Tesco's 14th store in the Cambridge area is in Mill Road, Cambridge, one of Cambridge’s most cosmopolitan areas. The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign was set up to oppose these plans, and kept Mill Road Tesco-free for almost two years. Over 5,000 people signed our on-street petition and 1,000 objected to its planning applications. Tesco lost 3 planning applications, an alcohol license application and a public enquiry, leaving it with one of its smallest stores in the UK that it will have extreme difficulty in delivering to. The opening of the store brings the campaign into a second phase: ever-more active support for local traders, and making sure that any breach of planning condition or public safety results in Council action. Join our announcements mailing list to receive updates about the campaign.
18th August 2009, 10:26 pm
Tesco have pursued two delivery options for their large lorries. Here are key quotes, with sections in bold being our emphasis:
1. Delivery from Mill Road:
Tesco have said:
“We will deliver to the front of the store as the previous occupants did and as do most retailers on Mill Road.”
Deliveries via the front entrance was also clearly marked on the plans presented at the licensing committee meeting, where Tesco lost their application to be allowed to sell alcohol on Mill Road.
The City Council planning department have said:
“There is a lawful planning consent for the use of 163-167 Mill Road for retail use which requires deliveries to be made only from a rear service yard. We are urgently contacting Tesco to establish the company’s intention for the premises given the lawful consent. If it becomes clear that enforcement action may be necessary then the officers will report to members as soon as possible on options for further action”
and
“There is no hard evidence of a continuous 10-year breach by the previous occupant.”
And the government inspector, concluded (when judging Tesco’s now-failed attempt to add an extension) that:
“I find that the Mill Road delivery option would pose unacceptable risks to highway safety in general, and for cyclists in particular.”
“I conclude that it would be unacceptable for 10.35m long lorries to load and unload from Mill Road. [...] In my opinion this was also the purpose of the condition imposed in 1972.”
2. Delivery around ‘the loop’ (Catharine Street and Sedgwick Street):
Tesco have now said:
“As you know the building does have a planning condition, which dates back quite a way that requires deliveries to be made to the rear doors. This condition was in force prior to the surrounding roads being made into a one way system and would now require delivery vehicles to drive along residential streets.
“As part of our good neighbour policy we always consider local residents and neighbours and this was certainly a factor in our choice to deliver to the front of the store, as did the previous occupants, and most of the other traders along Mill Road do.
“Although we think this is probably the best option for the area I would like to confirm that we plan to service the store from the rear.”
i.e. drive round the loop into the rear of the site, manoeuvre a lorry in (and hope that there is space left in the car park).
Their consultant previously said [link], however:
“Due to the one way nature of Sedgwick Street access to the rear of the site would be via the ‘loop’ formed by Catharine Street and Sedgwick Street. This arrangement has the potential to cause detriment to the amenity and safety of local residents, due to multiple delivery movements per day with what will still be large vehicles. There is the also potential that poorly parked vehicles on could block access, requiring long and potentially dangerous reversing manoeuvres or police action.”
And the government inspector, concluded (when judging Tesco’s now-failed attempt to add an extension) that:
“the loop option “would pose a significant increase in the risk of accidents, damage and injury to vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians around the loop”.
“I find that both of the realistically available servicing options would pose unacceptable risks to highway safety, which would not be outweighed by benefits or the fallback position. I therefore conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.”
18th August 2009, 10:13 pm
On 22nd July 2009 we wrote to the City Council planning department with some Freedom of Information requests relating to planning issues at the site. We have now received a response.
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.”
18th August 2009, 12:00 pm
Tesco have today replied to David Howarth’s letter asking why Tesco plan to break the law.
Here is Tesco’s reply to David Howarth’s letter.
It contains some interesting statements. Tesco themselves have now said (our emphasis):
“As you know the building does have a planning condition, which dates back quite a way that requires deliveries to be made to the rear doors. This condition was in force prior to the surrounding roads being made into a one way system and would now require delivery vehicles to drive along residential streets.
“As part of our good neighbour policy we always consider local residents and neighbours and this was certainly a factor in our choice to deliver to the front of the store, as did the previous occupants, and most of the other traders along Mill Road do.
“Although we think this is probably the best option for the area I would like to confirm that we plan to service the store from the rear.”
i.e. drive round the loop into the rear of the site, manoeuvre a lorry in (and hope that there is space left in the car park).
18th August 2009, 12:00 pm
john.downing@cambridge-news.co.uk
TESCO’S new store in Mill Road will open without booze after city councillors rejected its application for a drinks licence.
The licensing sub-committee’s decision yesterday was greeted by loud applause from campaigners who had fought the supermarket giant’s plans every step of the way.
Ruth Deyermond, planning coordinator of the No Mill Road Tesco campaign, hailed the decision “a victory for common sense and the community”.
Solicitor Jeremy Bark put the case for Tesco’s application, saying the store would open “in any event” on August 26.
Tesco sought a licence to sell alcohol from 10am-10pm seven days a week.
He said 7 to 8 per cent of the sales at a typical Tesco Express are alcohol and the company had a “good history of working with police” to ensure all sales were legal.
Cambridgeshire police opposed the application, arguing further alcohol sales would exacerbate alcohol-related problems.
The Mill Road area was designated a “cumulative impact zone” in May 2008, meaning new applications would normally be refused unless the applicant could show it would not add to drink-related trouble.
Insp Marcia Nichols said the area suffered a “disproportionate” level of alcohol-related trouble and was already a “hotspot for violence”.
Dr Deyermond, speaking on behalf of the No Mill Road Tesco campaign, told the meeting the application was “totally inappropriate” in a cumulative impact zone.
