Slots free spins no deposit

  1. Art Casino 100 Free Spins Bonus 2024: Aristocrat is one of the leading developers for online slot games as well as those you can find only in a casino.
  2. Online Casino Amazon Gift Card - There are limits imposed for every transaction that you make, whether you are making a deposit or making a withdrawal.
  3. Online Gambling With Real Money: There are also several top pokies to choose from when gambling online.

The riverstar cryptocurrency casino

Real Pokies Free
Even harder to determine whether these EGMs are any less harmful and addictive than the pokies.
N1 Casino Promo Codes
In 2023, the World was blessed with a rockn roll classic that has stood the test of time.
This will help you to keep on playing and trying more and more games in which you may end up as the big winner of the day, why not give it a try, since the casino is boosting your account so nicely.

Gambling licence review

Online Casino Chances Of Winning
BetOnline Poker has an exclusive promotion for poker players.
How To Play Casino Online Games
Players can enjoy life like casino games with a real-life dealer on games like roulette blackjack Texas holdem poker and baccarat.
Casinos With Real Money

Objection: Planning Application ref 07/0811/FUL

Application ref 07/0811/ FUL, made by Tesco Stores Ltd in respect of 163-167 Mill Road, Cambridge, is for ‘erection of single story extension to rear of unit and installation of plant’.

As local residents, we oppose this application on a number of grounds:

  1. The application is contrary to the conditions attaching to the existing planning permission for the site;
  2. The application ignores a right of access across the property;
  3. The impact of the proposed extension to the rear of the site will necessarily run directly counter to the requirements regarding extensions specified by the Cambridge Local Plan
  4. The noise impact assessment provided by the applicant is incomplete and misleading regarding the very significant noise pollution that we think will arise from the proposal;
  5. The application provides no Transport Assessment, as it is required to do and it includes no details about, or demonstration of provision for, shoppers visiting the store by car;
  6. The application’s assumption regarding deliveries to the site requires the removal of the pavement, creating serious road safety problems;
  7. The alternative of deliveries to the back of the site is inappropriate given the well-known frequency of Tesco deliveries, the small size and residential nature of the streets by which the back of the site would be accessed, and the road safety problems arising from the noise generated by the proposed refrigeration and air conditioning units;
  8. The applicant gives no indication of the number of proposed daily deliveries to the site, nor the size of delivery vehicle that would be used;
  9. The application makes no provision for bicycle parking, as required by the Local Plan and by other relevant planning-related documents;
  10. The application fails to make appropriate provision for waste disposal, raising public health concerns;
  11. The application will fundamentally undermine the vitality and viability of the Mill Road shopping centre, to which both national planning guidance and the Cambridge Local Plan commit the City Council. An application by Tesco to relax prior planning conditions was rejected by Barnet Council in March 2007 on the grounds that it would contravene this aspect of the planning requirements; the same considerations also exist in this case.

1. Removal or Variation of a Condition on an Existing Planning Permission

The application is contrary to the conditions attaching to the existing planning permission for the site

This section of the form (Part A, Section 5) has been left uncompleted. In their Planning Design and Access Statement, Tesco assert that the Cambridge City Council have lost the file concerning the original permission for the building (ref. C/71/0826) and that, consequently, they have ‘assumed that no restrictions are imposed’ by the original permission. Tesco are incorrect in their assertion about the original permission; it is not lost, we have viewed it, and it is clear that the application seeks to remove the conditions for deliveries and parking placed on the existing building. Conditions on permission ref C/71/0826 included the requirement that:

The loading and unloading area and parking spaces shown on drawing no 71/258/1 shall be permanently maintained for that purpose.

In the 1971 application, provision was made for four parking spaces in the rear yard for visitors to the premises plus other parking for the use of employees. Currently, there are fifteen car parking spaces in the rear yard of 163 – 167. (Ten spaces are shown on the applicant’s drawing of the existing site, [P]500, omitting the five spaces immediately behind the building where their new extension is proposed.) Tesco plans indicate six proposed car parking spaces (07/0811/FUL section 6), including one disabled car parking space. Adding these to the three spaces reserved for the accountants on the upper floor of the site means that there is a proposed reduction of six car parking spaces, or over one third of the existing total – not, as Tesco assert, a reduction of one space (Planning Design and Access Statement, 4.8).

