Campaigning against Tesco's presence in the creative and cultural heart of Cambridge.
Archive for January 2008
CAMPAIGNERS have fired a furious volley at Tesco bosses after they “bulldozed” council planners.
The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign has accused the supermarket giant of “arm-twisting” and “disrespect” after it bypassed slow moving councillors over plans for its store in the street famed for unique shops.
Continue reading ‘CEN article: Tesco protesters hit out at ‘arm-twisting’’ »
[This example is significant as it demonstrates that council officers are able to reject plans on the basis of “adverse impact on the vitality and viability of nearby local centres and retail provision”.]
Tesco Plan refused [in Preston, Lancashire]
Traders and residents around the Lane Ends area of Ashton in Preston have expressed their relief that plans for a new convenience store have been rejected.
They had submitted a petition with 1,000 signatures and 317 letters of objection against the Tesco Convenience store planned for the site of the former HSS Lift and Shift base near Tulketh Mill.
Today council officers rejected the plan due to the insufficient parking provision and because it would have an “adverse impact on the vitality and viability of nearby local centres and retail provision” within the area.
Continue reading ‘‘Tesco plan refused’ in Preston, Lancashire – campaigning works!’ »
Richard Boast wants a few questions answered by the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign, in a letter to the CEN; well, we’re always happy to help.
Continue reading ‘‘I want the facts’ – CEN correspondence’ »
[We contacted the journalist responsible for this piece to follow up various inaccuracies. Following our press release, the CEN subsequently issued another news article which gives better coverage.]
ANGRY Tesco bosses have bypassed slow moving councillors over plans for its Mill Road store, the News can reveal.
Continue reading ‘CEN article: Tesco in shock Mill Road move’ »
Press release: issued 22nd January
We are surprised to hear that Tesco have now decided to lodge an appeal for non-determination when this option has been available to them for several weeks. We can only assume this is because they did not consider that their applications would withstand the closer scrutiny that they will receive in the new planning officers’ report.
Tesco say that the choice to avoid an appeal now lies with the council – presumably if they vote in favour of Tesco. This is precisely the type of arm-twisting tactic that gives companies such as Tesco a bad name. In taking this step, Tesco have shown their lack of respect for local democracy by attempting to pressurise council officers and the councillors before the decisions have been taken.
By choosing to lodge an appeal now, Tesco are potentially costing Cambridge council tax payers money with the costs they will claim from the council. The council has regrettably failed to meet planning deadlines, and Tesco have chosen to appeal before the planning decisions were taken, triggering an expensive legal process. The No Mill Road Tesco campaign, however, has respected every deadline set. This is in contrast to the repeated submission of new information and proposals by Tesco in the last three months – actions that must, presumably, have contributed to the delay about which they now complain.
If Tesco really believe in local democracy, they will withdraw their appeal and allow local councillors to take the decisions on 28th February. Given that Tesco claim to listen to the local community, however, and that they have ignored the 5,000 signatures on our petition and the 1,100 planning objections lodged, this is unlikely to happen.
Tesco say that all sensible perspective has been lost on the issue. That depends on what they think is important. Tesco may not think that their plans to reduce car parking matters, but local residents in a part of Cambridge already renowned for its lack of parking spaces feel differently. Tesco may not think that reversing 10-metre lorries down narrow residential streets every day is important, but as residents of an area with one of the worst road safety records in the county, we disagree. Many of these accidents happen on exactly the kind of street corner where Tesco propose to build their development; they may not think that’s important either, but we do.
We also think it’s important that our local community flourishes as a centre where people can work, shop and live. Evidence from all over the country shows that the proposed Tesco store would threaten that. Tesco may not care about that; we do.
Equally, we think that planning decisions need to be made on the basis of the guidelines that the council have established for themselves, as well as on national guidance. We think that both of these show that the application should be rejected.