Janette Evely, a parent from Argyle Street and a teacher at St Philip’s Primary School, said pupils often encountered antisocial behaviour related to street drinking, and Mill Road did not need another outlet selling drink.
Cllr Mike Dixon, sub-committee chairman, announced the application was rejected for its failure to adequately address the cumulative impact policy and the council’s planning policy.
Dr Deyermond said: “We think this is a victory for common sense and the community.”
Insp Nichols said: “The issue was never about Tesco. The increase in sales of alcohol by any premises would have had a detrimental impact.”
A Tesco spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed but are looking forward to opening the store on August 26 as planned.”
Cambridge Evening News, 18/08/2009
17th August 2009, 10:54 pm
A meeting of the East Area Committee is to take place this Thursday to discuss planning enforcement at the Tesco site.
Date: Thursday 20 August 2009
Time: 10am
Place: St Phillips Church, 185 Mill Road, Cambridge CB1 3AN
The agenda has now been published.
The City Council previously issued a public statement recognising the validity of the planning condition preventing lorries unloading from on Mill Road for this site:
“There is a lawful planning consent for the use of 163-167 Mill Road for retail use which requires deliveries to be made only from a rear service yard. We are urgently contacting Tesco to establish the company’s intention for the premises given the lawful consent. If it becomes clear that enforcement action may be necessary then the officers will report to members as soon as possible on options for further action”
Read our FAQ for the latest on all aspects of the Mill Road Tesco issue. A legal update will also follow soon.
We would ask supporters to gather outside St Phillips Church at 9.30 to express our view that deliveries by Tesco to the site will be dangerous. Please bring any transport-related banners.
17th August 2009, 03:12 pm
Tesco have failed in their attempt to obtain a licence to sell alcohol on Mill Road, an area with a known alcohol problem that is also a Cumulative Impact Zone.
[Update: Minutes of the meeting are now available.]
The police, represented by a legal team, objected in strong terms to the application.
Our representative, together with other local residents spoke at the hearing. Thanks to all who opposed the application (121 representations, vs. 2 in favour) and/or took part in activity to prevent this.
So far, therefore, Tesco have:
- Lost a planning application and Public Inquiry to build an extension
- Lost a planning application and pulled out of a Public Inquiry for air conditioning
- Have a planning condition requiring them only to deliver from within the site (i.e. not from Mill Road), a matter on which we are currently seeking enforcement
- Lost an attempt to sell alcohol
Tesco state on their website that:
“We do not apply for licences in areas with known disorder issues”
We wonder what they thought they were doing on Mill Road …
17th August 2009, 12:00 pm
Note: NMRT has no view on other Tesco stores around Cambridge. However, this story will be of interest to some of our supporters, and it also mentions the artistic protest event which took place at the weekend.
——-
raymond.brown@cambridge-news.co.uk
TESCO is considering opening another store in Cambridge – the supermarket giant’s 15th in the city.
The former Dreams bed shop in East Road has been earmarked as a prime site for an Express store.
The latest proposed scheme would be less than one mile from the controversial store in Mill Road, which is set to open on August 26.
There has been furious opposition to the Mill Road shop, due to the street’s reputation for unique, independent retailers.
More than 5,000 people signed a petition against it, but some residents are in favour, saying Tesco will bring cheaper prices.
The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign this weekend held a demonstration at the site for the second Saturday in a row.
And Cambridge City Council is today (Monday, 17 August) set to decide on an alcohol licence for the store.
Beverley Carpenter, the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign co-ordinator, said: “It was quite a lively protest.
“We were protesting about the licensing application. We decorated the fence around the site with lager cans. We are hopeful the application will be turned down.”
She said while the group felt it was “really inappropriate” to have a Tesco store on Mill Road, it did not hold particular views on applications at other sites in the city.
Dreams, the bed linen and furniture store, has moved to the Beehive centre and held its grand opening this weekend.
Glen Deadman, assistant manager of Dreams, said: “I think it would be good if Tesco is moving to our old site.
There are so many students and people on that road that would use it. The road needs brightening up.”
London-based CgMs, which has been the planning agent for Tesco’s Mill Road store, is also overseeing applications to Cambridge City Council for the East Road venture.
Plans for “plant works to rear enclosed by 2m high hit and miss fence” at the site were approved earlier this year.
A Tesco spokeswoman said: “We are always on the lookout for possible new sites all over the country and are often in negotiations for suitable schemes for Express stores.
“However, these often never materialise and until an agreement is reached or an application made we would not comment on individual cases.”
Cambridge Evening News, 17th August 2009
15th August 2009, 01:32 pm
The decision whether to allow Tesco to sell alcohol on Mill Road, an area with a known alcohol problem and recently designated as a alcohol Cumulative Impact Zone, will be decided this week.
The meeting is at 10am on Monday 17th August 2009, at the Guildhall. The meeting is open to all, and we encourage NMRT supporters to attend if they are not at work that day.
The police have objected, and engaged a lawyer to write their objection.
There have been 120 representations submitted about Tesco’s application.
The full agenda and main paper for the meeting has been published.
13th August 2009, 03:39 pm
Saturday 15th August, 12-1pm will see another event outside the Wilco site. We will be continuing to put pressure on the council to act but also raising awareness about the Tesco’s application for an alcohol licence (which is due to be heard on Monday at the Guildhall at 10.00am).
We would ask you to come along and dress the fence with us between 12 and 1pm, bringing with you empty beer cans to form part of our artistic intervention.
Please come and make your voice heard in an artistic and legal way!
13th August 2009, 12:00 pm
We have noticed some interesting things in Tesco’s store plan, which forms part of their alcohol licence application.
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” …
