Tesco and St Albans Council Speak

UPDATED 17:30 13th November

Following our posting of the press release this am, we've now added some further thoughts, in red of course...

Here's the full text of a press release issued by St Albans City & District yesterday. We'll come back and analyse it later, but at the moment, it could be that Tesco is ready to move on its next 'consultation'.

Tesco agree to clean up their site

St Albans City and District Council met with representatives from Tesco, to discuss the state of their land and the vacant properties bordering the site, on Alma Road and London Road.

The objective of the meeting was to agree a way forward that would ensure an improvement to the appearance of the properties and gardens as well as the land, which would benefit local residents and provide a better impression of the city to people entering it via the London Road.

At the meeting on 7 November, the following steps were agreed:-

· Tesco will ensure that the site is cleaned up and a photo taken to provide a reference for future monitoring. They will also ensure more money is invested to keep it this way.

(Not that we mind this happening, but shouldn't this cleaning been taking place for the 7 years of Tesco ownership?)

· Tesco are having the properties surveyed and will advise the council by the end of the year, whether they will renovate and refurbish them to rent to tenants, or wait until they know the outcome of their planning application and sell them.

(This is in response to the threat by local councillors to take over the houses and use them to help St Albans's housing crisis, as we reported in October, so we can't give you any credit here at all, Tesco. In fact, you're actually causing more delay by waiting until the end of the year. Sorry.)

· Tesco will issue a consultation leaflet in November and a new planning application by January 08.

(Don't hold your breath in anticipation. We've documented before how Tesco has repeatedly promised a planning application for over a year. Our recent online poll showed strong feeling that Tesco will wait for changes in planning law before proceeding. Tesco has also been saying on www.tescostalbans.co.uk that it will release full details of its new plans 'in a few weeks' - since July 19th!)

· The council will continue to discuss with Tesco, how their property could be occupied and well maintained.

Cllr Robert Donald, Chair of Cabinet commented:

“I was very pleased with the constructive nature of the meeting which was held, and look forward to resolving together the twin issues discussed, regarding the general run-down appearance and dereliction of this part of London Road, and re-letting the empty properties to assist housing need in the district, in the near future. Residents and visitors are becoming increasingly concerned about the situation on this heavily used route into the city.”

(We agree with Cllr Donald, and hope Tesco noticed the end of his last sentence, which we've highlighted in blue!)

Tesco Corporate Affairs Manager, Michael Kissman said:

"Tesco is sensitive to the issues on London Road, which is why we asked to meet Cllrs Donald and Brazier. We have changed our plans so we no longer plan to demolish the houses on London Road, we were therefore happy to outline how we will improve their appearance. We all agreed that the buildings should be brought back into use."

"A leaflet outlining our latest plans for the site will be sent to local residents over the next two weeks. We intend to submit a planning application within the next three months."

(Michael, we're looking forward to your leaflet, and can assure you that we will encourage people to make their comments and send them back to you. We will encourage them to say that your plan will increase congestion even more (last Saturday was awful as it is), increase pollution, damage local retailers and the 1000 year old market, and waste the opportunity for affordable housing and a school in a key central (but NOT City Centre) location. We will encourage them to say that your development is highly inappropriate for a conservation area.)