Richard Normington stated that he had come into Cambridge for the day (joking that he’d have more chores to do at home as a consequence). I simply reported this. I now believe the context of his comment to relate to the fact that he, commendably, took time off work to spend the day in Cambridge at the meeting.

“The Conservative’s Prospective Parliamentary candidate, Richard Normington, came into Cambridge to observe the meeting.”

He didn’t need to come in to Cambridge, he has lived here for years - just moved from Romsey to Coleridge…

Presumably the equipment is in the roof and walls, in which case there is presumably not a change of use for the first floor itself.

I have published the “decision” in full, verbatim, above. (It’s in the article in quotes following the words “Cllr Blencowe read out a decision notice. This notice stated:”)

A decision was made not to take any enforcement action immediately.

I think this is very poor practice on the part of the council, and I am glad I didn’t have too much faith in their assurance and took down my own copy which I reproduced in the above article.

I think it is rather unfair to suggest that it is councillors who are failing to make the “safety and inconvenience of the public” a priority. Let us remember that it is Tesco who are the ones who are insisting, against all reason, on opening their “inconvenience” store and refusing to scale down their delivery systems to a suitable level for the neighbourhood.

Councillors may be motivated by caution with public money. Tesco, as we know, are motivated solely by greed.

I would have thought that without residents of Sedgwick Street and Catharine Street witnessing and publicising dangerous breeches of safety on a regular basis, it’s quite likely that the opening of the store will in fact become a fait accompli.

Even so, given what we were told was the ‘methodical’ workings of the Council, and its dismissive attitude to local opinion, I don’t hold out much hope for an effective intervention. The safety and inconvenience of the public were really not obvious priorities, compared to the chairman’s notion of procedural correctness, and anxiety about costly action against a company that is prepared to impose its commercial will.

There’s a basic problem here, which is that Tesco acquired a site that was unsuitable for the type of intensive use that Express stores involve. This has been recognised in council planning decisions and last year’s public inquiry. In all instances, the dominant issue was the risk to highway safety, and that risk has not been addressed.

One other point: Tesco have not actually said that they won’t deliver from Mill Road. They have told the council that it is their “intention” to service the site via the rear yard. That’s very different from a commitment to always do so. They have in principle agreed to sign a binding undertaking not to service from the street but have not yet actually signed it. I and others who spoke today remain sceptical about Tesco’s intentions in this regard.

Although Tesco, the planning inspectors, the highway authority and numerous residents have said that delivering via the back streets in enormous wagons (which Tesco thus far refuse to forego) is dangerous and impractical, it doesn’t seem to be illegal.

We have always known that Tesco have permission to open a small shop on that site. This they are now doing. They admit themselves that it will be “unique” amongst the Tesco Express chain (although the restrictions on the product range will presumably be much less now they have the spare shelf space that would have been taken up by alcohol).

It is unfortunate that the NMRT campaign - and especially Ruth - has set itself to regard any opening as a failure and a defeat.

In fact, it is the move to the next stage of the campaign, and must be seen as such.

Tesco are obviously acting on the basis that inertia will wear down the opposition. In many places that formula has worked. If Mill Road is really different, then there is no reason why they should be right.

I am a resident of Sedgwick Street. I attended the first part of the meeting and wished to speak about the planning issues, but I was denied the opportunity. Apparently I should have registered my intention upon arrival, but nobody asked me at the door so I didn’t do this.

The argument used time and time again by most speakers was that the Council would always take action against ordinary residents for breaching planning rules, but they seem to be scared of taking on Tesco - and that this would be a failure of their duty.

The alleged secret installation of plant in the first floor accountants’ office was particularly shocking, as I understand this would be a change of use without permission.

I guess the decision not to take action must be based on the fact that Tesco now say they won’t breach the condition about delivering to the front of the site. How could the Council bring an injunction against a company to stop them doing something hypothetical when the same company has said they have no intention of doing it?

This implies that action will be deferred until the first illegal delivery takes place. But, then again, plenty of illegal deliveries take place all around the City and the Council does nothing.

In practical terms, it is quite obvious that Tesco will not be able to deliver via the back streets. I could give many examples of oversize vehicles becoming stuck in the one way system and/or damaging parked cars.

Only yesterday my girlfriend witnessed a fight in the street after a lorry knocked the mirror off a car and tried to drive off without stopping. On one occasion a few years ago, one of my neighbours left a removal lorry in the street for several hours, and all vehicles the size of a van or larger could not get through, so had to reverse back around the one-way system.

The only other point that I would add is that chair Cllr Blencowe conducted the meeting in a dreadful manner. He managed to antagonise the entire crowd of about 100 people by continually interrupting speakers and preventing them making their points.

At one point he started accusing Ruth Dyermond of the No Mill Road Tesco Campaign of acting without the knowledge of the Group’s members and costing Council tax payers money by threatening to take action against the Council. I felt this was an overly personal (and irrelevant) point to be making, and totally outside his remit as Chair. It is also factually wrong, as it is clear from the Campaign’s website that they are raising money for exactly this purpose. At this point I stood up and made this point, as it was allowed to interrupt with points of order about the conduct of the meeting.

Finally, let me add that these observations are all my own personal views, and do not represent any local groups with which I am involved.