Tesco set to open tomorrow as court bid fails

No to Mill Road Tesco has failed in its bid to secure an injunction stopping Mill Road Tesco opening tomorrow, clearing the last legal hurdle before Tesco's planned opening tomorrow morning. The action saw an individual campaigner as claimant, the City Council as defendant and Tesco as an interested party.

Whilst there remains an option for campaigners of pursuing a judicial review, some of the observations of the judge could prove problematic for the anti-Tescos campaigners, including:

"In so far as there is alleged to be a breach of planning consent granted or of planning control generally, there is an absence of evidence that the Defendant has acted irrationally of unlawfully. "

"The defendant Council has a wide discretion ... whether to take action in respect of any such breaches or not."

"There appears to be no legal basis for the claim that the installation of air-conditioning plant is development within the meaning of that term in planning law"

and perhaps most damning:
"This application is in reality an attempt to revive the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign under the guise of a Judicial Review claim. It is a misuse of Judicial Review"

I haven't blogged on the East Area committee last week yet - it took some time to calm down, after finding out that the Council's failure to provide a briefing for opposition Councillors resulted in me being excluded from actually making the decision. Under planning rules, Councillors cannot make decisions that they have predetermined, and it appears that this also applies to planning enforcement decisions.

It is unclear what would constitute predetermining the decision - I had certainly made it known that I didn't think large companies should be able to just ignore planning conditions, but without an adequate briefing beforehand I just didn't know if it would be legally safe for me to take part in the decision, so I did't.

I did however speak as a ward member to make it clear that on the main planning condition that Tesco had threatened to breach - delivering from Mill Road, the Council need to take a very robust view.

There are still questions to answer about quite why the Council was so slow in acting on this matter (which ultimately resulted in the last minute Tesco U-turn) - and why repeated requests for a briefing to be held for Councillors were refused. The chair of the committee Cllr Blencowe certainly didn't come out of the situation well - he had a briefing on 6th August, that other members of the committee were effectively excluded from, tried to cancel the meeting with a couple of days to go, and then proceeded to use the meeting to attack the No to Mill Road Tesco campaign members at one point.

Ultimately however, I think the press reports of the meeting were very harsh on the committee - who had at late notice received assurances from Tesco (and agreement to put these into a more legally binding form) that they wouldn't deliver from Mill Road. The committee did all they could reasonably do in the case of the deliveries from Mill Road - authorising officers to take immediate enforcement action if the condition was breached despite the undertakings from Tesco.

There remains the question of whether the changes made to the building to fit air conditioning require planning permission - the Council is looking in to this. Tescos will now be delivering to the rear of the store via Catharine St and Sedgewick Street - which is far from ideal, although doesn't appear to directly contradict any planning conditions or traffic laws, so it will be interesting to see how any problems that arise from this delivery method can be tackled.

No to Mill Road Tesco have secured significant concessions from Tesco on deliveries and blocking the sale of alcohol, as well as keeping them out for nearly two years, but it finally looks like Tesco has conceded enough to enable them to open.

Mill Road Tesco Heading for the Courts

The saga over the proposed Tesco store on Mill Road could be heading for the courts imminently.

Tesco has made it clear it intends to open its store on 26th of August, and has told the press that it intends to deliver to the store from Mill Road itself, in apparent contradiction of a planning condition relating to the site.

Campaigners including No to Mill Road Tesco and Cambridge Cycling Campaign are particularly concerned about the safety aspects of deliveries from Mill Road, and are calling on the Council to take pre-emptive action, for example, by taking out an injunction.

