After hearing evidence from Tesco's, the Police and their legal team, and some impassioned pleas from local residents and No to Mill Road Tesco's supporters, the committee concluded that Tesco simply hadn't addressed the problems outlined by the police, and refused the application.
It was yet another bizarrely inept performance from Tesco. As I indicated in my response to the application, the store is in a Cumulative Impact Zone for alcohol related anti-social behaviour, so the presumption is that new applicants would be turned down unless they could demonstrate how they addressed the problems of the Cumulative Impact Zone.
Tesco rolled out a boilerplate defence of their application, then tried to claim that the main problem with Mill Road being addressed by the introduction of the cumulative impact zone was the sale of alcohol for consumption on licenced premises e.g. pubs, not the sale from premises like supermarkets for off-licence consumption. If you start by demonstrating such a complete lack of comprehension of what the actual situation on the ground is in Mill Road, you really are going to struggle to convince anyone that you have properly addressed the problems with your application.
A deserved round one victory in this battle to the No to Mill Road Tesco protestors - Tescos are expected to appeal.
1 comment:
Thanks Chris! I really don't think anyone who knows Mill Road at all could have thought another alcohol licence for off-sales was a good idea. As I was coming back from the hearing, I saw two street drinkers wandering off in one direction and a PCSO going the other way with a couple of obviously confiscated cans of lager, which was exactly what we'd been talking about, of course.
I assume that they will appeal, although with the police so firmly opposed and the presence of a cumulative impact zone, they'll struggle to get anywhere.
Post a Comment