Anti-Tesco campaigners in East Anglia have blamed the poor state of Ipswich's shopping centre on Tesco. The Ipswich Evening Star revealed last week that over 100 stores in the city are now boarded. Campaigner Nicky Young of Stour Community First is fighting to stop Tesco building a new store in Manningtree.
Local politicians and retailers in St Albans are very worried about the state of St Albans city - I don't think anyone can image how bad it would be with 100 closed stores - yet we know that new supermarkets can cost hundreds of retail jobs.
Sunday 30 September 2007
Friday 28 September 2007
Stop Tesco on Facebook...
OK, so the 'Stop Tesco in St Albans!!!' Facebook group has been going on for some time, but it's not been mentioned on the blog yet. If you're an afficionado of social networking, please sign up to the group! Click here to find it!
Fashion Designer Questions Tesco Green Credentials
The Daily Telegraph reports today that designer Katherine Hamnett has pulled out of a deal to supply organic and fair trade clothes. The paper reports her as saying,
"I was initially really excited about the tie-up because I thought we could increase demand for ethical products," says Ms Hamnett in an interview published in Drapers, the fashion industry's trade magazine, today. "But I've come to the conclusion that [Tesco] simply wants to appear ethical, rather than make a full commitment to the range."
Thanks to Ian for the story!
"I was initially really excited about the tie-up because I thought we could increase demand for ethical products," says Ms Hamnett in an interview published in Drapers, the fashion industry's trade magazine, today. "But I've come to the conclusion that [Tesco] simply wants to appear ethical, rather than make a full commitment to the range."
Thanks to Ian for the story!
Thursday 27 September 2007
What's Happened To Tesco?
Simon Grover of the Green Party writes to the Herts Advertiser today with an issue that has been on our minds...
'Summer has gone and still Tesco has not submitted a planning application..They promised last year that they would move on early this year. But six months after their glossy brochure appeared, the Eversheds site continues to deteriorate and the supermarket refuses to even talk about selling up so we can do something useful about the land.'
As you may have seen, the blog is running a poll to find out when people think an application will be received. Please vote - and please add any comments below. Simon's full letter can be found here - thanks again for your support!
'Summer has gone and still Tesco has not submitted a planning application..They promised last year that they would move on early this year. But six months after their glossy brochure appeared, the Eversheds site continues to deteriorate and the supermarket refuses to even talk about selling up so we can do something useful about the land.'
As you may have seen, the blog is running a poll to find out when people think an application will be received. Please vote - and please add any comments below. Simon's full letter can be found here - thanks again for your support!
Wednesday 26 September 2007
Named Letter Writers Attack Anonymous Letter Writer
For some reason the St Albans Review waited a week before publishing the backlash against the anonymous letter writer who thought housing generated more cars that a supermarket. Perhaps Tesco thought that we'd all gone away...
However, there were four letters in response this week! Thanks to Pete Milne, Simon Hepburn, J Copley and Eric Roberts of the Civic Society for their letters. As usual here are some extracts...
"Anon says how nice it would be to walk to a 'town centre' store. The proposed store is no more in the centre than Sainsbury's. I doubt if anon would shop in St Peter's Street and walk to Tesco and back for nappies."
"The shops in St Albans city centre are quiet at the moment. Another edge of town superstore will make matters worse for them. I would like to see the return of one or two hour free parking instead of the voucher system and better cycling paths around St Albans."
"Stop once and for all trying to make out that a superstore here on the Evershed's site is in a 'town centre' location. It isn't. The real St Albans city centre, in particular its shops and markets, needs all the support it can get, not the threat of further trade extraction."
"The maximum capacity for traffic up London Road is 4-500 cars per hour. I know because I've counted them. Any traffic above this level just queues back towards London Colney and along Alma Road."
"The London Road site is extremely well positioned for access to the Thameslink railway station and bus interchange. Most people living in the area don't drive to work and we'd assume the same would be true of new residents. St Albans has to build new houses - if they are not built here but on the Green Belt there will be a much greater increase in traffic."
However, there were four letters in response this week! Thanks to Pete Milne, Simon Hepburn, J Copley and Eric Roberts of the Civic Society for their letters. As usual here are some extracts...
"Anon says how nice it would be to walk to a 'town centre' store. The proposed store is no more in the centre than Sainsbury's. I doubt if anon would shop in St Peter's Street and walk to Tesco and back for nappies."
"The shops in St Albans city centre are quiet at the moment. Another edge of town superstore will make matters worse for them. I would like to see the return of one or two hour free parking instead of the voucher system and better cycling paths around St Albans."
"Stop once and for all trying to make out that a superstore here on the Evershed's site is in a 'town centre' location. It isn't. The real St Albans city centre, in particular its shops and markets, needs all the support it can get, not the threat of further trade extraction."
"The maximum capacity for traffic up London Road is 4-500 cars per hour. I know because I've counted them. Any traffic above this level just queues back towards London Colney and along Alma Road."
"The London Road site is extremely well positioned for access to the Thameslink railway station and bus interchange. Most people living in the area don't drive to work and we'd assume the same would be true of new residents. St Albans has to build new houses - if they are not built here but on the Green Belt there will be a much greater increase in traffic."
Sunday 23 September 2007
Why Tesco Clothes Are So Cheap!
The Daily Mirror reports today of a 'poverty riot' in Bangladesh. 1,000 employees of a Tesco (and Primark and H&M to be fair) supplier set fire to a building in protest about low pay. The Mirror claims that its investigations found that several workers,
'were beaten for not working quickly enough on gruelling 14-hour shifts which earn them just 4p an hour.'