In more general terms, the total space in this parking and loading/unloading area will be very significantly reduced by the proposed extension, which will expand the current building to cover more than a quarter of the existing parking/loading space. Tesco are thus incorrect to state in paragraph 4.8 of their Planning Design and Access Statement that ‘minor alterations are proposed to the existing car park’, since the reduction of the total space by a quarter does not, in our view, constitute a minor alteration.

Therefore, the new extension would not maintain the loading, unloading and parking areas required under the previous planning consent.

2. Proposed Boundary Walls and Fences: impact on right of way

The application ignores a right of access across the property.

As with the section on removal of a condition on planning permission, Tesco have left this section of their application form blank. We understand that the tenants of 169 Mill Road have, in their lease, a right of way across the yard to the parking area at the rear of their premises. Tesco appear not to be maintaining this right of way, as a fence is shown on the drawings submitted with the application. Since the tenants of 169 are an estate agent, and require their cars to attend viewings, this will force another three cars to park in adjoining streets.

3. Impact of the Proposed Extension: reduction of the size of the car park and delivery area to the rear of the site

The impact of the proposed extension to the rear of the site will necessarily run directly counter to the requirements regarding extensions specified by the Cambridge Local Plan.

The Cambridge Local Plan (3/14) states that

The extension of existing buildings will be permitted if they […] retain sufficient amenity space, bin storage, vehicular access and car and cycle parking.

Since it also states that ‘when a policy states that a certain type of development will be permitted it should also be understood that other types of development are likely to be refused’ (1.20), we understand that under the Local Plan the extension of existing buildings will be refused if they fail to provide sufficient room for vehicular access, car parking, cycle parking, and bin storage. As we demonstrate below, application ref 07/0811/FUL reduces the car park and delivery area to the rear of the site by over a quarter of its current size, very significantly reduces car parking, makes no provision at all for cycle parking, and provides inadequate space and facilities for bin storage.

Thus, the proposed extension is clearly in direct conflict with the Cambridge Local Plan, as well as with other guidance central to planning decisions (discussed below, in sections 5, 9 and 10).

4. Noise Impact Assessment

The noise impact assessment provided by the applicant is incomplete and misleading regarding the very significant noise pollution that we think will arise from the proposal.

An acoustic report has been included with this planning application. It concludes that there will not be a significant noise impact, including on the residential properties to the rear of the site. The applicant’s Planning Design and Access statement asserts that:

4.12 A full acoustic assessment has been undertaken to ensure that the proposed plant will have no adverse effect on the amenity of the users at the existing building at 136-167 Mill Road nor that of surrounding residential properties.
4.13 The Acoustic Report shows that proposed plant equipment to be located at the site would have no detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents by way of noise […]

Contrary to these assertions, the acoustic report is not ‘full’, it is in fact incomplete and therefore provides a misleading picture of the impact that the proposed changes will have. A professional working in this field (qualifications and membership of professional associations include: MCIEH, MIOSH, MIEMA, post-graduate diploma in acoustics and noise control) had the following comments on the acoustic report:

The [acoustic] report is not all it should be.

1. There are lots of assumptions (specification of equipment, distance to housing, operation of equipment at night etc);

2. The measurement position for background noise is inappropriate and doesn’t reflect the experience of housing at the rear of the site.

3. The detail for some assumptions are unclear (4.1.7, 4.3.2)

4. Passages such as “suitable time” etc don’t help anyone (4.3.3)

5. The assumption that no correction is required is surprising – tonal drone from fans is a common cause of complaint – BS4142 requires correction where the noise has a “Continuous hum”. The use of the correction may change some of the categories.

6. I also worry about the use of 4142 and the other standards referred to – what we are allowing is more and more noise sources which effectively allow the background level to creep up. This allows the applicant to use standard plant in a mixed area and assume it won’t be a problem. There is an argument that additional plant should not elevate the background noise level at all.

Most obviously, the measurement of background noise levels – against which the impact of noise generated by the proposed plant is assessed – was conducted only at the front of the site, on Mill Road itself; no background noise measurements were conducted at the rear of the site, where it is proposed that the plant equipment be positioned and where the majority of the residential properties close to the site are located. So, the measurement of background noise on one of the busiest roads in Cambridge is used to conclude that the operation of air conditioning and refrigeration units will not be noisy in a quiet, residential street. This is clearly inappropriate, and renders meaningless any comments derived from it about the lack of detrimental impact on local residents by way of noise.

