Planning Application for Sainsbury’s On Mill Road Rejected


Thursday, October 27th, 2011. 4:43pm


The proposed loading bay for Sainsbury's on Mill Road  - Plan

The proposed loading bay for Sainsbury’s on Mill Road (Source p40 of the officer report to the meeting)

On the evening of the 25th of October 2011 I observed Cambridge City Council’s East Area Committee reject an application for a Sainsbury’s Local supermarket in the pool hall building at 103 Mill Road.

Key Points

  • The main reasons for refusal given related to road safety. Councillors were concerned lorries delivering to the shop would cause problems, particularly for cyclists, on the road. The proposal for a loading bay would have resulted in narrow pavements and councillors expressed concern about the impact on pedestrian movements.
  • The committee voted 5:4 in favour of also including the loss of a leisure facility as a reason for refusal.
  • Sainsbury’s had claimed that delivery lorries would only be present on the street for 15 minutes while unloading. This was disputed by objectors and the public gallery audibly expressed incredulity at the figure every time it was mentioned.
  • Cllr Sarah Brown showed her excellent local knowledge as she described how the applicants plans of their proposed loading bay was misleading; she pointed out the locations of street furniture including bollards and street lights which were not shown on the plan. This was key as one of the concerns was that following the installation of a loading bay the pavement would be narrower.
  • No County Council highways officers were present at the meeting to defend, explain and take questions on their views on the proposal. I think this is a major flaw, not only in this deliberation but a number of others I have recently witnessed.
  • The city council own some of the land which would have been required for the loading bay; the committee was told the decision on transferring this would be down to the executive councillor responsible Cllr Cantrill. Cllr Cantrill sent a statement to the committee saying he would consult the area committee before approving such a transfer.
  • The ownership of other land needed for the loading bay was questioned at the committee. The city council officer observed that the application would be invalid if the ownership was not as the applicants had said it was. (The council’s head of planning clarified this for me afterwards, explaining that the duty to notify the land owner that the application had been received would not have been carried out).
  • Cllr Hart noted that when she had sought a footpath on behalf of her constituents the County Council had insisted on a 2m minimum width; yet here they were, for Sainsbury’s prepared to allow a footpath with a 1.3m minimum width. She and Cllr Owers questioned the discrepancy.
  • Cllr Hart questioned if the committee’s deliberations had focused too much on the design of the loading bay, she expressed a concern over if that was the right thing to have done and if the rest of the application ought to have been discussed further.

Attendence and Voting

Both Green councillors on the committee Wright and Pogonowski were absent, as was Labour’s Cllr Benstead.

The application was rejected; the vote was 8-1.

Cllrs voting against the application were Marchant-Daisley (Labour, Petersfield), Hart (Labour, Abbey), Herbert (Labour, Coleridge), Owers (Labour, Coleridge), Moghadas (Labour, Romsey), Smart (Liberal Democrat, Romsey), Brown (Liberal Democrat, Petersfield) and Saunders (Liberal Democrat, Romsey).

Cllr Blencowe (Labour, Petersfield) voted in favour of the application.

The ward County Councillor, Cllr Harrison was absent. The other County Councillors from the East Area, Bourke (Liberal Democrat) and Saqiq (Labour) were present and spoke on the application but did not have a vote.

Public Speakers

The meeting started with a series of public speakers.

Something I’ve never seen happen before occurred as a number of objectors clubbed together to give their three minute slots to a representative of the Mill Road Society who was permitted to speak for nine minutes. Commendably there was no attack on Sainsbury’s as a company and the comments were focused on the key planning related matters. The main point raised was the impact on road users of delivery lorries. The proposals were described as dangerous. Another element of the objection disagreed with the suggestion by the applicants that the pool hall’s business was in decline.