Tesco said...
'We are very proud of our high ethical standards. As a responsible organisation we will of course discuss the issue with Nassa to make sure we understand the issues the workers were protesting about.'
Once again we see Tesco claiming to be proud of something - but we can't see how they can be proud of this!
'were beaten for not working quickly enough on gruelling 14-hour shifts which earn them just 4p an hour.'
Tesco said...
'We are very proud of our high ethical standards. As a responsible organisation we will of course discuss the issue with Nassa to make sure we understand the issues the workers were protesting about.'
Once again we see Tesco claiming to be proud of something - but we can't see how they can be proud of this!
Saturday 22 September 2007
Are Supermarkets Too Powerful? Interesting Analysis
Today's Independent runs a large article looking at the power of the supermarkets in the light of Thursday's Office of Fair Trading allegation. While giving both sides of the story, there is a definite impression that the supermarkets, especially Tesco, are getting a little too big for comfort.
Watch Out, Delivery Lorries About...
The Times reports today of the frustration experienced by someone living next to a Tesco store. Robert Walsh's car was damaged three times by Tesco delivery lorries in 18 months.
In response, he took direct action and boarded up the entrance to the store, and received a police caution for his trouble.
Given the massive amount of traffic in the areas around London Road and the fact that a lot people park on the road, there must be a significant chance that delivery lorries might well end up damaging cars in St Albans as well, if Tesco was allowed to go ahead with its plans.
In response, he took direct action and boarded up the entrance to the store, and received a police caution for his trouble.
Given the massive amount of traffic in the areas around London Road and the fact that a lot people park on the road, there must be a significant chance that delivery lorries might well end up damaging cars in St Albans as well, if Tesco was allowed to go ahead with its plans.
Thursday 20 September 2007
How Much Is That Pint of Milk?
According to the BBC (and every other news outlet!), the Office of Fair Trading has accused the big 5 supermarkets (including Tesco!) and five dairy processors, of 'colluding to fix the price of dairy products'. It is alleged that this may have cost the consumer £270 million.
Of course, this underlines that fact that despite what Tesco might say, when you have just a few players in a market, competition suffers.
Of course, this underlines that fact that despite what Tesco might say, when you have just a few players in a market, competition suffers.
Sunday 16 September 2007
Anonymous Letter Supports Tesco
The St Albans Review received a letter last week from an anonymous local resident arguing that building houses on the London Road site would cause more traffic problems that a new supermarket. Here are a few reasons why this isn't the case:
1. The London Road site is extremely well positioned for access to the Thameslink railway station and bus interchange and is also a 10-15 minute walk from the centre of St Albans and the Abbey Station. Most people living in the area don't drive to work and we'd assume the same would be true of new residents. St Albans has to build more houses - if they are not built here but on the green belt away from public transport there will be a much greater increase in traffic.
2. Even if 100 or so people did drive to work from these houses, this is a fraction of the 7,000 car movements Tesco expect to generate each day (500 car parking spaces occupied for an hour each over a 14+ hour day). Stop Tesco's traffic survey shows that this could easily double the number of cars using London Road.
Finally, its a pity that the correspondent chose not to reveal his or her name - it leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories - do they work for Tesco for example?
1. The London Road site is extremely well positioned for access to the Thameslink railway station and bus interchange and is also a 10-15 minute walk from the centre of St Albans and the Abbey Station. Most people living in the area don't drive to work and we'd assume the same would be true of new residents. St Albans has to build more houses - if they are not built here but on the green belt away from public transport there will be a much greater increase in traffic.
2. Even if 100 or so people did drive to work from these houses, this is a fraction of the 7,000 car movements Tesco expect to generate each day (500 car parking spaces occupied for an hour each over a 14+ hour day). Stop Tesco's traffic survey shows that this could easily double the number of cars using London Road.
Finally, its a pity that the correspondent chose not to reveal his or her name - it leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories - do they work for Tesco for example?
Monday 10 September 2007
Seeing Is Believing
The North West Evening Mail reports that Tesco is expanding into the optician business in Barrow-in-Furness. The paper also reports the town’s only independent optician, Richard Haynes, as saying,
“My personal view is that these big companies are getting too big. At the end of the day Tesco is a grocers, and should stick with that aspect of it. They seem to be greedy. They seem to want a bit of everybody else’s business.”
St Alban's opticians can now join the list of companies threated by Tesco's plans!
“My personal view is that these big companies are getting too big. At the end of the day Tesco is a grocers, and should stick with that aspect of it. They seem to be greedy. They seem to want a bit of everybody else’s business.”
St Alban's opticians can now join the list of companies threated by Tesco's plans!
Sunday 9 September 2007
Fantastic Support for Civic Society Walk
Over 70 people joined two St Albans Civic Society walks over the weekend entitled "St Albans Superstore Blues". The walkers were treated to a sample of some of the local history and saw what could be lost in City identity, tranquillity and a remarkably intact 1800s cityscape. One of the most stunning parts of the walk was when the groups stopped in Inkerman Road and stood quietly for a moment. The absence of noise was quite unexpected, and impressive...something which will be gone forever if the noises of humming chillers and lorries were to fill the air!
Just How Big Is Tesco's Carbon Footprint?