I am not against a Tesco on Mill Road in principle, but many of the details, including their requirements for very frequent deliveries that will be hard to satisfy safely are clearly very problematic, and Tescos should not be able to get away with bending the rules for its own convenience at the expense of public safety. I have been asking for weeks now for the Council to clarify its position, and agree a course of action. The Council however is still reviewing the legal position, and has suggested that any pre-emptive actions on its part will have to go through the normal committee procedure. The best it has come up with is a statement:

"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"

This is a hopelessly inadequate response in view of the imminence of the store opening - I am calling on the Council to come up with some recommendations urgently, brief all relevant local Councillors and then immediately put recommendations for approval by the appropriate Councillors as part of the Council's procedures for urgent decisions.

It sounds like the patience of No to Mill Road Tesco has now been tested beyond the limit. They have engaged lawyers, and given the Council a deadline of today to confirm they will be seeking an injunction preventing Tesco deliveries from Mill Road (or for Tesco to confirm they will not breach the planning condition) - if no reassurances are forthcoming they will be in court without further notice to seek a judicial review of the Council's decision not to seek an injunction.

Tesco Licensing Premises Application

The deadline for representations on Tesco's application for a premises licence to sell alcohol from their planned Mill Road store closes tomorrow. Many thanks for all those who have copied me in to their representations - for info, most but not all were opposing the application.

As part of this process, I've learnt a bit about the process for making representations - which it appears is much narrower than for planning applications - you must be an interested party (which for most people means local resident), and address concerns in specific categories relating to licensing objectives. Local Councillors have no special right to comment as a local representative - if asked I can represent a constituent, but only to help put across that constituents views (I haven't been asked!). I am however a local resident in my own right, so have made representations on this issue, pasted below, which outline my views on the issue.

Meanwhile, Tesco's seem to have got started with the store conversion - with or without a licence to sell alcohol, permission for air conditioning or a plan for how they are going to deliver to the store:

"I am writing as someone living in the vicinity of the premises concerning the licensing application by Tesco Stores Ltd, 163-167 Mill Road, Cambridge

The representations relate to the prevention of crime and disorder, the protection of children from harm and public safety.

I am writing as a local resident, although as a local Councillor I am also aware of many concerns raised by constituents in neighbouring Coleridge ward about the problems of alcohol related crime and disorder.

Many areas and recreation grounds in Coleridge suffer from late night underage drinking parties – the local area is a pilot area in Cambridge for the Community Alcohol Partnership between Trading Standards and the police that aims to tackle underage drinking in public places. This partnership has identified that as well as buying alchohol themselves, young people also obtain alcohol by persuading adults to buy it for them.

There are also well documented problems with alcohol related crime disorder and anti-social behaviour in Mill Road that led to the introduction of the cumulative impact zone.

It is fully possible that a new license to sell alcohol can be issued that doesn’t contribute to these problems, for example, a responsible alcohol vendor with very well controlled sales staff, that doesn’t specialise in selling alcohol at low prices in terms of cost per unit of alcohol. In these circumstances I would have no objections in principle to the issue of a new alcohol licence on Mill Road despite the cumulative impact zone. This is presumably why the assumption that new licences will not be granted in cumulative impact zones is rebuttable.

With regards to the specifics of the proposed Tesco site, there is the issue of how the store will be delivered. A re-run of the planning arguments against the opening of this store by Tesco is clearly not appropriate, but one aspect is clearly relevant to the licensing application.

I understand that there is a planning condition on the site that prohibits delivery from the store. Delivery from Mill Road will add considerably to the dangers to cyclists using the road, and therefore is an issue of public safety.

The question therefore is the extent to which Tesco can give assurances that it will act in a very responsible way when selling alcohol, and address these concerns.

I would be opposed to Tesco being granted a license to sell alcohol on Mill Road unless they can:

Demonstrate that it has robust procedures specifically appropriate to the Mill Road context to avoid sale of alcohol that would end up with people who are likely to cause crime and disorder on Mill Road, or underage people likely to drink in Coleridge ward, along with management undertakings that these procedures will be rigorously monitored and enforced.