Martin Lucas-Smith of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign noted that the proposed development was very close to an accident blackspot, the third worst place in the county for incidents he said. He pointed out that the Sainsbury’s lorries wouldn’t fit in even the new larger loading bay proposed. Lucas-Smith told the committee that one of the campaign’s members who contributed to the objection is an ex supermarket lorry driver and another has written widely used software for modelling the movement of lorries, so the campaign had the expertise needed to comment from an informed position on the proposals. The cycling campaign objection has been published.

Both the Cycling Campaign and Mill Road society expressed disbelief at some of the claims being made in the application. Photographs of unloading activity at the St Andrews Street Sainsbury’s local had been submitted showing that unloading there, in a place where there is much less traffic, being within the city centre bollards – only having those exiting the car park early in the morning passing during delivery times, taking much longer than the 15 minutes suggested for Mill Road and also having both a Sainsbury’s lorry and a Milk delivery lorry arriving at the same time.

Other speakers included a partially sighted local resident, concerned about the impact on pedestrians, noting the city council had housed him near by in part because pedestrian access to local shops was currently good in the area. Abdul Arain, who runs the shop opposite, called the proposals for delivery to the new store “bollocks”.

A number of other local residents also spoke, one speaking about the impact on the character of Mill Road, and another suggesting that moving the pool hall business to Burleigh Street wasn’t acceptable as despite only being a short distance away in a straight line, it was no longer in the Mill Road centre.

Representatives of the Applicants

The public speakers, all objecting, took around 20 minutes between them. The applicants were given the opportunity to speak for the same amount of time.

First up was a David Murray, representative of Mickey Flynn’s – WT’s Snooker & Sporting Club. He gave figures arguing his business was unsustainable, he complained that information to the contrary which had been given, both at the meeting and before, was inaccurate. He said that the proportion of the business’ income from pool was falling, and it was becoming a bar with pool tables rather than a pool club. He said given so much floor area was given over to the unprofitable pool tables this wasn’t sustainable. He said the bar takings had doubled in recent years and pool income had dropped to just 11% of turnover from 27% a few years previously.

Paul Sellers, who introduced himself as a regional aquisition manager for Sainsbury’s who was directly employed by Sainsbury’s spoke next. Mr Sellers notably did not address any of the concerns raised by the public speakers, he launched into what sounded like a pre-prepared speech. He said:

Our proposals here are for a small local convenience store to primarily serve the western end of Mill Road.

The railway bridge forms a barrier to the Eastern side of Mill Road where the existing Co-Op and Tesco stores are located.

The proposed store will provide a similar floor area and range to the store recently opened on St Andrews Street in April.

The Mill Road store will be marginally smaller.

Sainsbury’s local stores are relatively small shops which serve the local community with people tending to walk to them to pick up convenience goods.

As people tend not to drive to our stores they contribute to bringing footfall and trade to the area.

Our Locals also provide a benefit to the old and disabled giving fully DDA compliant step free access to modern shopping facilities without the need to travel further afield.

The proposed store will employ 20-25 full time and part time staff; in addition to the staff from Micky Flynn’s who will be relocated to their new premises.

Our staff will only be employed from the local community.

Sainsbury’s also supports the local community through our charitable programme including our sports for kids schemes providing equipment to local schools.

As mentioned by David Murray there is no prospect of the current use being maintained and the current planning permission prohibits any alternative uses.

An A1 use is therefore the most appropriate alternative use for the location

Planning policy states A1 use ought be located in centres, like Mill Road, as these are the most sustainable locations. This is what we are proposing. It is entirely in accordance with relevant planning policy.

The council has previously acknowledged the percentage of A1 retail uses within the area is below the required policy threshold [60%]. An additional A1 use should therefore be welcomed as it would increase the viability and vitality of the centre with local shops benefiting from the additional footfall the new local will generate.

We have carried out extensive public consultations, including a an exhibition at St Barnabas Hall. As a result our proposals have evolved. For example the lay-by facility to counter concerns from the public and County Council over road safety. We’ve also omitted an external ATM [Cash machine] for those reasons. The proposed lay-by will be designed fully in co-operation with the County Council highways department which will not only serve the Sainsbury’s local but by other businesses along Mill Road and would assist for example in accessing the recycling facilities adjacent to the site.