The Observer today reports that 'Tesco's impact on the environment could be 12 times that the supermarket admits to'. Charity Christian Aid has accused the supermarket of failing to include the environmental damage caused by shoppers driving to its stores when it calculates the amount of CO2 it puts out.
Tesco do seem to show a strong commitment to reducing emissions but perhaps a simple way of doing this would be to stop building unpopular stores and work on improving online shopping instead?
Tesco do seem to show a strong commitment to reducing emissions but perhaps a simple way of doing this would be to stop building unpopular stores and work on improving online shopping instead?
Thursday 6 September 2007
'Kissmanwatch' Revisited
It seems like a repeat of a story we blogged in early April - Tesco's Michael Kissman gives out a date for something to happen (in this case a meeting with us to discuss the new Tesco proposals), before disappearing off the face of the earth for a while, and then turning up in Gerrards Cross.
We've been calling his office regularly to see when we can meet, but haven't even had the courtesy of a call back to say he's busy. Now we find, through the Bucks Free Press, that he's behind an application to bring material by train to rebuild the 'Tesco Tunnel' store in Gerrards Cross. For those new to the blog, the planned supermarket there collapsed into the railway tunnel it was being built over.
Maybe once that application has been dealt with he'll be back!
We've been calling his office regularly to see when we can meet, but haven't even had the courtesy of a call back to say he's busy. Now we find, through the Bucks Free Press, that he's behind an application to bring material by train to rebuild the 'Tesco Tunnel' store in Gerrards Cross. For those new to the blog, the planned supermarket there collapsed into the railway tunnel it was being built over.
Maybe once that application has been dealt with he'll be back!
Retailers Need Customers, Not Competition
A letter from Stop Tesco's Nick Hazell reaches the St Albans Review in response to an article the previous week about the concern for retailing in the central St Albans shown by our favourite Chamber of Commerce President, Sandra Oldfield...
Dear Sir,
It is very pleasing that Sandra Oldfield of the St Albans Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the future of retail in the centre of St Albans and wants to work with other local bodies to solve the problem (Review, 29 August).
I am seriously confused though as to how she can square her concern for the City centre with her support for a new Tesco store in London Road, as expressed in her letter to the Review on 24th May. When the St Albans Stop Tesco group asked 196 City centre retailers and market stallholders if they wanted Tesco to build its new store, 83% said ‘no’ while many were fearful that Tesco would negatively affect their business prospects.
The local council’s most recent retail report states that ‘'shoppers are using the Sainsburys, Morrisons and Waitrose stores outside the City centre for their main food shopping needs to the detriment of the City centre as a whole”. Tesco’s planned store is a similar distance to Sainsburys from the centre and will only increase this effect. Research by the British Retail Planning Forum has also found that new supermarkets cause an average of 276 net retail job losses.
I urge Ms Oldfield to talk to the council. I urge her to encourage them to support the idea of building new houses on the London Road site – houses that will mean new retail customers who will not need parking space in the centre and so benefit retailers in the City.
Dear Sir,
It is very pleasing that Sandra Oldfield of the St Albans Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the future of retail in the centre of St Albans and wants to work with other local bodies to solve the problem (Review, 29 August).
I am seriously confused though as to how she can square her concern for the City centre with her support for a new Tesco store in London Road, as expressed in her letter to the Review on 24th May. When the St Albans Stop Tesco group asked 196 City centre retailers and market stallholders if they wanted Tesco to build its new store, 83% said ‘no’ while many were fearful that Tesco would negatively affect their business prospects.
The local council’s most recent retail report states that ‘'shoppers are using the Sainsburys, Morrisons and Waitrose stores outside the City centre for their main food shopping needs to the detriment of the City centre as a whole”. Tesco’s planned store is a similar distance to Sainsburys from the centre and will only increase this effect. Research by the British Retail Planning Forum has also found that new supermarkets cause an average of 276 net retail job losses.
I urge Ms Oldfield to talk to the council. I urge her to encourage them to support the idea of building new houses on the London Road site – houses that will mean new retail customers who will not need parking space in the centre and so benefit retailers in the City.
Tuesday 4 September 2007
Tesco Meets the Council - The Characters
We've been able to get hold of the minutes of a meeting Tesco held with the planning department of St Albans Council on 4th July this year. The whole meeting is now documented below, but we'll start with the people attending first...
As well as a representative from Tesco (Louise Ford), there were two people from planning consultancy DPP including its senior partner Richard Flack. On its website DPP claims,
'..we are tenacious in helping our clients throughout the UK and Ireland to obtain valuable planning permission for their projects, be they big or small. We have the expertise and we use it. We advise on development and help to secure favourable land allocations in local plans.'
Sounds great, doesn't it - but of course there's not much about it doing what local people actually want...
Tesco also brought along Jo Richards from DLA Piper, 'the 6th largest legal services organisation in the UK' and Cliff Saunders, director of Saunders Partnership Architects.
For the council, attendees were planning officers Ben Borthwick, Philip Bylo and Andrew Robley.
As well as a representative from Tesco (Louise Ford), there were two people from planning consultancy DPP including its senior partner Richard Flack. On its website DPP claims,
'..we are tenacious in helping our clients throughout the UK and Ireland to obtain valuable planning permission for their projects, be they big or small. We have the expertise and we use it. We advise on development and help to secure favourable land allocations in local plans.'
Sounds great, doesn't it - but of course there's not much about it doing what local people actually want...
Tesco also brought along Jo Richards from DLA Piper, 'the 6th largest legal services organisation in the UK' and Cliff Saunders, director of Saunders Partnership Architects.