We would encourage Tesco to rethink this decision which undermines the normal processes of local government and makes them look as if they are trying to get the result they want by putting pressure on the decision-makers. If they are confident of their applications they can save themselves and everyone else time and money by letting the normal planning process take its course.
Two articles in ‘The Cambridge Student’, 17th January 2008:
The Cambridge City Council’s East Area Committee will meet today to deliberate on Tesco’s application to open a new store on Mill Road. The application has caused outcry amongst Mill Road residents, many of whom fear that such a store would cause an increase in congestion and noise in the area and threaten small local shops. The ‘No Mill Road Tesco’ Campaign has collected more than 5200 signatures.
Alice Bloch argues that only consumers have the power to halt the rise and rise of ‘Tescopoly’
Alice Bloch, King’s
Is there anything good about Tesco? It has a 30% share of the UK grocery market, doesn’t think twice about crushing small businesses, and one in seven pounds spent in Britain goes straight into its pockets. And that’s before we even start on its condescending advertising campaign this Christmas.
Yet Tesco ploughs down a one-way high-street to uniformity and market monopoly. Last week, planning officers at Cambridge City Council recommended the approval of a store on Mill Road, perhaps the city’s last bastion of independent retailers and long-nurtured diversity.
Tesco was delighted, saying ‘the new store will provide more convenience food choice that can help to keep people shopping locally’. By this incredible feat of reasoning, if I today purchase a DVD in Borders, I am apparently shopping locally. Well, we’re all shopping locally all the time then – lucky us! Of course, this is far from true and misconceptions must be addressed.
By disliking Tesco, I could be accused of being snobby, and belittling those who cannot shop at independent butchers, bakers and grocers. Yet this is not the case. I am as much opposed to the ‘oh-so-trendy-faux-bohemian-middle-class-Jamie-Oliver-loving-mother-en-route-to-yoga’ organic lifestyle shop epidemic in this country as I am to Tesco. Neither is ideal.
But it is Tesco, along with other supermarkets, that forces independent retailers to raise their prices by opening stores in a flurry of aggressive price-cutting.
It’s not even the case that Tesco always saves us money – research by the New Economics Foundation showed that fresh produce in street markets was on average 30% cheaper than at supermarkets. In 2000, the Department of Health recommended that local authorities discourage the provision of new supermarkets over 1000 square metres outside existing town centres in recognition of the value of local shops to low income households.
So much for Tesco being the social entrepreneur that deluded apologists portray it to be. As Corporate Watch notes, Tesco exploits ‘cash-poor, time-poor’ shoppers. The problem is, nobody dares say this because we all shop there. As its CEO says, ‘we’re just giving customers what they want’. This seems infallible, but is it really true?
After all, do we really want identical high streets, for British producers to lose out, or for our children to not understand what seasonal produce is?
It is time that we asked ourselves what ‘convenience’ really means, and whether we are prepared to sacrifice the diversity and integrity of our communities.
This, however, rests on the hope that we are not all as apathetic as the media claims. Tesco may exist on Mill Road if Councillors decide it, but if consumers don’t shop there, it will fail.
Still, as a generation raised in the age of super consumerism and endless short-term gratification, do students of today have the power to resist their autopilot tendencies? This challenge lies not with the supermarkets but with ourselves.
Alice Bloch is a member of SocDocSoc and third year SPS student.
TESCO fast facts:
This is the version of the article printed in the Cambridge Evening News on 17th January 2008, and is similar but more extensive than the online-only version published the night before (on the 16th January).
by Rachel Extance, Local Government Correspondent
CAMPAIGNERS against plans for a Tesco store in Cambridge’s Mill Road have been given a last-minute stay of execution.
Planning chiefs at Cambridge City Council have taken the scheme off the table for Thursday night’s east area committee after deciding the report did not go into the issues in enough detail.
The decision to postpone came shortly before 5pm last night, taking campaigners and Tesco by surprise.
The decision has only just been made – taking campaigners and the supermarket giant by surprise.
Planning officers had recommended the plans for approval despite a massive public backlash against the idea.