We’ve heard lots of comments about the loading bay not being safe. That is complete bunkahm. The design has been fully developed with our highways consultants in conjunction with the highways authority and we are fully confident that design will cater for what we are hoping to do. ie. 11m delivery vehicles.

This part of Mill Road has a wide footpath and there is an extensive courtyard in front of Micky Flynns, this means a lay-by can be created without impacting on pedestrian flow on this side of Mill Road. Again this has been done in conjunction with the Highways Authority. The bay will be subject to the same restrictions on Mill Road as there are now – no loading only until 8.30 am and not before 6.30pm. We propose just three deliveries per day and with the full width lay-by our proposed store will not impact on the highways system or create congestion.

We are of course prepared to fully fund this lay-by therefore providing an important new facility for this part of Mill Road which will improve the overall traffic situation in Mill Road and facilitate road safety.

In addition we will be creating bicycle parking facilities to the front of the store.

To sum up we do of course recognise the affinity for Mill Road from local residents. But by bringing increased customer choice to the area we will be complementing existing facilities not detracting from them.

I therefore hope you are able to support our proposals for Mill Road and grant planning consent in line with the recommendation of your planning officer.

This will provide an ideal solution for a soon to be vacant building. Providing jobs, investment, improved local arrangements and which will to the vitality and viability of the section of Mill Road. I thank you.

While listening to the speech I wondered if it was legal to restrict job opportunities in the store to the local community? I’m pretty sure it’s not!

Councillor Deliberation

Councillors focused on the road safety implications of deliveries to the store from Mill Road. Many councillors indicated they supported the view put forward by the Cycling Campaign that the proposed loading bay was too small.

Cllr Hart noted that when she had tried to get a foot path installed the County Council had insisted on 2m minimum width; but here they were prepared to let Sainsbury’s get away with 1.3m.

Councillors were not convinced that the loading trolleys used by Sainsbury’s would not cause an obstruction on the road or pavement; especially given suggestions the lift at the back of the lorry would extend outside the loading bay.

Cllr Smart asked about a staff travel plan and expressed concerns about deliveries being made accross the road.

Cllr Saunders and Smart both expressed concerns about cycle parking, noting that one rack had been cut to make the loading bay bigger. (The officer advised them that the proposal “just meets the cycle parking policy”.

The restrictions on use of the loading bay were clarified following questions from Cllr Blencowe; he was told that no loading was proposed by Sainsbury’s between 8.30 am and 8.30 pm and 11pm – 7am Monday to Saturday (the current restrictions on the road allow loading between 6.30pm and 8.30pm but Sainsbury’s were saying they wouldn’t load in that time). It was noted by councillors that the road is busy with commuters going to the station in the morning between 7 and 8.30am when Sainsbury’s would be delivering.

This was a complicated situation as Sainsbury’s were offering themselves to deliver within more restrictive times than the loading bay would be available to others.

Cllr Herbert spoke about pedestrian flow and the impact on the street. He noted there were lots of pedestrians who traversed the area under consideration going to and from many different places. He was concerned that not enough work had been done to assess the impact of the proposals; he said that in the past there had been much more careful consideration given when making much less significant changes in the location.

Cllr Marchant-Daisley said the only reason the planning officer was recommending approval was due to too much emphasis being placed on the draft National Planning Policy Framework and its presumption in favour of developments. Cllr Owers made clear he wasn’t going to give the draft NPPF any weight in his consideration.

Cllr Smart noted a loading bay lay-by for Tesco had not been permitted and questioned why one ought be allowed in this location, arguably an even worse place for one.

Responding to councillors’ questions the planning officer claimed the position on the road following the introduction of the loading bay would be no worse than it is currently. Councillors pointed out the bay could be in use by another vehicle when the Sainsbury’s lorry came along so disagreed with him.