Undertake not to engage in irresponsible alcohol promotions or the sale of very cheap alcohol (as it arguably does do in some of its stores) which is likely to encourage irresponsible drinking, or

likely to encourage other local retailers to respond with promotions of their own.

Undertake not to deliver supplies relating to the license from Mill Road, and to comply with all other planning regulations."

The future of Mill Road

Three organisations, The Mill Road Society, No Mill Road Tesco Campaign Committee and Milly Card Scheme have come together to hold a public meeting about the future of Mill Road on Thursday, 14 October at 7.30pm at Ross Street Community Centre.

Unfortunately, as the meeting clashes with the city council's East Area Committee there are unlikely to be many local councillors present.

This is the message from the organisations:

Dear Mill Road Supporter,

As you’ve probably seen, Cambridge recently topped the list of Britain’s clone towns. There are still areas of the city where independent shops survive, but they are under pressure. We’d like to get together to discuss ideas about how the Mill Road area can be promoted and improved for local residents, and to support and encourage independent traders.

At present the Grand Arcade and the Grafton Centre get most of the attention/money/support from the City Council and there is a real need to get the council to focus attention on the Mill Road area as well. There are things that the council could do which would make a great improvement.

We’ve been talking to some of the local traders to get their views but we want to get as many ideas and as much support as possible. We will be meeting with local councillors to talk about what the council can do to help the area, and we’d like to know what you think. We care about our area and together we can improve it.

A meeting has been arranged at Ross Street Community Centre [map] at 7.30pm on the 14th October. If you want to protect independent trading in Mill Road and the unique area and community that we have, please come along and give us your views and ideas. We’ll also be giving an update on what the Milly Card Scheme and the No Mill Road Tesco campaign have been up to over the past year.

We hope to see you on the 14th.

The Mill Road Society
No Mill Road Tesco Campaign Committee
Milly Card Scheme

Exclusive: Tesco refused Mill Road alcohol licence

After a marathon 4 hours meeting of the City Council's Licensing Committee today, Tesco has been refused a premises licence to sell alcohol from its proposed store on Mill Road.

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.

Tesco Defeated at East Area Committee

After around two hours of discussion about the planning merits or otherwise of the installation of a small amount of refrigeration equipment on the back of a shop in Mill Road, Tesco's suffered a defeat at the hands of Councillors on the East Area Committee. Cllrs Smart and Wright voted to oppose the application, whilst Councillors Blencowe, Hebert, Hart and Walker abstained, defeating the proposal. In line with my previous policy, I didn't vote on the application, but did speak to highlight what I saw as the two key issues and ask those deciding to consider them:

Does the fact that Tesco's would like permission for a some refrigeration equipment to be installed before opening a shop mean that all the planning issues related to a Tesco's opening (mainly the traffic impact from deliveries) become factors in whether or not to approve the refrigeration equipment? I suspect not, the officers and Council's legal advisers said not, but in view of the complaints citing this reasoning and the crucial nature of the argument, I argued that Councillors should have received independent legal advice citing previous case law on this point before approving.

Secondly, despite the Council telling Tescos in no uncertain terms to dot the i's and cross the t's on their acoustic impact report, the original efforts from their consultant appeared to be somewhat flawed, to put it mildly. In this case, I suggested, Tesco needed to get their story straight and demonstrate they had done the right investigatory work to prove their proposals complied with local planning policies about noise pollution before permission should be granted.

If the above two concerns had been addressed, I think I would have struggled to have recommended anything other than approval. In the event, 2 Councillors voted to reject the application, which was enough to defeat it. I have to say I'm still a bit confused as to how they phrased their objections to marry the evidence to the planning policies, but that was the result. I can only imagine the grief that a certain acoustic consultant will be put through by some Tesco managers next week.

Many congratulations to all those in the No Mill Road Tesco campaign, who have vigourously opposed Tescos applications. My prediction that this application would get through has been proved wrong. I'm now playing double or quits, and predicting that there will be an appeal against this decision arriving with the planning inspector in the very near future. In the meantime, life goes on at the Mill Road Social Centre...