More than 5,000 people have signed a petition against the plans, and more than 1,100 have written letters of objection.
Campaigners were expected to turn out in force to protest at Thursday’s council meeting which had been booked into a larger venue – St Philip’s Church in Mill Road – to make room for the large numbers of people expected.
But now the council has decided the planning reports were “not comprehensive” enough and said the applications will be debated another day.
The No Mill Road Tesco campaign submitted a complaint on Tuesday to the council saying the report on the extension was “substantially incomplete”.
A spokesman for the campaign said: “We are glad that the council have taken our concerns seriously with regard to the incomplete planners’ report and we are confident that when it does come before the councillors, they will acknowledge the strength of public opinion and the strong planning grounds for refusing the applications. We are still confident the applications will be turned down.”
Coun Ben Bradnack, who represents Petersfield, had written to say that detailed objections did not “benefit from detailed answers within the body of the report” and raised issues of refuse arrangements, road safety and car and Cycle parking.
Peter Carter, principal development control manager for the city council, said: “We just don’t think the report is comprehensive enough.
There are a whole series of issues involved. We looked at it earlier in he week and were prepared to run with it, we’ve looked at it again and decided we would prefer not to run with it.”
He said officers would discuss with committee chairman Coun John Durrant when the issue would next be approached.
Michael Kissman, corporate affairs manager for Tesco, said: “We are surprised and will look at the reasons. We do think we’ve still got a strong application in for the signage, cash machine and storage extension.”
Cambridge Evening News, 17th January 2008, printed edition
CAMPAIGNERS against plans for a Tesco store in Cambridge’s Mill Road have been given a last-minute stay of execution.
Planning chiefs at Cambridge City Council have taken the scheme off the table for Thursday night’s east area committee after deciding the report did not go into the issues in enough detail.
The decision has only just been made – taking campaigners and the supermarket giant by surprise.
Planning officers had recommended the plans for approval despite a massive public backlash against the idea.
More than 5,000 people have signed a petition against the plans, and more than 1,100 have written letters of objection.
Campaigners were expected to turn out in force to protest at Thursday’s council meeting which had been booked into a larger venue – St Philip’s Church in Mill Road – to make room for the large numbers of people expected.
But now the council has decided the planning reports were “not comprehensive” enough and said the applications will be debated another day.
The No Mill Road Tesco campaign submitted a complaint to the council saying the report was “flawed” .
A spokesman for the campaign said: “We are glad that the council have taken our concerns seriously with regard to the incomplete planners’ report.”
The decisions about Tesco’s planning applications will now NOT be made at the meeting on Thursday 17th January, so you don’t need to come along at 7.30pm to the church. The East Area Committee itself will still meet as planned but the Tesco items will not be discussed.
The planning department have upheld a complaint by the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign to Simon Payne, the Director of Environment and Planning at the Cambridge City Council, about the inadequacy of the planning report and recommendation.
The report by planners currently recommends approval of the Tesco’s applications and was meant to be the basis for decision-making at the meeting.
The complaint made by the No Mill Road Tesco campaign was that this report is incomplete and fails to address most of the local residents’ objections to the store.
We regret that little notice has been given for the cancellation. Please pass on this news to all who might have been planning to attend.
More news will be available shortly.
The East Area Committee was due to have an additional meeting on the ‘Tesco planning applications’, at St Philips Church, 185 Mill Road on Thursday 17th January 2008.
The agenda documents for this were as follows (those in bold are of most importance to us):
The main papers were published on 10th January, a week before the meeting. The replacement section was published a few days before the meeting.
On 15th January, we submitted a formal complaint to officers concerning the report.
On 16th January, our complaint was upheld by the Planning department. As a result, the reports were withdrawn from the agenda and so not considered at the meeting.
Days that Tesco were kept out of Mill Road:
665
(Counted from first East Area Committee date)
Money kept in the community:
£4.6m
of lost turnover