Cllr Sarah Brown called the Sainsbury’s lorries juggernaughts, twice, and Cllr Bourke called them roving warehouses.

Cllr Owers spoke in favour of retaining the leisure facility.

Cllr Blencowe explained he was voting for the application as otherwise all “A1″ (retail) uses on the site would not be permitted.

My own view is that the planning system can permit, via conditions, some types of retail use in this building without permitting the intensity of use and amount of deliveries which Sainsbury’s sought.

Cllr Blencowe noted that enforcement ought stop people parking in the loading bay; he said the city council controlled the parking enforcement officers and could direct them to patrol (I think he needs to bring himself up-to-date the city council has given this to the county).

Cllr Moghadas (Labour, Romsey) was the only councillor not to speak at all during the debate (It looks as if Romsey residents have elected a dud there). She struggled even to cite her reasons for her vote against and had to be helped out by her ward colleague Liberal Democrat Cllr Smart.

Reasons

All councillors who voted against the application included non-compliance with sections 8/2, 8/4 and 8/9 of the Cambridge Local Plan among their reasons. These relate to

  • Transport Impact
  • Walking and Cycling Accessibility
  • Pedestrian and Cycle Network

Cllrs Marchant-Daisley and Owers also cited 6/1 “Protection of Leisure Facilities”. From the first pass around the table it wasn’t clear if there was a majority in favour of this reason so a vote was held which was won 5:4.

Council officers had prepared a draft statement of the reasons for refusal. This was displayed on the screen at the meeting and rapidly rejected as not accurately reflecting the discussion.

The meeting’s chair asked if the detailed wording of the reasons for refusal could be agreed after the meeting between himself, officers and the opposition spokespeople. The city council’s head of planning, Patsy Dell, said this was no longer acceptable (it used to be the usual practice) and officers alone would draft the reasons based on what had been said at the meeting.

Highways Changes With Planning Applications

When large changes to roads are proposed along with planning applications, either as in this case, or where S106 developers contributions are used to modify the road network it often appears the process for considering the changes are much less involved than they would be if the changes had been proposed via another route.

Consider if local councillors had proposed the loading bay; it would probably be debated at the Area Committee, the Transport Area Joint Committee and the County Council Cabinet; the latter two at least would be advised by expert planning officers, and would have the benefit of formal public consultation being carried out.

I don’t know what process would have been followed in relation to the loading bay if planning permission had been granted, but in the past I’ve not seen this kind of proper due process occurring in relation to other developments which impact the highway.