Officers recommend Tesco Approval

The officers report about the latest Tesco Planning Application (which is for refrigeration plant and equipment that they would like to install in order to open a Mill Road Tesco without their earlier planned extension) is now available here.

As predicted, despite huge numbers of objections from around the City, the recommendation is for approval of the application, subject to conditions to protect local residents from noise nuisance from the plant. The officer has clearly indicated that the application needs to be judged on its merits, not on the merits of opening a Tesco per se, saying:

"In my opinion the application does not raise issues of highway safety, a view shared by the Local Highway Authority, which has chosen not to comment. As rehearsed previously, I do not
share the premise of many of the objectors, that highway safety is an issue in the consideration of the proposals for the condenser and the air conditioning plant, because approval of the plant will make certain the re-opening of the store and the traffic/congestion/safety issues rehearsed through the objections will arise out of that re-opening of a retail use by this applicant."

"While sympathetic to the concerns about the vitality and viability of the area and the perceived implications of the proposal for the well being of the local community and its diversity, I do not
agree with the standpoint that all those issues can be addressed on the back of a proposal for a relatively limited quantity of plant and equipment."

The application will be decided at the East Area Committee, agenda here, to be held:

Date: Thursday 31 July 2008
Time: 7.15pm for 7.30pm start
Place: St Philips Church, 185 Mill Road, Cambridge

In line with my personal policy, I will choose not to take part in deciding planning applications at this meeting despite being a member of the East Area Committee.

What are my views on this? I am not against Tesco's opening on Mill Road in principle, and there are pro's and con's to local residents of the introduction of some aggressive new competition.

That said, there are some very valid concerns about Tesco's plans, notably the impact from deliveries and customers to the local traffic situation. It was quite right for the extension plans to be refused for this reason.

If this application is approved next week (and I am struggling to see how Councillors can realistically object unless there really is something demonstrably dodgy about the noise reports), I think it is time for the objectors to recognise that Tesco has permission to open a store if they wish to do so, and move on to ensuring that all relevant traffic regulations are complied with and not altered for Tesco's convenience at the expense of local residents and other road users. For these aims, the campaigners would have my full support.

Leisure Park Tescos Applications

Coleridge Conservatives have spent quite a lot of time talking to residents to find out their views on a possible new Tescos store on the Leisure Park site, to see if this would be a popular move.

But the permissions required for the store are mostly planning related, so on Friday I visited the planning department at the Guildhall to look at plans for the three applications, and find out how they might fare when the planning decision is taken.

Two relate to the shop frontage, cash machine installation and signage - and I am struggling to see how these would be remotely controversial if the store name on the plans wasn't Tesco.

The third is the application likely is most likely to be contentious in planning terms - for refrigeration plant and a fenced area to be installed at the rear of the store. The application is supported by a consultant's report, that not surprisingly concludes the plant's noise impact will be acceptable - but it was the similar report for the Mill Road Tesco where they didn't seem to have done their homework. Its not clear yet what the officer advice will be on this - doubtless noise experts at the Environmental Health department will be commenting - it will be hard for a non-expert like myself to draw any conclusions before then. I can't see delivery lorries being too much of a problem - there is already a delivery area, and the store is next to an industrial estate well used to receiving deliveries by lorry.

I was also told that there had been significant public response to the application, but not as much as the Mill Road Tesco, and in contrast to those applications, there have also been a number of comments in support of Tesco's opening.

At the request of Cllr Hebert, it looks like these applications will be determined by the Area Committee, likely to be the meeting due on 15th January. My guess is that these applications will be approved, and there will be more local residents happy than unhappy.

Tesco wont deliver from Mill Road

The Mill Road Tesco saga seems to be moving rapidly - they have just given a reassurance in writing to confirm that they don't intend to deliver to the store from Mill Road.