Road safety concerns regarding noise pollution

Given the increased traffic that the proposed store will generate in the residential streets to the rear of the site, possibly including delivery vehicles several times a day, we are concerned that the failure to adequately measure the noise impact of the plant also means that the application fails to adequately consider the safety implications of the increased noise generated. In particular, we are concerned that the noise of the refrigeration and air conditioning units will mask the noise of vehicles in Sedgwick Street, immediately behind the property. This will pose a significant additional risk to those pedestrians who rely on being able to hear traffic noise when they make judgements about when it is safe to cross the road – most obviously, pedestrians with limited or no sight.

Proximity of proposed plant to residential properties

As we noted in our objections to application Ref 07/0809/ADV, the applicant has not accounted for the existence of a residential property at 161A Mill Road immediately above the ground floor property at 162 Mill Road, adjoining 163-167 Mill Road. The acoustic impact (Section 2.3.1) states that ‘Clarification should be sort [sic] as to the distance between the refrigeration /air conditioning source and the nearest residential property (currently assumed to be 12m).’ If clarification was sought by the applicants, there is no indication of it in the documents submitted with the application; indeed, it is clear that the application as presented relies solely on this report for its assertions regarding the impact of the air conditioning and refrigeration units on residential properties. The assumption that it makes of a 12 metre distance from the nearest residential property is incorrect; the residential property at 161A Mill Road is very much closer than this, being sited immediately next to the proposed plant.

5. Transport, Congestion, and Car Parking

The application provides no Transport Assessment, as it is required to do and it includes no details about, or demonstration of provision for, shoppers visiting the store by car;

This section of the form (Part B, Section 4) has been left uncompleted; the applicant has given no estimate for the number of cars expected to park on the site. The Planning Design and Access Statement is no clearer on this point: it asserts that the proposed store will ‘attract users who travel to the store via foot or public transport’ but makes no mention of travel to the store by car, or by cycle (see section 9, below).

While we accept that a number of customers will indeed arrive on foot, it is not clear to us why the applicant thinks that some customers will choose to make a journey to the store by public transport but that none will choose to make the journey by car. It seems reasonable to assume that the considerations which would lead potential customers to make the journey by public transport (distance of the store from their home or place of work, or the volume of goods purchased) would also lead customers to make the journey by car – indeed, we are unable to think of any considerations which would lead customers to arrive by public transport that would not also lead at least as many customers to arrive by car. Given the much greater number of people who travel by car than by bus (the only form of public transport along Mill Road), and the fact that the proposed store is located on one of the main roads into and out of the city centre, the assumption must be made that a significant number of customers will arrive by car if there is an assumption of access by public transport, as there is in this application. The fact that there is only one frequent bus service route along Mill Road (the C2), and the fact that on Sundays this service only runs once an hour, further highlights the implausibility of the assumption that all of those who choose to make a significant journey to visit the store will do so by bus but that none will do so by car (or cycle).

Thus, the proposed store is going to attract extra car traffic. Since there are more than 500 Tesco Express stores, it would be unreasonable to assume that Tesco do not have an estimate of how many customers they expect to arrive by car every day, but they have not included this information in the relevant section of the application. As mentioned above, the applicant plans to reduce the number of the site’s car parking spaces to six, including one disabled car parking space. In addition to failing to meet the Local Plan requirement that extension to existing buildings maintain adequate car parking (Local Plan, 3/14), this reduction means it is inevitable that many customers would park in the narrow, residential streets immediately surrounding the site, or increase congestion on Mill Road even further by illegally parking on the kerb (which would also be dangerous to pedestrians).

Failure of the application to meet the requirements of local and national planning guidance

The failure to provide any indication as to the volume of car traffic generated by the application runs counter to local and central government planning documentation. The Cambridge Local Plan states that ‘proposals must include sufficient information for the likely [transport] impact to be assessed’ (8.2), and that ‘where redevelopment of a currently occupied site is proposed, the existing demand on the transport network will be taken into account.’ (8.9) Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG 13), paragraph 23, requires the provision of a Transport Assessment for developments which ‘have significant transport implications’, as this does. None of these requirements are met by the proposal.