The Meeting in Tweets

  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK The East Area Ctte is to consider Sainsbury’s Mill rd planning app on Tues Eve. @CamCycle has made a strong objection: http://t.co/iEHCd40ETuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:09
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cambridge MP @JulianHuppert‘s letter objecting to Mill Rd Sainsbury’s planning app: http://t.co/RHuhoC3E (PDF) <-Good, except "insensitive" - Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:14
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @georgeowers: Sainsbury’s Mill Road planning app. By Lord,this is a tricky one<-How? @JulianHuppert & @CamCycle objections r overwhelming – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:18
  • Samanthahoy profile image@Samanthahoy @RTaylorUK why is everyone so against it?is it due to them wanting to keep Mill Road for independent shops – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:18
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK @georgeowers @JulianHuppert @CamCycle if I was there I would be voting against. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:26
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK and won’t be there as organised on a day I said I couldn’t make (will (be on train home from colchester) – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:26
  • Puffles2010 profile image@Puffles2010 Puffles (*waves*)to @georgeowers @CllrSarahBrown & co (((Huggles))) too to @smithsam & @RTaylorUK sitting in same row as Puffles #CambridgeTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:03
  • smithsam profile image@smithsam Am at @camcitco #live with @RTaylorUK and @Puffles2010 who is taking significant interest in the sound desk… – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:04
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK I’m at @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s on Mill Road under consideration. ~60 MoPs here. http://t.co/MthwgfyxTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:04
  • Puffles2010 profile image@Puffles2010 “@smithsam: Am at @camcitco #live with @RTaylorUK and @Puffles2010 who is taking significant interest in sound desk…” *mute dragon faries* – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:05
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Green Cllrs @APogonowski and Wright both absent from @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:06
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Reporter @RaymondBrownCN from @CambridgeNewsUK is on the press desk at @camcitco #planning #liveTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:07
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK not a lot I can about it – organised on unsuitable date and time plus I’m on a train! Asked for statement to be read – denied. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:07
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Application ammended to include full.width loading bay @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:09
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Officer “explaining” what a “grampian condition” is. He didn’t get it accross to me. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:11
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK New delivery bay proposed @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s requires land ownership to be transfered from @camcitco -> @CambsCC highway – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:13
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Land ownership issues are independent of planning consideration chair reminds @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:19
  • MrNeilB profile image@MrNeilB @APogonowski @RTaylorUK tell em Chesterton high St & east road are always messed up when Tesco are unloading their ridiculous sized trucks. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:21
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Public speaker given multiple public speaking time as donated by others. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:21
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @MrNeilB: @APogonowski @RTaylorUK tell em Chesterton high St & east road are always messed up when Tesco are unloading their ridiculous sized trucks. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:21
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK @MrNeilB We can’t speak. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:22
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @David_I: @RaymondBrownCN love how the crime reporter is there. sainsbury on mill road is a crime. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:23
  • julianhuppert profile image@julianhuppert @RTaylorUK thanks for the updates … I’m keeping an eye out for the result! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:24
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Public speaker frm @MillRoadSociety addressing @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s. Opposing on grounds of danger+keeping leisure facility – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:25
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Speaker from @MillRoadSociety saying pool hall is profitable & thriving. Accounts offered in evidence. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:26
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Proposed loading bay will be too small say @MillRoadSociety ..recipie for accidents… @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:27
  • IanGManning profile image@IanGManning @MrNeilB @APogonowski @RTaylorUK to be fair we did get this sorted mostly now. But agree needs strong conditions – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:28
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @julianhuppert: @RTaylorUK thanks for the updates … I’m keeping an eye out for the result! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:28
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @MrNeilB @RTaylorUK indeed – proposed loading bay ridiculous. Many objections re this. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Very impressed with @MillRoadSociety focusing on planning matters, not the ID of the applicant. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @APogonowski: @MrNeilB @RTaylorUK indeed – proposed loading bay ridiculous. Many objections re this. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Total of 23 mins of objectors to the application. Next up the applicants @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:00
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Speaker on behalf of the pool hall, complaining they’ve been made to feel uncomfortable. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:01
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Pool hall will close regardless @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s told. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:02
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Pool income dropping & bar takings rising at pool hall @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s told. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:04