In a letter dated 17th August to the Council planners, they confirmed that contrary to previous statements, it is now 'Tesco's intention to deliver from the curtilage of the site'.

They have indicated that there will be 3 deliveries a day in 8m long lorries, along with a daily newspapers delivery in a transit type van.

Somebody is going to have a busy day looking at shop layouts - the floorplan presented to yestedays licensing committee had a section for alcohol and assumed deliveries from the front of the store...

Planning decisions at area committees

Richard Taylor in the comments has asked me to post my reasons for not voting on planning applications at Area Committees, so this seems like a good opportunity.

Firstly, some history. Around 2003/4, the Liberal Democrats running the City Council setup Area Committees, ostensibly to bring decision making closer to local communities, and encourage community involvement. As part of setting up these committees, they decided that planning applications significant enough to be decided by Councillors rather than Council officers, but not having City wide significance were to be decided at these committees.

It is difficult to come up with a good argument that says the area committees are a sensible use of Council resources. It is rare that more than about 15 members of the public turn up at East Area Committee, frequently outnumbered by Councillors, Council staff and others on the public payroll – the extra costs (staff etc) of running these committees in 2004 were estimated to be £100,000 per annum (Scribbles on back of envelope, 4 committees, 6 meetings per year, generously 30 members of the public in each, average cost per meeting per member of the public engaged - £138 – can you see why I am outraged at the costs?) Whilst much of the debate at these meetings is useful, many of the members of the public present are already very empowered to communicate with their local Councillors (resident association officers, local Council candidates from various political parties etc), and rather than empowering more people, it is possible that these meetings actually further relegate the views of those not currently engaged in local decision making process – i.e. the literally 99.9% of the population of East area that chose not to turn up to these meetings.

But deciding planning applications at these meetings isn’t just a waste of money, it is actively damaging the quality of planning decisions made by the Council for the following reasons:

• Regardless of training offered, the average experience of planning law and policies amongst members of area committees is significantly below that of the main planning committee, and indeed shortly after the local elections, Councillors on area committees were asked to make what are quasi-legal decisions with no training or experience at all.
• All Councillors on the main planning committee should have an active interest in planning, as opposed to Councillors who may be more interested in other aspects of the Council’s work.
• Decisions made after 10pm at night by people who will likely have been working all day cannot be as well considered as those made at a more sensible time.
• During the working day at the Guildhall, the full planning committee can call on expert officers where necessary, e.g. tree experts etc to help clarifying points before making decisions.
• The main planning committee meetings monthly, Area committees every 8 weeks, frequently making it hard for Area committee decisions to be made within the target timescales, costing the Council money and risking immediate appeals for non-determination as happened with Mill Road Tescos.

All good reasons why making planning decisions at area committees is a disaster. But for me there is an overwhelming reason why I refuse to take part. The current planning system does not permit those deciding to ‘pre-determine’ applications – they must keep an open mind until the meeting when the decision is made, and those who, in the jargon, have ‘fettered their discretion’ cannot then take part in the decision.

And it is this aspect of the situation which means I refuse to take part in planning application decisions, so that when local residents contact me, I am free to let them know my opinion on an application, and offer my full help to oppose or support an application if applicable. Yes, I could just refuse to take part in those applications for which this scenario happens, but I wouldn’t want my constituents (or indeed anyone in the City) to be reluctant to contact me about a planning matter, knowing that by default I couldn’t even let them know what I thought about the application.

This issue got heated at the time of the Mill Road Tesco refrigeration application – with letters to the paper criticising those, like myself, who refused to vote on the application (even though I did speak at the meeting to raise my concerns). I think the concerns were more that Councillors hadn’t put aside all other considerations and voted to oppose Tesco, but it didn’t stop the Lib Dems passing a shabby motion at full Council trying to bully all members of the Council into supporting their policy on planning decisions at area committees.

