that the Tesco’s plans for this site should be rejected.

“All over the country, councillors are refusing permission for Tesco Express stores – even when planning officers start by recommending approval – because they threaten road safety, cause problems for local residents and threaten the vitality and viability of local centres. We hope that our councillors will do the same.”

The decision on the applications will be made by the East Area Committee at 7.30 pm on Thursday 6 March, in St Phillips Church, Mill Road.

ENDS

For more information contact:
Richard Rippin – 07886 757987

Architecture Sans Frontiers Cambridge is an independent student society at Cambridge University and part of the global ASF network. Its objective is to learn from architects and architectural practices around the world to develop and promote sustainability and community in architecture. As part of this we also see working at a local, community level as hugely important.

The design competition applies the ASF principles of: innovative sustainability, community Involvement and ethically considerate design to a real local context.

The ‘Wilco site’ has been the location of an ongoing battle between Tesco who wish to develop the site and the local community who oppose this. The ASF competition seeks to find an alternative to the alternative most adapted to sustainability and the needs of the community.

The presentation will take place on Saturday 1st March at 5:00pm in the Lecture Room at the Department of Architecture, 1-5 Scroope Terrace, Cambridge CB2 1PX.

There will be snacks, wine and soft drinks provided.

For more information on Architecture Sans Frontiers please consult www.asf-uk.org

A group of Cambridge University architecture students is holding a competition to find an alternative use for the old Wilco site on Mill Road, which Tesco has earmarked for the site of its fourteenth store in Cambridge. The group, Architecture Sans Frontiers Cambridge, is asking students to design a building or space which can be used by the community.

The competition, independently organized by ASF Cambridge but to be held at the University Department of Architecture [1], is scheduled to start at lunchtime on Friday 29th February, and finish in the evening on the Saturday 1st March. A reception and display of the entries, open to the public, will begin at 5pm on Saturday. The press is also invited to attend.

Sheila Jeffery, who has been looking into possible alternative uses for the Wilco site on behalf of the No Mill Road Tesco campaign, will be among the judges.

“Architecture Sans Frontiers Cambridge is about learning from architects around the world to develop and promote sustainability and community in architecture,” explained ASF Cambridge Co-President Robert Percy. “We consider having a real local issue as key to the relevance of this project, and the Mill Road community, as one of the most vibrant and united in Cambridge, is the perfect example.”

Sheila Jeffery added: “The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign is pleased to support Architecture Sans Frontiers with this competition as it is an ideal opportunity to show that sustainability and community need to be considered in architecture in projects in this country, on both new buildings and in refurbishing existing ones. This competition gives us all the opportunity to see what could be done with this site to the benefit of the community – giving it something it wants.”