The Council Presses Tesco To Take Action

Following the long-running debate about Tesco's 'derelict' properties on London Road, the council has been pushing Tesco hard to take action. Below we print the minutes of a meeting that took place on the London Road site between the council (both officers and councillors) and Tesco's representatives (no Michael Kissman, unfortunately...). The meeting took place on 5th December - any notes in red are our annotations as usual.

Present: Cllr Robert Donald, Chair of Cabinet, Cllr Mike Lewis, PH for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Chris Brazier, PH for Planning and Conservation, C.Cllr Chris White, Cllr Jack Pia, Andrew Wearmouth, Valuer and Estates Surveyor, Andrew Robertson, Environmental Services Manager, SADC, Chris Roach, Community Support Manager, SADC, Anthony Clark, Anti-Social Behaviour Officer, SADC (basically the council's heavy guns...)

Mike Moult, Verulam Properties Ltd, William Blomefield, DLA Piper, Steve Walker, Collinson Halls (VPL managing agents), David Smith, DJ Smith & Co. Chartered Building Surveyors (Tesco's representatives - we guess every little one helps, although it would have been good to have someone from Tesco actually attend...)

The purpose of the meeting was to review the condition of the Odeon car park and the condition of several of the houses, with a particular emphasis on their immediate external appearance. The following were proposed:-

• Car park - To be cleared of undergrowth and rubbish. To be fenced off at the front (adjacent London Road) with a fencing which will deter fly posters. Fence does not necessarily need to be 6ft tall. Lower may be adequate. Consider (depending on type of fence) using the fence as a place to advertise Council events eg Skating rink, Christmas panto, Christmas shopping times, Christmas markets. Andrew Robertson to advise on fencing.
  

• To be secured at rear to prevent rough sleepers accessing gardens to rear of London Road properties and the properties themselves. At request of Cllr Brazier, Chris Roach to ask Brian Peers (Engineering & Technical Services Manager) if it is possible that NCP could manage the car park. This would require reinstatement of dropped kerb on the highway frontage.
  

(Interestingly, at Stop Tesco's meeting with Tesco's Michael Kissman 6 months ago, as part of his consultation he promised to look into re-opening the car park to see how many people would use it! - looks like nothing happened after that...).

• Houses: White house (right hand end) – hoarding has been removed from the wall which leaves a dirty square on the wall. Suggest: repaint house wall. Mike Moult said that this work was waiting on discussions with previous advertisement lessee, but given the minimal cost involved, it was suggested that the wall could be painted immediately for the sake of its appearance.
  

• Windows boarded up in vacant properties. Where boarding has been removed or damaged, this to be replaced. Suggestion that boarding should be internal rather than external. Suggest: pictures to be put on the boards facing outwards to give impression that house is occupied.
  

• General tidy up of forecourts of houses including removal of weeds.

• Suggest that, if and where possible, electricity supply is disconnected. Regular checks will need to be made for signs of break in and possible lighting of fires.

• Passageway to the left of the London Road properties leading to back gardens of Inkerman Road houses. It does not appear to be well used. However, rough sleepers have easy access to the gardens to the rear of the London Road properties, from both the passageway and the car park. Suggest the access is robustly fenced off as soon as possible, by repairing fence from car park.
  

• Following discussions about the best way of securing the access to the properties from the passageway, the following were suggested:- Either:- Fitting locked gate at London Road end. Such a gate would require agreement of Inkerman Road residents who have right of way and Tesco representatives agreed to seek their agreement. Or:- Fencing off the access and land to the rear of the London Road properties adjacent to the passageway. The latter might be more expensive but would not need the agreement of the Inkerman Road residents so therefore could be quicker.
  

• Outhouse/shed in garden to rear of 77/79 London Road. Currently being used by rough sleepers. Suggest it is knocked down subject to any necessary planning permission.
  

The above works are all suggested to be effected before Christmas to gain immediate effect on the street scene. Meanwhile, Tesco will pursue their investigations regarding bringing the houses back into use with the initial aim of letting them.

Mike Moult agreed to contact Andrew Wearmouth in a week to indicate proposed works.

Chris Roach
6 Dec 07.

We hope the council will follow up after Christmas and check this out - please email us or one of the local councillors if you see any further actions that Tesco should be undertaking to secure and safeguard the area. In the meantime, we hope you all enjoy your Christmases!

Another Great Letter

Thanks to Brian Hodgson who wrote to the Herts Advertiser this week (the 26th anti-Tesco letter in the local press in 3 weeks!). Although we'd disagree with his view that Tesco will win, we do like his idea of local people making Tesco regret its decision to try to build here!

What Has Tesco Got Against Christmas Bands?

We reported a few days about on Tesco banning a Christmas brass band in Blackpool. Now it seems that other Tesco stores are getting in on the act. In Mold, the Deeside Silver Band was told to play outside, because, according to the Daily Post, the band was told that the music might have 'drowned out the Tannoy system and could upset customers'. The band decided it would be too cold for its very young and elderly players to perform a full session and left.

Tesco's spin this time.. "we’ve found that when bands set up by the front door, they collect more money because customers leave stores with plenty of spare change in their pockets.” Why not just admit it, Tesco managers - you were worried that you might make a little less money for a few minutes.