Since Mill Road is widely recognised as an area that suffers from significant problems of traffic congestion, and given the reasonable assumption of increased car traffic and of problems created by on-street parking, we think that the proposal needs to be considered in light of Local Plan paragraph 8.7, which states that:

‘in areas of the City where traffic congestion is particularly high, the council may seek a zero increase or reduction in car traffic generation through any proposed redevelopment’.

6. Proposed Deliveries to the Site From the Front of the Building

The application’s assumption regarding deliveries to the site requires the removal of the pavement, creating serious road safety problems

Section 4 of both applications 07/0811/FUL and 07/0810/FUL state that the proposal does not include space for loading/unloading goods. Although not mentioned in any of the submitted planning application forms, the Planning Design and Access Statement notes that ‘It is proposed to service the site from the front of the property’. (4.26, p.14). Some of the submitted architectural drawings also make it clear that Tesco wish to unload deliveries at the front and that this would require a loading bay that would extend across the entire width of the front of the shop, requiring the removal of the pavement.

The Cambridge Local Plan section 8/9 states that

Development proposals will make suitable provision for any required access and parking by service and delivery vehicles […] 8.21 […] any development that will require regular loading or servicing must avoid causing illegal or dangerous parking, by providing appropriate off-street facilities.

We do not think that the removal of the public footpath along several metres of a very busy road meets the requirements of ‘appropriate off-street facilities’, referred to in the local plan.

In addition, we understand that the Highways Authority has requested that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety and have stated that they will not issue any future permission for the construction of a lay-by that would serve as a loading bay.

7. Deliveries to the Site: possible delivery to the back of the site

The alternative of deliveries to the back of the site is inappropriate given the well-known frequency of Tesco deliveries, the small size and residential nature of the streets by which the back of the site would be accessed, and the road safety problems arising from the noise generated by the proposed refrigeration and air conditioning units.

The nature of the streets surrounding the back of the site make numerous daily deliveries to the car park inappropriate. Sedgwick Street is a narrow residential street with on-street parking provision, which is likely to create problems for deliveries in large vehicles. Deliveries to the rear of the site will increase the danger to the most vulnerable pedestrians, including children, the elderly, and those with limited mobility, who will have to negotiate both an overall increase in traffic in the street and the presence of large delivery vehicles in the surrounding streets. As noted above, deliveries to the back of the site will pose a significant risk to pedestrians with limited or no sight, because the noise of the proposed refrigeration and air conditioning will mask the noise of the delivery vehicles.

The manoeuvring of lorries and delivery vans into a (greatly reduced) car park would present a significant danger to pedestrians and to other road users, as well as to the other users of the car park (personnel and visitors of Youngman and Co, as well as visitors to the store itself).

8. Frequency and Type of Delivery

The applicant gives no indication of the number of proposed daily deliveries to the site, nor the size of delivery vehicle that would be used

Nowhere, in any of the three applications, is any mention made of the number of deliveries to the site. This is a serious concern for residents because of the impact on traffic congestion and road safety; since Tesco know that the unusual frequency of its deliveries is a matter of great concern to local residents in many towns, we are surprised that it has not sought to address this matter in its application or in the supporting documentation, as the planning application form (Part B, Section 4) clearly requires it to do.

The frequency of Tesco deliveries is a matter of dispute between Tesco and local residents in many areas (see, for example, the Daily Mail article on the subject in October 2005).[1] In their statement regarding the proposed opening of a Tesco Express in Unthank Road, Norwich, Tesco state that ‘on average there would be 2-3 small delivery lorries during the day and 5-6 vans serving the store as needed’.[2] We assume that the reference to ‘5-6 vans’ refers to an additional 5-6 van deliveries per day, meaning that Tesco expect to make nine deliveries per day to the Norwich site. Since the proposed Norwich store is the same type of store as the one proposed here, we assume – in the absence of discussion of delivery frequency and type by the applicant – that the applicant intends to make nine deliveries per day to 163-167 Mill Road, using both lorries and vans. Nine deliveries per day will cause a very significant obstruction, either to the front of the building or to the car park at the rear.

Nine deliveries per day, including a number by lorry, will also have a very significant negative impact on traffic congestion, road safety, and noise levels on Mill Road and in the surrounding residential streets. Given the various traffic-related requirements of the Local Plan and central government guidance, we do not see how an application that fails to specify the number of deliveries to the site but which, experiences elsewhere strongly indicate, would be great enough to have a significant and negative impact in all these areas, can be approved.