  • camcycle profile image@camcycle @RTaylorUK Issues relating to the viability of the business do not affect the transport problems for any intensive store on this site – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:04
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: WT’s now speaking. Claims info by objectors is incorrect (referring to views on the viability of their business) [We have no view on this] – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:05
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Paul Sellers, regional aquisition manager for Sainsbury’s now speaking @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:06
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Proposed shop smaller, but similar to one on St Andrews St. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:07
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Ppl don’t tend to drive to Sainsbury’s local shops. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s told by Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:08
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Sainsbury’s will increase vitality of Mill Road area Sainsbury’s tell @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:09
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Sainsbury’s dismisses @camcycle & others’ concerns re: loading bay as “bunkham”. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:10
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Claims ATM omitted as a result of public consultation earlier this year. So why was it included in the planning application? – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:10
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK I hope are our cllrs are up to working out who’s telling the truth here. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:11
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Sainsbury’s “ideal solution for soon to be vacant building” says Sainsbury’s. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:12
  • hopsncheese profile image@hopsncheese @RTaylorUK @camcitco I’m sensing that this is going to be passed despite really strong arguments against…. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:13
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Cllr Sadiq gives evidence that bus bay (like loading bay) in his ward ends up being used by cars. Manual For Streets guidance agrees. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:22
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Consider ‘actual human behaviour’ of drivers using bays rather than ‘theoretical safety on paper’, says Cllr Sadiq – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:22
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Cllrs from City Council (who can vote) now giving their views – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:22
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr @GailMDaisley saying loading bay is central to application and is serious flaw. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:23
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK @kilian_bourke @camcitco is kilian voting? County cllrs never normally vote on planning – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:24
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr @GailMDaisley says she thinks store will generate xtra traffic. Ppl lazy; will drive she says. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:24
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK .@APogonowski no @kilian_bourke and @tariqsadiq have no vote, they can speak though. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:25
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @RaymondBrownCN: looks like cllr consensus is they are going to reject this application because of ‘serious flaws’ – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:25
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @RaymondBrownCN: looks like cllr consensus is <- we've only heard from 1 *voting* clkr so far. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:26
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: @RaymondBrownCN Only one has spoken so far? – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:26
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Cllr Marchant Daisley says “Loading bay doesn’t seem to be at all safe”; says Highways advice needs looking at rather than nodding through – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:27
  • jakeg82 profile image@jakeg82 .@RTaylorUK @camcitco has anyone brought up the false logic that Sainsbury’s Mill Road would “create jobs”. No, it just displaces jobs. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK .@CllrNickClarke Can u send @CambsCC highways officers 2 @camcitco planning meetings where their submission is key? @camcitco #live S’bury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:31
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @jakeg82: .@camcitco any councillor who votes in favour of Mill Road Sainsbury’s loses my vote at the next election. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:32
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @cambridgefirst: A packed East area planning committee is deciding whether to grant permission for a Sainsbury’s store to open in Mill Road -result to follow – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:32
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Officer says app invalid if council hasn’t been notified who owns which bits of land for loading bay?? @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:02
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK @horatiomo @cambridgefirst Yes, see my tweets! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:03
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Officer saying if bay full situation when Sainsbury’s truck turns up no worse than now. I disagree. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:04
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr Saunders pointing out new loading bay will need a lot of public land. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:06
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @jakeg82: Sainsbury’s Mill Road, Cambridge: download the PDF and jump to page 40 for pics of plans re meeting now in progress – http://t.co/yvxH6s1hTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:06
  • jakeg82 profile image@jakeg82 .@camcitco so how can I – not being in the meeting – see the *latest* plans if they’re not on your website? Not very transparent. @RTaylorUKTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:06
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK @jakeg82 Proposals for loading bay modified. It’s now full width. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:07
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @jakeg82: .@camcitco so how can I – not being in the meeting – see the *latest* plans if they’re not on your website? Not very transparent. @RTaylorUKTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:07
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Officer says that if another vehicle is already in the bay then would be a neutral situation compared to currently (but this is new devt) – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:08
  • camcycle profile image@camcycle @jakeg82 @camcitco @RTaylorUK Scroll to end of http://t.co/IwD9VEfZ for 11th-hour proposals by dvper. No public constln on pavement theft – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:09
