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...