9. Failure to Make Provision for Access by Bicycle

The application makes no provision for bicycle parking, as required by the Local Plan and by other relevant documents

Given the widespread used of bicycles in Cambridge, it would be reasonable to expect that many of the proposed store’s customers who do not arrive by car will arrive on bicycle. As section 3/14 of the Local Plan states, provision for cycle parking is a requirement where approval for extensions are sought. Despite this, there is no provision in the plans for bicycle parking, and the applicant does not say how many visitors they expect to arrive by bicycle. As the points above make clear, the reduction in overall space and in car parking at the rear of the site and the increase in use caused by greater demands on waste storage and by possible deliveries mean that cycle parking will be difficult and probably dangerous at the back of the store. No cycle parking provision is proposed at the front of the store.

The City Council’s Cycle Parking Standards require specific amounts of cycle parking per amount of floorspace, and that “short stay cycle parking, e.g. for visitors or shoppers, should be located as near as possible to the main entrance of buildings […]”.

This application therefore fails to meet the requirements regarding cycle parking.

10. Proposed Waste Disposal

The applicant states that this will be ‘as existing’ (part A, Section 6); thus, they have no plan to increase the on-site facilities for waste disposal. This is unrealistic for two reasons.

Firstly, the previous occupant of the site was a discount car accessories and bicycle shop – in other words, a shop that sold non-perishable goods. The proposed convenience store will generate a vastly greater quantity of waste, as unsold fresh food will require disposal and cardboard, plastics and other non-perishable waste will be generated on a daily basis. A member of our group who has worked in a convenience store-size, supermarket-owned shop testifies to the large volume of waste such shops generate on a daily basis, and the storage difficulties that this can create. The waste generated by the convenience store will also add to traffic congestion and to the obstructions to users of the car park, since the waste will require frequent collection.

Secondly, Tesco is planning to greatly reduce the size of the car park and delivery area at the rear of the site, where waste is held until collection. It is also presumably expecting the use of this area to increase significantly through visitor and staff parking, and possibly deliveries (see below).

This means that Tesco proposes to put a lot more waste into a much smaller and busier space. We think that Tesco have not given this matter due consideration, and we are concerned about the hygiene implications of placing so much waste, including food waste, so close to customers and to the staff of the accountants on the first floor of the building, who will all be using the car park. It also, as we have already noted, does not meet the requirements of Section 3/14 of the Local Plan.

11. Vitality and Viability of Shopping Area

In the course of our research into the proposed planning applications for the 163-167 Mill Road, we have repeatedly been told that the likely negative impact of Tesco on the Mill Road area is not a consideration that is relevant to the planning process. This is incorrect. The impact of a Tesco Express on the area has implications for the Local Plan and national planning guidance and is thus directly relevant to the planning process – a point on which we agree with the applicant (Planning Design and Access Statement, 4.2).

In documents relating to shopping provision, Mill Road has been classified as a ‘local area’. The 2006 Cambridge Local Plan states that:

6.16: “Shopping policies […] seek to enhance the vitality and viability of the City Centre and support the role of the District and Local Centres[…]
6.17: “Applications for retail developments will, where appropriate, be subject to the demonstration […] that there will not be an adverse impact on existing centres, and that transport and environmental matters have been considered.”

The Planning Design and Access Statement that accompanies 07/0811/FUL twice asserts that the proposed developments will enhance the vitality and viability of the Mill Road area (in the section ‘Use’, paragraph 4.2, and in the section ‘New Shopfront and Signage’, paragraph 4.9). The document thus clearly seeks to give the impression that a Tesco Express at this site will conform to paragraph 6.16 of the Local Plan.

The experience of shopping centres in other locations where Tesco have opened a store comparable to the one intended for Mill Road has been one that runs directly counter to this claim and to the aims of the Council shopping policy as set out in section 6.16 of the Local Plan. Rather than permitting – let alone promoting – the vitality and viability of shopping areas, the presence of a Tesco convenience store fundamentally undermines it.