Bah, humbug just about sums it up...

Ten Year Tesco Battle Over?

A story for those who think Tesco is inevitable! After 10 years (two more than our saga in St Albans has lasted) Tesco has withdrawn from a planned store in Stourbridge, according to the Express and Star.

25-1 Against!

Over the past two weeks, during Tesco's consultation period, both the St Albans Review and the Herts Advertiser have carried a series of letters from local people. We've added them up (including the website comments printed by the Review), and the overall score is...

Letters and comments opposing Tesco: 25
Letters and comments in favour of Tesco: 1

Percentage against Tesco 96%
Percentage support for Tesco: 4%

Some of the anti-Tesco comments (none of these are by Stop Tesco spokespeople!) included...

'Are they mad? Everyone who loves in or around St Albans knows that the traffic is a nightmare on London Road and we simply don't need another supermarket.'

'As for the proposed store itself... it is simply preposterous. What St Albans residents need is more housing and another primary school, not a retail park.'

'Whatever Tesco does, short of packing up and going home, this is the wrong place for a supermarket. It would cause a lot of damage.'

'The 'new' proposals are nothing more than a PR stunt by Tesco'

'[Tesco's] only concern is to fool a majority into backing something we don't want and don't need. Please throw this out'

'The stated benefits of the proposed Tesco store are nonsense'

'Tesco's initial suggestion for London Road was a monstrosity of the first order. The advantage to it is that it can now suggest a monstrosity of the second order and claim it as a huge 'improvement''.

Stop Tesco's letter to the Review pointed out that all local politicians remain steadfast in their opposition to the store.

Thanks to all letter writers and website commentators - and please keep writing to Tesco, to local MPs and to local papers. Weblinks are on the right of the blog.

PS - there was one letter in favour! Simon Wilde, who does live locally, wrote to say that 'Tesco will improve the local road infrastructure and offer residents competitive shopping facilities without having to travel or even use a car'.

All we can say is keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Simon! Tesco's road infrastructure improvements currently consist of painting a short white line down the centre of a short stretch of London Road (incidentally removing parking for existing local businesses). They also claim that by 'rephasing traffic lights' congestion will disappear - if it's that easy, why hasn't Herts Highways used this technique to reduce the existing 600m+ queues on Saturdays? Against this, the company needs to attract significant extra traffic to justify the store - they're not going to survive with local people and that's why the plans have over 400 car parking places.

In terms of 'competitive shopping facilities' - the danger that we all fear is Tesco reducing competition by threatening the future of the City markets, as well as the existing local shops in London Road and Victoria Street!

Happy Christmas from Tesco...

Tesco seems to be becoming ever scared of letting anything get in the way of people shopping - such as having a good time. Tesco has banned entertainers with balloons, forbidden spending too much time shopping, and now thrown a band playing Christmas carols out of its store. Despite booking a slot to entertain shoppers, the Blackpool Gazette reports that the local Guardian Concert band was asked to stop playing after only 3o minutes, for 'Health & Safety' reasons.

What we really like about this story is Tesco's incredible spin on the story - in particular its use of the phrase 'the band were moved to a sheltered area immediately by the front door' to mean 'the band were moved outside'. Unsurprisingly, they weren't able to keep playing in the cold and went home.

UPDATE: The Daily Mail adds a comment from one band member 'The feeling of our bass player was that [Tesco] merely wanted more space for the poinsettia display - because that is what they moved in when we left.' Every little helps...

Tesco Defeated in 'Tesco Town'

Further good news for anti-Tesco campaigners today. The Highland News reports that Tesco's application for a fourth store in Inverness has been rejected. Tesco already receives over half the grocery money spent in Inverness - but wanted to build a 4,000+ square metre store (a similar size to its St Albans proposal). A 4,000 strong petition and 73 letters of objection were enough to see Tesco off.

The paper quotes Steve Rodger, Holm Community Council chairman, as saying,

"It is a victory. Nobody wanted it. The public rejected it, the planners rejected it and councillors unanimously rejected it and now, thank goodness, the government reporter has rejected it. We are delighted."

In St Albans we already have a petition well in excess of 4,000 names. We also have a huge number of opponents who are happy to write letters to make their point. Many thanks to all those who wrote this week to the St Albans Review & Observer and the Herts Advertiser. In total there were 9 anti-Tesco letters published and a large number of similar comments in the Review's online discussion forum.

What the Council Really Said to Tesco about the Derelict London Road Houses

We've obtained the following meeting notes under the Freedom of Information Act. They relate to a meeting Tesco held with the council on 7th November about the houses Tesco owns in London Road. Following the meeting, the council issued a press release that put a positive gloss on the meeting, promising to refurbish the houses quickly. As the notes make clear, the meeting was not that positive for Tesco and council officials were quite blunt! As usual, the notes in red are our comments...

Tesco and the “Evershed” site, London Road, St Albans. Briefing note resulting from the meeting between the Council and Tesco representatives on 7 November.