For the council, attendees were planning officers Ben Borthwick, Philip Bylo and Andrew Robley.
Tesco Meets the Council - Act One
After introductions, Ben Borthwick (of St Albans Council) advised Tesco that the meeting 'could not expect to be confidential' - and of course it no longer is. Then they got down to business under heading 'Update from Developer’s Perspective' (which is what we'll call Act One). Our comments are in red as usual!
Karen Crowder-James (of DPP) (KCJ) explained that there has been a lot of progress since the last meeting in November 2006 and that Joanna Richards would explain to Officers how the public consultation exercise has taken place.
Joanna Richards (JR) explained that attendance at the public exhibition had been high. Of the 5000 leaflets distributed to householders in St Albans, approximately 800 responses had been received. In the initial stages (ie first 500 or so responses received) the public view had been balanced at 50/50 in favour/objection of the proposals but that possibly press coverage then tipped this balance towards objectors. So Tesco admits that its initial consultation was opposed by more local people than were in favour - however they try to spin it (and remember that only they have seen what was written down!)
In the main comments received expressed concerns relating to traffic generation, 'In the main comments recieved expressed concerns relating to traffic generation' - this is not addressed at all at the meeting subsequently which is a bit strange! - whilst some comments welcomed a proposal for retail development within walking distance of residential areas. JR explained that a significant number of adverse comments had been received relating to the proposed demolition of existing dwellings on Alma Road. Further comments outlined a need for family homes and not flats.
JR explained that prior to the public exhibition, Tesco/agents had met with District Councillors who identified existing levels of parking provision in the locality as a problem but the desire to see more off street parking provided was tempered by perceived problems relating to additional traffic generation. We assume that the 'agents' also found that the local councillors were totally against the plan!
JR outlined that Tesco have canvassed the opinion of local businesses, particularly 17 local businesses located on London Road. According to JR, all but one of these businesses expressed the opinion that they wished to see a Tesco store on the site - to this group the advantages of a scheme were seen as outweighing any disadvantages. The local business consultation item is very strange - Tesco had previously claimed that they talked to 27 businesses and that 18 were in favour - now this is 16 out of 17? We talked to 196 and 83% were against the proposal!
Letters had been received from the owners/occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site and Tesco had subsequently been in dialogue with a “handful” of these individuals. Our experience is that a lot more than a 'handful' of people wrote to Tesco (see the blog for lots of examples) but many did not get a reply from Tesco. JR explained that the “Stop Tesco Campaign” disagreed in principle with a Tesco store in this location andhad stated that the site should instead be used for housing.
JR stated that Tesco had kept in touch with Anne Main, MP for St Albans, (who is also against the plan) and has discussed the proposals with St Albans Chamber of Commerce (whose president has annoyed many local members by favouring the loss of hundreds of local retail jobs) and also with the St Albans Cathedral Dean and Chapter, who were interested in issues relating to the public consultation exercise (what did they say?).
JR stated that Tesco has discussed the proposals with Hertfordshire Constabulary’s Architectural Liaison Officer with respect to potential impacts of the scheme on the night time economy, anti-social behaviour etc relating to opening hours (and Tesco's record on selling alcohol to underage kids?). Tesco has also contacted the local cycle group who raised questions relating to cycle access.
Tesco has requested a meeting to discuss the proposals with the St Albans Civic Society, but so far have not met with this local amenity body.
Philip Bylo (PB) asked whether any issues of principal had been raised by the public, apart from the view expressed by the “Stop Tesco Campaign” relating to significant land use issues?
JR stated that no additional issues of this nature had been raised and residents surrounding the site expressed positive views about the proposals (how many residents?). KCJ’s view was that there was more opposition from the wider residents of St Albans than those in the locality of the site. What we do know is that over 1,200 people in the AL1 postcode have signed a petition against the development!
BB advised that there would be a need to re-consult on the amended proposals to make the consultation exercise more meaningful but other than this he would not wish to advise Tesco on what is a matter for them. JR agreed that it would be important to gather views from the public on the updated scheme and to demonstrate the scheme had responded to the consultation. (this looks a bit like window-dressing - we know that for example after this meeting Tesco threw out the sop of not knocking down listed buildings in Alma Road)
BB explained that the Council’s preference would be that any further re-consultation was carried out before the formal submission of an application for planning permission because if Tesco carried out re-consultations during the Council’s statutory notification period on a planning application then this could potentially confuse members of the public.
Richard Flack (RF) pointed out that he would be keen to show the consultation was an intuitive process from the perspective of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). We're checking what this means and hope it doesn't mean that Tesco and its planning consultants are just looking to tick boxes...
Karen Crowder-James (of DPP) (KCJ) explained that there has been a lot of progress since the last meeting in November 2006 and that Joanna Richards would explain to Officers how the public consultation exercise has taken place.
Joanna Richards (JR) explained that attendance at the public exhibition had been high. Of the 5000 leaflets distributed to householders in St Albans, approximately 800 responses had been received. In the initial stages (ie first 500 or so responses received) the public view had been balanced at 50/50 in favour/objection of the proposals but that possibly press coverage then tipped this balance towards objectors. So Tesco admits that its initial consultation was opposed by more local people than were in favour - however they try to spin it (and remember that only they have seen what was written down!)