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Officer says that if another vehicle is already in the bay then would be a neutral situation compared to now<-No,due2 new shop - Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:09
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Council officer admitting plans on screen are a bit misleading. (loading bay, not new pavement shown) @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:10
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: @jakeg82 @camcitco @RTaylorUK Scroll to end of http://t.co/IwD9VEfZ for 11th-hour proposals by dvper. No public constln on pavement theft – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:10
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @RaymondBrownCN: possible threat to tree near Sainsbury’s site in Mill Road raised by Cllr Paul Saunders – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:11
  • jakeg82 profile image@jakeg82 RT @camcycle: @jakeg82 @camcitco @RTaylorUK Scroll to end of http://t.co/IwD9VEfZ for 11th-hour proposals by dvper. No public constln on pavement theft – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:12
  • smithsam profile image@smithsam @easternblot will come down to politics, probably split but reject, and then called in to full council for an appeal (cc @RTaylorUK ) – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:23
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr @GailMDaisley saying officer recommending approval only as draft NPPF being given too much weight @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:28
  • camcycle profile image@camcycle NB @RTaylorUK has been tweeting on this issue today, and included issues other than transport that we’re not concerned with – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr @CllrSarahBrown minded to vote against app on safety grounds. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:29
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Cllrs are going through the specific parts of the Local Plan that this doesn’t comply with; clearly they’ve done some research. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:30
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: Very disappointing that no Councillor has said that a public highway change like this would normally be subject to public consultation – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:31
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK .@smithsam appeal isn’t to full council its to unelected inspector. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:32
  • CllrMCurtis profile image@CllrMCurtis RT @rtayloruk: Cllr Moghadas has not yet said anything. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s >- silent? A lib dem no doubt. LOL – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:41
  • JonInFrance profile image@JonInFrance @RTaylorUK @camcitco but I like the sainsbury’s app on my ‘phone. Tell them just not to install it ;)Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:42
  • CllrMCurtis profile image@CllrMCurtis @rtayloruk Apologies – realised she is Lab Cllr. Too used to lib Dems at Shire Hall. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:42
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Cllr Hart asks if loading bay outside site shld be consideration. Open to appeal? @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:43
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK RT @camcycle: 9 mins left on laptop…< my battery might not make the vote either :( - Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:44
  • smithsam profile image@smithsam @RTaylorUK @camcycle happy to lend you my iPad whichever asks first :)Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:47
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Sainsbury’s Mill Roadplanning app REJECTED. 8 : 1. Cllr Blencowe only cllr in favour. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:55
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RaymondBrownCN Who voted for, Raymond? @RTaylorUK @CamCycleTuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:55
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK Hahaha – what a surprise! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:55
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK Sainsbury’s planning app on Mill Road REJECTED mainly on road safety grounds. Only Cllr Blencowe voted in favour @camcitco #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:56
  • RTaylorUK profile image@RTaylorUK 5/8 cllrs agreed loss of leisure facility also a reason to reject Sainsbury’s Mill Road app. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:58
  • annebailey profile image@annebailey @RTaylorUK thanks for keeping us posted throughout the mtg – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 22:00
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK @camcitco a very sensible decision of the committee. I’d have voted exactly the same wayand for same reasons (danger and leisure) – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 22:02
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK @camcitco That is,assuming I wasn’t persuaded otherwise by Sainsbury’s.The evidence was pretty clear though. Loading bay a danger – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 22:03
  • APogonowski profile image@APogonowski @RTaylorUK i.e. I always go in with an open mind, despite evidence read pre-meeting! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 22:04
  • brianlj profile image@brianlj A big thankyou to @RTaylorUK for his blow-by-blow reporting of the planning meeting! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 23:01

Links

I have suggested the council link between the committee papers and the application documents and vice versa rather than having things in two separate places but this appears beyond them.

Post-Meeting

  1. I’m writing on Thursday evening and the council still have not changed the status of the application on their website from “Pending Decision”. In the past I’ve asked about such things and have been told the decision letter (and reasons) take time to be produced. It is the issuing of the letter and not the councillors’ vote which is the moment at which permission is actually granted.

    I think, especially in cases like this where 3,000+ people signed a petition, the cycling campaign and local MP both opposed the plans and many people observed the meeting or followed along online decision notices ought be published in a timely manner by the council, at least saying which way councillors voted.

  2. Councillor Sarah Brown has posted a blog post on the 27th of October, two days after the meeting titled Council to Consult Residents on Sainsbury’s Mill Road Loading Bay Request. I have suggested to Cllr Brown that the council should ask Sainsbury’s if they still want their request considered, in light of the planning decision, before an expensive and time consuming consultation is launched. Cllr Brown referred me to Cllr Cantrill, but I said I thought it was a matter for the East Area Committee as Cllr Cantrill has already indicated he is delegating the consultation (though not the decision) to them.

Corrections, comments and additions are welcome.