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!