the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign

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.”

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.”