In the main comments received expressed concerns relating to traffic generation, 'In the main comments recieved expressed concerns relating to traffic generation' - this is not addressed at all at the meeting subsequently which is a bit strange! - whilst some comments welcomed a proposal for retail development within walking distance of residential areas. JR explained that a significant number of adverse comments had been received relating to the proposed demolition of existing dwellings on Alma Road. Further comments outlined a need for family homes and not flats.
JR explained that prior to the public exhibition, Tesco/agents had met with District Councillors who identified existing levels of parking provision in the locality as a problem but the desire to see more off street parking provided was tempered by perceived problems relating to additional traffic generation. We assume that the 'agents' also found that the local councillors were totally against the plan!
JR outlined that Tesco have canvassed the opinion of local businesses, particularly 17 local businesses located on London Road. According to JR, all but one of these businesses expressed the opinion that they wished to see a Tesco store on the site - to this group the advantages of a scheme were seen as outweighing any disadvantages. The local business consultation item is very strange - Tesco had previously claimed that they talked to 27 businesses and that 18 were in favour - now this is 16 out of 17? We talked to 196 and 83% were against the proposal!
Letters had been received from the owners/occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site and Tesco had subsequently been in dialogue with a “handful” of these individuals. Our experience is that a lot more than a 'handful' of people wrote to Tesco (see the blog for lots of examples) but many did not get a reply from Tesco. JR explained that the “Stop Tesco Campaign” disagreed in principle with a Tesco store in this location andhad stated that the site should instead be used for housing.
JR stated that Tesco had kept in touch with Anne Main, MP for St Albans, (who is also against the plan) and has discussed the proposals with St Albans Chamber of Commerce (whose president has annoyed many local members by favouring the loss of hundreds of local retail jobs) and also with the St Albans Cathedral Dean and Chapter, who were interested in issues relating to the public consultation exercise (what did they say?).
JR stated that Tesco has discussed the proposals with Hertfordshire Constabulary’s Architectural Liaison Officer with respect to potential impacts of the scheme on the night time economy, anti-social behaviour etc relating to opening hours (and Tesco's record on selling alcohol to underage kids?). Tesco has also contacted the local cycle group who raised questions relating to cycle access.
Tesco has requested a meeting to discuss the proposals with the St Albans Civic Society, but so far have not met with this local amenity body.
Philip Bylo (PB) asked whether any issues of principal had been raised by the public, apart from the view expressed by the “Stop Tesco Campaign” relating to significant land use issues?
JR stated that no additional issues of this nature had been raised and residents surrounding the site expressed positive views about the proposals (how many residents?). KCJ’s view was that there was more opposition from the wider residents of St Albans than those in the locality of the site. What we do know is that over 1,200 people in the AL1 postcode have signed a petition against the development!
BB advised that there would be a need to re-consult on the amended proposals to make the consultation exercise more meaningful but other than this he would not wish to advise Tesco on what is a matter for them. JR agreed that it would be important to gather views from the public on the updated scheme and to demonstrate the scheme had responded to the consultation. (this looks a bit like window-dressing - we know that for example after this meeting Tesco threw out the sop of not knocking down listed buildings in Alma Road)
BB explained that the Council’s preference would be that any further re-consultation was carried out before the formal submission of an application for planning permission because if Tesco carried out re-consultations during the Council’s statutory notification period on a planning application then this could potentially confuse members of the public.
Richard Flack (RF) pointed out that he would be keen to show the consultation was an intuitive process from the perspective of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). We're checking what this means and hope it doesn't mean that Tesco and its planning consultants are just looking to tick boxes...
Tesco Meets the Council - Act Two
We now move to an 'update from the council's perspective'... not a huge amount for us to say here, but please read on for the new plan in detail in Act Three!
PB explained that the St Albans Core Strategy Development Plan Document Issues and Options Consultation Paper would be published on 9 July 2007. This document raises issues relating to retail needs in terms of additional food and convenience floorspace. The document outlines three area options for additional retail floorspace- FS1: East of St Albans
City Centre (including the former Eversheds site), FS2: North of St Albans City Centre and FS3: North of St Albans. PB explained that the Council must think spatially and take into account the focus of existing retail provision in relation to the city centre. PB opined that the site to the north of the City Centre (ie FS2) had potential although the site was presently in
County Council ownership. The site had been the subject of a planning brief, of which RF requested a copy. PB added that changes to housing land supply introduced by PPS3 meant that the Council would also be likely to be required to consider further housing sites. We optimistically take this bit to read we hope that the council prefers another site for a supermarket and shares our desire to build houses on the Eversheds site.
RF asked PB how this Issues and Options Paper consultation fit in overall in terms of the Local Development Framework (LDF)? PB indicated that the preferred options stage would not be reached until December 2007 and that site specific issues and options was likely to be out for public consultation in April 2008. PB explained that it was, however, difficult to be precise with timings because of the delay in the East of England Plan adoption and also a need to keep the LDF consistent with that of Dacorum Council.
PB outlined the Council’s current position relating to a number of other sites, namely:
Civic Centre South Site, Bricket Road/Victoria Street – A feasibility study has been completed (internal document only at this stage) and that this is keen to provide comparison floorspace and also encourages parties of the need for comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site. The Council has had pre-application discussions regarding the Hertfordshire House site (potentially for a hotel etc) but that this would be contrary with Policy 116 of the District Plan that states the Councils aim is a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site.
Council Car Park, Bricket Road – the second scheme submitted for a cinema and residential use of the site has been withdrawn. Officer discussions are ongoing.