The report by the House of Commons All-Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group High Street Britain 2015 (2005) highlights the adverse impact on independent and smaller chain shops, and thus on the high street as a whole, of the incursion of large supermarket chains into the convenience store sector. The report states that:

Evidence from contributors illustrates that large retailers will compete using ‘conventional’ means such as competitive pricing strategies on key footfall generators. If, however, the performance of the larger operator is considered poor when compared to the smaller retailers competing in the same catchment, then, on occasion, anti-competitive practices are undertaken.[3]

It also asserts that ‘the cessation of trading by many small retailers located close to national multiples seems inevitable’;[4] the group supports both statements with reference to examples of Tesco opening convenience stores. The issue of whether Tesco has attempted to block the possibilities for competition – essential to the vitality of a shopping area – recently caused the Office of Fair Trading to refer its practices in Slough to the Competition Commission.[5]

Mill Road, more than most shopping centres, has managed to maintain a vibrant mixture of independent local retailers. As a recent correspondent to the Cambridge Evening News noted,

Mill Road offers a fabulous variety of successful small businesses. Most of these are run by members of Cambridge’s many ethnic minority communities. This is the jewel in the crown of Cambridge’s shopping experience – and would be profoundly threatened by the presence on Mill Road of yet another Tesco.[6]

In their Planning Design and Access Statement, Tesco repeatedly describe the proposed Tesco Express as a ‘top-up’ store; they also say that it is ‘in line with a proven need for “top-up” convenience shopping’ (4.7) and that it will provide a local service for residents ‘who can walk to the store reducing the dependence on the private car’ (4.5). These claims contradict one another – if the store is a ‘top-up’ one, it will not reduce car journeys by local residents who would otherwise visit more distant, larger supermarkets for bigger shopping trips; on the contrary, if the store is, as claimed, intended for ‘top-up’ shopping by local residents then the intention can only be to draw business away from the existing shops on Mill Road that already fulfill this function. We do not disagree with the applicant that there is, in principle, a proven need for convenience shops within the retail sector as a whole. This does not mean that there is a proven need for additional convenience stores on Mill Road, which appears to be the intended inference of the Statement. There are currently thirteen stores on Mill Road that can be said to fall into that category, as well as a greengrocer at 175A Mill Road, very close to the proposed site; a number of these stores are open during the same hours as those proposed for this store. Most of these stores are within a five minute walk of the proposed Tesco Express. Thus, there is clearly no need for any additional convenience stores. It is also clear that, if it is indeed primarily a ‘top-up’ shop (and if it isn’t, then the anticipated traffic problems referred to above will be far worse) then the intention must be to take business from the existing stores. The experience of other towns’ shopping centres strongly indicates that the presence of a Tesco Express would destroy the vitality and viability of the Mill Road shopping centre.

The case of Barnet Council

In this context, we were very interested to read about the March 2007 decision by Barnet Council to refuse permission for Tesco to vary the existing planning conditions on a shop it had acquired. The grounds for the refusal were that it

would have a significantly greater harmful impact on the vitality and viability of nearby town centres than the existing lawful use contrary to policy S1.1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991), policies TCR1 and TCR7 of the Unitary Development Plan Draft Deposit Modifications (28/06/05), Policy 3D.1 of the Mayors London Plan (2004) and Planning Policy Statement 6[7]

This decision demonstrates that the impact of a new Tesco store on a local shopping area is a relevant consideration in council planning decisions. The similarities between the Barnet case and the Mill Road application are substantial – both applications refer to an existing shop (no change of use is involved) and both require the alteration of existing planning conditions in respect of the buildings concerned. We think that there are clearly grounds to reject the application to extend the rear of the site on the same grounds.

The No Mill Road Tesco Campaign
http://www.nomillroadtesco.org/


[1] Dan Newling, ‘Sit Down Triumph Over Tesco’, 31 October 2005, http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/small-business/article.html?in_article_id=404716&in_page_id=10

[2] http://www.tesco.com/talkingtesco/response/?page=article32[3] High Street Britain 2015, p. 25.

[4] Ibid., p. 27.

[5] ‘Completed acquisition by Tesco plc of a former Co-op store in Slough’, Office of Fair Trading, 9 May 2007, http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/Mergers_home/decisions/2007/Tesco

[6] http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/letters/2007/10/03/eb1c777a-a9ce-4a9a-82c9-fd5baddddc29.lpf

[7] http://planning.barnet.gov.uk:7778/pls/portal/BARNETWEB.RPT_CONDITIONS_REASONS.SHOW?p_arg_names=decision&p_arg_values=Refuse&p_arg_names=reference&p_arg_values=C00302S%2F05

Comments are closed.