At previous meetings, the Council had expressed concern at Tesco’s intention a) to build a large store which would serve a wide catchment, increasing traffic on already busy roads, and
b) to demolish the housing on the boundaries of the site, as this would destroy the ambience of the Conservation Area.

A more “neighbourhood” type of store is now suggested, with the frontage housing on London Road and Alma Road being preserved. However, whilst Tesco have agreed to the reduced development and the retention of the residential element, the time taken to resolve their proposals had resulted in a deteriorating street scene, the existing properties being allowed to fall into disrepair. This is particularly important as London Road is a major entry point to the City and the current state of the area gives a poor impression.

The point was made that the Council was actively removing fly-posting on the old (privately-owned) Odeon building and it was felt that Tesco should also act to enhance the properties in their ownership. Indeed it was further suggested that they should bring the housing back into use pending the proposed shop development.

Tesco stated that they were spending substantial sums of money on keeping their property litter-free and weather-tight, but it was suggested that this was not enough. Considerable quantities of dumped rubbish is on site, paint is peeling and windows etc are rotting. Tesco claimed that the previous occupants had stripped the houses out, apparently in the belief they were to be demolished (who gave them that idea?), and that repair and renovation would be costly and unviable in advance of the main shop development. Whilst they (Tesco) had agreed to modify their original proposals to allow retention of the housing, they still felt that some of the properties may need to be demolished if they were found to require unviable repairs. It is however arguable that in a belief that demolition would eventually take place (without the benefit of advice from the Council’s planning department) they as owners may be considered to have presided over that deterioration and be responsible for it. (Essentially and rightly, Tesco will be blamed if the houses fall down during its ownership of the properties)

Nevertheless, they then stated that they already had building surveyors on site producing a schedule of the necessary works. They indicated that they might know ('might' - this is the company that supplies one-third of the UK's groceries - surely it can plan better than this!) “by March 2008” what works were needed. They stated that they anticipated submitting their planning application “by Christmas” (20 days to go, Tesco!). It appeared that they were seeking to link the refurbishment of the housing with planning permission for the shop – perhaps seeking to pressurise the Council into granting planning permission by withholding the refurbishment until then. (no, Tesco wouldn't be doing this, would it?)

The Council team stated that such a long delay on a prominent site was unacceptable. It was understood that Tesco may be seeking the most cost-effective way of procuring the overall development, but leaving the properties as they are was not an option for such a period of time. It was suggested that while they would wish to renovate them to a standard suitable for maximising sales after the completion of the shop development, an element of refurbishment sufficient for short-term let may be appropriate. The point was made that planning and land ownership issues were separate and that a landowner was expected to look after its property irrespective of whether planning permission was being sought. After all, depending on the nature of the shop proposals, the timescale for the planning process was unknown. Even if planning permission were granted, there would be a development period, which Tesco suggested would be up to 2 years.

It was also suggested that if the building surveyors were already on site, it should only be a matter of two or three weeks until Tesco knew the likely extent of refurbishment works. It was not necessary to await formal specifications and tender returns to decide what were the likely costs and what may be possible.

The Council indicated that they had commenced work on an EDMO (Empty Dwellings Management Order), aimed at taking over the housing on the grounds that Tesco, as owner, was allowing it to decay. The intention of an EDMO is to ensure that the properties are brought back into use and the Council would work in partnership with a Housing Association to do this.

Tesco undertook to redouble their efforts to clean up the site. They would clear rubbish on a more frequent and regular basis, and carry out cosmetic works to the housing. They also undertook to carry out preliminary investigations aimed at bringing as many houses as possible back into short-term use pending the eventual redevelopment. It was not clear whether Tesco would share with the Council the outcome of the housing survey, but if they continue to suggest that the necessary works are uneconomic, then the survey would be required as supporting evidence.

The Council stated that they would continue to promote the first stage of the EDMO, but then hold it in abeyance pending Tesco’s actions.

We will keep watching to check that these houses are brought back into use - with the current housing shortage in St Albans, it is incredible that these houses cannot be rented out!

We've also got some great further information via the Freedom of Information Act - keep watching!

Why Parking at Tesco and Shopping in the City Centre is Not Going to Work!

Tesco has made a big point of the idea of offering 'up to 3 hours' parking as part of the London Road development. It claims that this will allow time for shopping in Tesco and a visit to the City Centre. However, Tesco's recent actions show that the company doesn't like anyone spending too long parking - even if they spend all the time in Tesco! The Guardian reports today that Tesco wrote to an elderly, disabled couple who dared to spend 4 hours in a Tesco store to say,

"We know from research that the time limits exceed the time customers spend shopping in our stores and feel that they are fair and reasonable. Therefore could you please observe the time restrictions to avoid a parking charge notice being issued."

You might think this is an isolated incident, but a similar incident happened just a couple of days ago in Chorley, according to the Chorley Citizen.

The fact is that Tesco needs to keep a high turnover in its car parks to make a profit and has absolutely no interest in letting people go into the centre of St Albans (an unlikely thing for them to do anyway, given the steep hill in the way!). We remain deeply worried about Tesco's use of the phrase 'up to 3 hours' and fear that the company will vary parking times to ensure maximum use of the store with no thought for the wider needs of the community.