Former Odeon site, London Road – The most recent residential scheme was dismissed at appeal on design grounds.
Marks & Spencer, London Colney – Extension (mezzanine) now going ahead. The Issues and Options consultation document identifies the expansion of the existing London Colney Fields retail park for further comparison retail floorspace. This means local food retail provision is increasing. With the M&S food shop planned for the City Station and the increase in online grocery shopping, why do we need a huge Tesco?
Griffiths Way – PB indicated that discussions relating to this site have gone quiet recently but that there may be scope for intensifying the existing retail uses there.
PB explained that the St Albans Core Strategy Development Plan Document Issues and Options Consultation Paper would be published on 9 July 2007. This document raises issues relating to retail needs in terms of additional food and convenience floorspace. The document outlines three area options for additional retail floorspace- FS1: East of St Albans
City Centre (including the former Eversheds site), FS2: North of St Albans City Centre and FS3: North of St Albans. PB explained that the Council must think spatially and take into account the focus of existing retail provision in relation to the city centre. PB opined that the site to the north of the City Centre (ie FS2) had potential although the site was presently in
County Council ownership. The site had been the subject of a planning brief, of which RF requested a copy. PB added that changes to housing land supply introduced by PPS3 meant that the Council would also be likely to be required to consider further housing sites. We optimistically take this bit to read we hope that the council prefers another site for a supermarket and shares our desire to build houses on the Eversheds site.
RF asked PB how this Issues and Options Paper consultation fit in overall in terms of the Local Development Framework (LDF)? PB indicated that the preferred options stage would not be reached until December 2007 and that site specific issues and options was likely to be out for public consultation in April 2008. PB explained that it was, however, difficult to be precise with timings because of the delay in the East of England Plan adoption and also a need to keep the LDF consistent with that of Dacorum Council.
PB outlined the Council’s current position relating to a number of other sites, namely:
Civic Centre South Site, Bricket Road/Victoria Street – A feasibility study has been completed (internal document only at this stage) and that this is keen to provide comparison floorspace and also encourages parties of the need for comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site. The Council has had pre-application discussions regarding the Hertfordshire House site (potentially for a hotel etc) but that this would be contrary with Policy 116 of the District Plan that states the Councils aim is a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site.
Council Car Park, Bricket Road – the second scheme submitted for a cinema and residential use of the site has been withdrawn. Officer discussions are ongoing.
Former Odeon site, London Road – The most recent residential scheme was dismissed at appeal on design grounds.
Marks & Spencer, London Colney – Extension (mezzanine) now going ahead. The Issues and Options consultation document identifies the expansion of the existing London Colney Fields retail park for further comparison retail floorspace. This means local food retail provision is increasing. With the M&S food shop planned for the City Station and the increase in online grocery shopping, why do we need a huge Tesco?
Griffiths Way – PB indicated that discussions relating to this site have gone quiet recently but that there may be scope for intensifying the existing retail uses there.
Tesco Meets the Council - Act Three
And so we reach the really interesting bit - Tesco introducing its new store, including some details that didn't make the company's press release last month!
Cliff Saunders (CS) explained that Tesco have tried hard to respond to all that came out of the last meeting with Officers in November 2006. The main change now shown on the revised layout is the retention of the Alma Road properties and that the size of the store has been reduced as a consequence suggesting that a 13% reduction in overall floorspace (including parking) has been achieved. This equates to gross floorspace previously being 7297 sq m and now being 6366 sq m. The net retail floorspace (including cafe) falls from 4900 sq m to 4280 sq m and the store layout has changed from “format 55” to “format 45”. CS explained that parking provision has been reduced overall from 546 spaces to 479 spaces. It's great to see these numbers - we can't understand why Tesco wouldn't share them with us before! Of course, this still remains a massive store and there are still almost 500 parking spaces.
CS discussed another major element of change was the removal of parking control (ie barriers) in the car park which enabled a gain in spaces and also to change the vehicle access onto London Road to be turned by 90 degrees, instead of being perpendicular to the road.
CS explained that the expanded retail frontage (small units) now shown across the face of the service yard removed the need for a blank wall in this location. However, the revised layout did not go so far as to remove the necessity for separate servicing and customer vehicle accesses.
CS indicated that three locally listed residential properties in Inkerman Road would be lost (surely demolished - you can't just 'lose' a house?), but that modifications to the parking ramp meant that the parking deck was removed further from the rear of properties in Inkerman Road and that it would be possible to introduce landscaping to soften the appearance of the deck. (again, here we have Tesco looking to appear reasonable by suggesting something no-one wants and then withdrawing it!)
CS stated that although Tesco acknowledge that it would be the Council’s preference to see the residential properties along London Road retained, nevertheless the revised scheme showed their replacement with 11 new town houses. We think that after the meeting, Tesco did revise its plans to retain the London Road properties. The rest of this section deals with technical design aspects of the store, which are interesting, but not perhaps relevant to our goal of not having a store there are all!
A further overall benefit of the revised scheme as outlined by CS was the reduction in the size of the store made possible by the change in the format of the store. This gives rise to a height reduction of 1.2m below that previously proposed coupled with a 30-40% reduction in the overall external volume of the store. CS stressed that this represents a significant reduction in the amount of development now being proposed. CS/RF explained that there is now an additional area of parking proposed off Alma Road to serve the dwellings on that road.