I was elected this year on the following manifesto pledge:

“Conservatives will scrap the area committee system. The fiasco of the Tesco application on Mill Road showed how the planning system is in chaos, and how the area committees are incapable of taking decisions. This is an experiment that has failed. We will look at how resident’s participation can be made more effective and move to timely meetings of a full planning committee.”

I will continue to campaign for a change to the Council’s deeply misguided current policy, and in order to best represent my constituents interests, I will refuse to take part in Area Committee planning decisions.

Exclusive: Mill Road Tesco Being Fitted Out?

On the way out this morning I saw two men attempting to enter the Mill Road Tesco site with a crowbar and a drill. Was this an attempt to re-open the social centre?

Or is Tesco planning to open a store in spite of the recent rejection of its appeal or in anticipation of a successful appeal on the second application?


Judging by the presence of a "Hutton Shopfitters" van just out of the shot, I suspect the latter is a good guess.

UPDATE (Wednesday): Ok - excitement over. It just looks as if the locks got replaced. Andrew

Exclusive: Tesco Still Trying to Open on Mill Road

Tesco have withdrawn their appeal against refusal of planning permission for refrigeration equipment on their proposed store on Mill Road, that was due to be held shortly at a public enquiry.

However, Coleridge Conservatives understand Tesco have not given up on opening the store on Mill Road, but believe they may be able to meet their needs for the new store without requiring this planning permission, by installing plant within the store, and they are due to meet the planning department shortly to discuss.

Tesco already has sufficient permissions to open a store on the existing store footprint, but had been seeking permission to install refrigeration equipment on the building.

Tesco Appeal Dates set

Dates have been set for the Tesco appeals against failure to get planning permission for the extension to their proposed store on Mill Road. There are two appeals although both for the same thing (the extension application), one due to the Council's failure to determine the application in time, the other after the application was finally refused.

Presumably due to public interest in the case, the appeal will slightly unusually be heard at a Public Inquiry to be held in The Council Chamber at The Guildhall. The Inquiry will commence at 10:00 am on Tuesday 30th September 2008 and is currently scheduled to last 3 days.

An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will determine the procedure at the Inquiry and will decide the appeal.

All original comments on the application have been sent to the Planning Inspectorate, however members of the public may attend the Inquiry, and at the discretion of the inspector, express their views. You will need to let the Planning Inspectorate know that you wish to appear and you should tell the Inspector if you wish to speak when they open the Inquiry.

So the No to Mill Road Tesco campaigners will get another chance to explain their case - which against the extension proposals to my mind has some very valid transport and delivery related concerns.

Interestingly, I don't think Tesco have yet appealed against refusal for the refrigeration plant needed to open a smaller store - you would have thought they might have done this as an insurance policy in case they lose the appeal for permission for the extension...

Mill Road Tesco Moves Closer

Tesco are moving closer to opening a new store on Mill Road. They have submitted an application (ref 08/0794/FUL) for installing refrigeration and plant to the existing building, saying:

"Following refusal for the proposed small single storey rear extension, Tesco now propose to use the existing Class A1 floorspace at the site as their Express store format. To facilitate the efficient and effective use of the site it is necessary to install a small amount of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment"

Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of this application, I think it is fair to say they believe they have more chance of getting this minor application through planning than winning the battle for an extension with the planning inspector, and are looking to open a store as soon as possible even in the smaller existing building...

Tescopoly

Tesco have submitted three planning applications related to their proposed new store on the Cambridge Leisure Park site.

08/1533/ADV - Illuminated Tesco Signs
08/1532/FUL - Formation of covered service yard and associated plant works including the erection of a 2m fence
08/1531/FUL - Shop front alterations and installation of ATM machine

Closing date for comments is 3rd Dec (Standard consultations), 9th Dec (neighbour consultations)

Tesco's plans for Mill Road are problematic due to the problems of coping with Tesco delivery lorries in narrow streets, and the threat to the diversity of shops on Mill Road. It is far from clear to me that these arguments apply to this latest store - and competition is usually good for consumers. I've already had one resident contact me to express support for this store, but if there is significant opposition, then the decisions should be made by Councillors rather than delegated to the officers. If you have strong views one way or the other, please comment on the planning applications and let us know.

