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/

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.

Elected Councillors of the East Area Committee will make the decision on the Tesco planning applications for Mill Road on 6th March. Details of the meeting are:

Date: Thursday 6 March 2008
Time: 7.15pm for 7.30pm start
Place: St Philips Church, 185 Mill Road, Cambridge

Read the arguments …

Thanks to John Volynchook for the photos of traders.

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

Read our letter …

• Comments on the planning officers’ report for application 07/0811/FUL for application 07/0811/FUL
• Response to the Planning Officers’ supplementary report document of 14 January 2008
• Our response to the signage report
• Precedents showing refusals of Tesco Express stores elsewhere
• Evidence of Tesco breaching planning conditions in other stores
• Results of car and delivery monitoring - Tesco Express Cherry Hinton
• Deliveries to existing Mill Road A1 businesses
• Quotes from traders about the impact of Tesco on their business
• FAQs
• A DVD copy of the Channel 4 Dispatches programme about Tesco
• Photo/map document

We also met with David Howarth, Cambridge’s MP and Norman Baker (MP for Lewes), on Friday 22nd February 2008.