Andrew Robley (AR) opined that the change in the vehicle access helps the overall appearance of the development in that the entrance to the car park will be less likely to present itself as the entrance to some sort of dark “chasm”. AR also stated that saving the existing Alma Road frontage is clearly a positive improvement. He was pleased with the retail units on London Road as they are likely to increase the active frontage. Further AR stated that the positioning of these units was starting to address the issue of the alignment of the development with the road frontage. However, AR stated that he still has reservations about the second (service) access. He also suggested that Tesco look at the service area and the possibility of roofing this area.
CS indicated that the problem with roofing the service area would be that this could reduce the “green credentials” of the scheme. However a canopy is envisaged over part of this area. RF stated that an assessment of the impacts of the delivery yard on local amenity will be made as part of the application submission.
AR reiterated that the Council would wish to see the retention of the locally listed buildings on London Road. If they are (as has been claimed) in such a poor state of repair as to necessitate their being rebuilt then this case will have to be made and AR would need further information in order to provide a view. CS outlined that significant constraints are apparent to the rear of the present buildings in terms of servicing/access.
AR opined that it was again regrettable that 3 locally listed buildings on Inkerman Road were to be demolished and the negative impact this would have on the character and appearance of the street. Clearly the view from the rear of the remaining properties would be of the car park deck. AR indicated that he would provide further feedback on this matter.
AR pointed out that the Council has yet to see elevations of the store itself and that the design of the roof was a particularly important element. AR acknowledged that a building of this size could not have a pitched roof but he would expect a roof of architectural quality rather than merely a flat roof with rooflights “applied” to it.
CS expressed concern that a “northlight” approach to the design of the roof could give rise to a building with an overly industrial appearance, but that the design did reflect a requirement for rainwater harvesting. BB acknowledged that a more traditional northlight roof could potentially impact on the height and bulk of the building. CS explained that Tesco had tried to keep the perimeter parapet height as low as possible. AR said that he would like to see a roof with more “interest” and this could also reflect in a roof design that is exciting internally. Keeping the perimeter low in certain areas would still be advisable as part of an altered roof design.
CS indicated that Tesco were not looking necessarily towards metal cladding of the building. AR stated that he was not entirely dismissive of metal cladding and this might be acceptable within the context of the service yard. AR stated, however, that he did not wish to move into the realm of stone cladding applied to the store.
Notwithstanding AR’s comments already made about the separate service entrance (ie his in principle concerns), AR explained that the treatment of gates to the proposed service yard would be important. He suggested that this required much design thought to come up with something acceptable. There was a danger that gates would look too utilitarian in such a prominent location.
AR stated that he would formulate views relating to the design of the town houses proposed for London Road and supply these at a later date. AR also requested comparative (ie existing and proposed) street scene elevations and cross sections, similar to the sort of drawings discussed at the previous meeting, to facilitate further consideration of the design of the scheme.
Cliff Saunders (CS) explained that Tesco have tried hard to respond to all that came out of the last meeting with Officers in November 2006. The main change now shown on the revised layout is the retention of the Alma Road properties and that the size of the store has been reduced as a consequence suggesting that a 13% reduction in overall floorspace (including parking) has been achieved. This equates to gross floorspace previously being 7297 sq m and now being 6366 sq m. The net retail floorspace (including cafe) falls from 4900 sq m to 4280 sq m and the store layout has changed from “format 55” to “format 45”. CS explained that parking provision has been reduced overall from 546 spaces to 479 spaces. It's great to see these numbers - we can't understand why Tesco wouldn't share them with us before! Of course, this still remains a massive store and there are still almost 500 parking spaces.
CS discussed another major element of change was the removal of parking control (ie barriers) in the car park which enabled a gain in spaces and also to change the vehicle access onto London Road to be turned by 90 degrees, instead of being perpendicular to the road.
CS explained that the expanded retail frontage (small units) now shown across the face of the service yard removed the need for a blank wall in this location. However, the revised layout did not go so far as to remove the necessity for separate servicing and customer vehicle accesses.
CS indicated that three locally listed residential properties in Inkerman Road would be lost (surely demolished - you can't just 'lose' a house?), but that modifications to the parking ramp meant that the parking deck was removed further from the rear of properties in Inkerman Road and that it would be possible to introduce landscaping to soften the appearance of the deck. (again, here we have Tesco looking to appear reasonable by suggesting something no-one wants and then withdrawing it!)
CS stated that although Tesco acknowledge that it would be the Council’s preference to see the residential properties along London Road retained, nevertheless the revised scheme showed their replacement with 11 new town houses. We think that after the meeting, Tesco did revise its plans to retain the London Road properties. The rest of this section deals with technical design aspects of the store, which are interesting, but not perhaps relevant to our goal of not having a store there are all!
A further overall benefit of the revised scheme as outlined by CS was the reduction in the size of the store made possible by the change in the format of the store. This gives rise to a height reduction of 1.2m below that previously proposed coupled with a 30-40% reduction in the overall external volume of the store. CS stressed that this represents a significant reduction in the amount of development now being proposed. CS/RF explained that there is now an additional area of parking proposed off Alma Road to serve the dwellings on that road.
Andrew Robley (AR) opined that the change in the vehicle access helps the overall appearance of the development in that the entrance to the car park will be less likely to present itself as the entrance to some sort of dark “chasm”. AR also stated that saving the existing Alma Road frontage is clearly a positive improvement. He was pleased with the retail units on London Road as they are likely to increase the active frontage. Further AR stated that the positioning of these units was starting to address the issue of the alignment of the development with the road frontage. However, AR stated that he still has reservations about the second (service) access. He also suggested that Tesco look at the service area and the possibility of roofing this area.