Tesco Squatters

It appears the site of the prospective 'Tesco Local' on Mill Road has been taken over by squatters. In other developments, Tesco have now appealed against the refusal of permission to extend the former Wilco site on Mill Road Broadway, to add to their original appeal against the bungling City Council's failure to determine the orginal application within a reasonable period of time.

Usually the arrival of squatters is cause for deep dismay amongst local residents. With Tesco showing every sign of wanting to press on with opening a store regardless of local opposition, can't help feeling that these squatters will be looked upon rather more favourably.

Spin in Overdrive

Coleridge Labour press machine is in overdrive again. In yesterday's CEN, they had the front page splash claiming Tesco's were coming to Cambridge Leisure Park. Trouble is, today's CEN seems to have Tesco denying the story. I guess we will find out in time if it is Tesco who are telling fibs, which they have form for, or Labour making it up as they go along just to get their names in the paper, which they also have form for.

(UPDATE: Fair play to Labour, they do seem to got the story right on this one. Have to say I'm shocked by Tescos - they appear to be a complete shambles all of a sudden...)

The interesting question is what will people think of another Tescos in Cambridge. I am Tesco neutral - their stores are appreciated by many customers, but in some areas their presence causes legitimate concerns (like on Mill Road, regarding the diversity of other shops and delivery arrangements), and there must be concerns about allowing them a local monopoly. But every proposal should be considered on its merits, and the relevant part of our planning and transport regulation systems should be used to tackle the problems as they arise.

Labour's suggestion that the Cambridge Leisure park site is remotely similar to the Tescos situation in Mill Road however is clearly hysterical, as is the suggestion that Tescos should make full disclosure of their plans up front. Does this plea apply to all commercial enterprises, or just Tescos? Should the City Council provide full disclosure of every commercial project they are involved in even before decisions have been made, so other commercial enterprises can exploit the situation and remove all potential benefit to the schemes original proposer? Labour really are clueless when it comes to understanding how commerical enterprises work - which doesn't bode well considering how many of such enterprises the government is now running...

Exclusive: Conservatives call for Special Meeting of East Area Committee

Cambridge Conservatives are calling for a special meeting of East Area committee to consider the options open to the Council to enforce planning conditions relating to the proposed new Tesco store on Mill Road.

I have written to the Council's Chief Executive:

"In accordance with Section 4a paragraph 43.1 of the Council's Constitution I would like to formally request that a special meeting of East Area Committee is held as soon as possible to consider the options for dealing with Tesco's announcement that they intend to ignore the planning condition on deliveries when they open their new store on Mill Road.

I would also like to request that a briefing is arranged prior to the meeting for members of East Area committee to cover the Council's understanding and advice received about this situation."

I understand other members of East Area committee also intend to call for this meeting, that could result in a course of action being agreed prior to Tesco's planned opening of the new store.

Tesco lose Mill Road Alcohol Appeal

I understand Tesco have lost their appeal yesterday against the Council's refusal to give them a licence to sell alcohol from their new store on Mill Road.

Despite offering to implement a variety of new conditions to restrict the types and times they would sell alcohol, the magistrates listened to objectors and upheld the Council's original decision.

Looks like those promotional posters will have to carry on gathering dust in the store room.

Exclusive: Tesco set to open on Mill Road

Coleridge Conservatives understand that Tesco are pressing ahead with their plan to open on Mill Road, and are working to an opening date of 26th August. It is anticipated that work will start on site a few weeks before this date.

Its fair to say some very interesting questions about planning permission and how deliveries can comply with traffic regulations remain to be answered...