CS indicated that the problem with roofing the service area would be that this could reduce the “green credentials” of the scheme. However a canopy is envisaged over part of this area. RF stated that an assessment of the impacts of the delivery yard on local amenity will be made as part of the application submission.
AR reiterated that the Council would wish to see the retention of the locally listed buildings on London Road. If they are (as has been claimed) in such a poor state of repair as to necessitate their being rebuilt then this case will have to be made and AR would need further information in order to provide a view. CS outlined that significant constraints are apparent to the rear of the present buildings in terms of servicing/access.
AR opined that it was again regrettable that 3 locally listed buildings on Inkerman Road were to be demolished and the negative impact this would have on the character and appearance of the street. Clearly the view from the rear of the remaining properties would be of the car park deck. AR indicated that he would provide further feedback on this matter.
AR pointed out that the Council has yet to see elevations of the store itself and that the design of the roof was a particularly important element. AR acknowledged that a building of this size could not have a pitched roof but he would expect a roof of architectural quality rather than merely a flat roof with rooflights “applied” to it.
CS expressed concern that a “northlight” approach to the design of the roof could give rise to a building with an overly industrial appearance, but that the design did reflect a requirement for rainwater harvesting. BB acknowledged that a more traditional northlight roof could potentially impact on the height and bulk of the building. CS explained that Tesco had tried to keep the perimeter parapet height as low as possible. AR said that he would like to see a roof with more “interest” and this could also reflect in a roof design that is exciting internally. Keeping the perimeter low in certain areas would still be advisable as part of an altered roof design.
CS indicated that Tesco were not looking necessarily towards metal cladding of the building. AR stated that he was not entirely dismissive of metal cladding and this might be acceptable within the context of the service yard. AR stated, however, that he did not wish to move into the realm of stone cladding applied to the store.
Notwithstanding AR’s comments already made about the separate service entrance (ie his in principle concerns), AR explained that the treatment of gates to the proposed service yard would be important. He suggested that this required much design thought to come up with something acceptable. There was a danger that gates would look too utilitarian in such a prominent location.
AR stated that he would formulate views relating to the design of the town houses proposed for London Road and supply these at a later date. AR also requested comparative (ie existing and proposed) street scene elevations and cross sections, similar to the sort of drawings discussed at the previous meeting, to facilitate further consideration of the design of the scheme.
Tesco Meets the Council - The Last Act
At the end of the meeting, the participants discuss the timing of the application, and Tesco makes an audacious bid to start demolishing the Eversheds factory...
'Logistics/Timing of Application'
PB suggested that it was worthwhile for Tesco to examine the Issues and Options Consultation Paper. KCJ/RF/LF indicated that it was likely that an application would be submitted to the Council by Christmas 2007. We've checked back and have a quote from Tesco made last October suggesting that a planning application would be put in in early 2007. It also promised to share these latest plans 'within a few weeks' of 18th July and hasn't done so... take this as you will!
'Demolition of Existing Factory/Offices'
RF enquired as to whether Conservation Area consent for demolition of existing buildings would be forthcoming ahead of a permission to redevelop the site. BB stated that it would not normally be Council policy permit demolition of buildings in the Conservation Area until a satisfactory replacement scheme had been approved and that his is in accordance with District Plan Policy 87. Again, we'll leave you to your own ideas as to why Tesco might want to start knocking buildings down on the site (including the listed buildings on Inkerman Road?) before planning permission was obtained!
'Logistics/Timing of Application'
PB suggested that it was worthwhile for Tesco to examine the Issues and Options Consultation Paper. KCJ/RF/LF indicated that it was likely that an application would be submitted to the Council by Christmas 2007. We've checked back and have a quote from Tesco made last October suggesting that a planning application would be put in in early 2007. It also promised to share these latest plans 'within a few weeks' of 18th July and hasn't done so... take this as you will!
'Demolition of Existing Factory/Offices'
RF enquired as to whether Conservation Area consent for demolition of existing buildings would be forthcoming ahead of a permission to redevelop the site. BB stated that it would not normally be Council policy permit demolition of buildings in the Conservation Area until a satisfactory replacement scheme had been approved and that his is in accordance with District Plan Policy 87. Again, we'll leave you to your own ideas as to why Tesco might want to start knocking buildings down on the site (including the listed buildings on Inkerman Road?) before planning permission was obtained!
Sunday 2 September 2007
Parking Problems...
One pitfall of offering a free parking period at a supermarket is uncovered today by the UK Parents Lounge website. The site reports the case of two shoppers who visited Tesco and Morrisons twice in one day. They were assumed by the store to have outspent the allowed free time and threatened with fines.
This underlines both the zealous nature of supermarkets' shopping policy, as well as underlining the fact that supermarkets don't always treat even their best customers well. We hope that Tesco will shortly give more details of the proposed parking policy in St Albans!
PS - we've still not heard from Tesco despite regular calls - we were supposed to meet in August - but that was before the problems we reported below in Tesco's Development department!
This underlines both the zealous nature of supermarkets' shopping policy, as well as underlining the fact that supermarkets don't always treat even their best customers well. We hope that Tesco will shortly give more details of the proposed parking policy in St Albans!
PS - we've still not heard from Tesco despite regular calls - we were supposed to meet in August - but that was before the problems we reported below in Tesco's Development department!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
