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 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/iEHCd40E – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:09- @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 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 @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 @RTaylorUK @georgeowers @JulianHuppert @CamCycle if I was there I would be voting against. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 08:26- @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 Puffles (*waves*)to @georgeowers @CllrSarahBrown & co (((Huggles))) too to @smithsam & @RTaylorUK sitting in same row as Puffles #Cambridge – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:03
@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 I’m at @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s on Mill Road under consideration. ~60 MoPs here. http://t.co/Mthwgfyx – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:04
- @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 Green Cllrs @APogonowski and Wright both absent from @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:06
- @RTaylorUK Reporter @RaymondBrownCN from @CambridgeNewsUK is on the press desk at @camcitco #planning #live – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:07
- @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 Application ammended to include full.width loading bay @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:09
- @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 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 Land ownership issues are independent of planning consideration chair reminds @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:19
@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 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 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 @MrNeilB We can’t speak. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:22
- @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 @RTaylorUK thanks for the updates … I’m keeping an eye out for the result! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:24- @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 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 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 @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 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 @MrNeilB @RTaylorUK indeed – proposed loading bay ridiculous. Many objections re this. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:29
- @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 RT @APogonowski: @MrNeilB @RTaylorUK indeed – proposed loading bay ridiculous. Many objections re this. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 19:29
- @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 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 Pool hall will close regardless @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s told. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:02
- @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 @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 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 Paul Sellers, regional aquisition manager for Sainsbury’s now speaking @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:06
- @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 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 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 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 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 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 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 @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 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 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 RT @camcycle: Cllrs from City Council (who can vote) now giving their views – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:22
- @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 @RTaylorUK @kilian_bourke @camcitco is kilian voting? County cllrs never normally vote on planning – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:24
- @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 .@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 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 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 RT @camcycle: @RaymondBrownCN Only one has spoken so far? – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 20:26
- @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 .@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 .@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 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 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 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 @horatiomo @cambridgefirst Yes, see my tweets! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:03
- @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 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 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/yvxH6s1h – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:06
- @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. @RTaylorUK – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:06
- @RTaylorUK @jakeg82 Proposals for loading bay modified. It’s now full width. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:07
- @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. @RTaylorUK – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:07
- @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 @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 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 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 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 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 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 @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 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 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 Cllr @CllrSarahBrown minded to vote against app on safety grounds. @camcitco #planning #live Sainsbury’s – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:29
- @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 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 .@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 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 @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 @rtayloruk Apologies – realised she is Lab Cllr. Too used to lib Dems at Shire Hall. – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:42
- @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 RT @camcycle: 9 mins left on laptop…< my battery might not make the vote either :( - Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:44
- @smithsam @RTaylorUK @camcycle happy to lend you my iPad whichever asks first 🙂 – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:47
- @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 @RaymondBrownCN Who voted for, Raymond? @RTaylorUK @CamCycle – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:55
- @APogonowski @RTaylorUK Hahaha – what a surprise! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 21:55
- @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 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 @RTaylorUK thanks for keeping us posted throughout the mtg – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 22:00- @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 @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 @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 A big thankyou to @RTaylorUK for his blow-by-blow reporting of the planning meeting! – Tuesday 25th of October 2011 at 23:01
35 responses to “Planning Application for Sainsbury’s On Mill Road Rejected”
Richard, a point of information: Abdul Arain actually said that an employee of the St Andrew’s St Sainsbury’s had described the 15 minute delivery claim as “bollocks”, it wasn’t his comment about the delivery plans in general (although I can’t imagine his views of them are very different).
Not sure why you’re surprised (as you sound) that the Mill Road Society focused on planning not the supermarket issue, since that’s exactly what we always do (see the numerous objection and appeal documents, and the transcript of comments to the EAC on the various failed Tesco applications, all of which are available from the old ‘No Mill Road Tesco’ website).
Did you see who voted which way in 5:4 split over the Policy 6/1?
I agree that when Abdul Arain said “bollocks” he was quoting someone else.
I think it was worth noting that the representations focused largely on planning matters rather than any campaign against large chains / big businesses which is how the debate in relation to supermarkets on Mill Road is often characterised.
I didn’t note who joined Cllrs Marchant-Daisley and Owers in voting for the loss of a leisure facility to be included as a reason for the refusal.
At the East Area committee on the 27th of October I suggested the council should ask Sainsbury’s if they still want to pursue their request to Cambridge City Council asking the council to consider allowing some of their land to be used for a loading bay.
The committee agreed that Sainsbury’s ought be asked if they still wanted their request to be considered before embarking on public consultation.
Cllr Owers said he felt it would be unlikely for Sainsbury’s to withdraw their request, given they could be considering appealing the decision.
Cllr Smart stated there was no chance of Sainsbury’s buying any land currently owned by Cambridge City Council, any transfer would be to the County Council for the land to become highway.
Cllr Brown argued that as many people had already been in touch with her over the issue of the land transfer a public consultation ought go ahead (regardless of Sainsbury’s intent) so that those people’s views can be heard.
At the East Area committee on the 27th of October I also noted that no decision notice had been issued following the planning meeting despite the substantial public interest.
I said I understood the planning permission would not technically be granted until the reasons had been agreed, but suggested the result of the vote could have been formally announced and the council shouldn’t rely on the press and public to get the message out to those with an interest. All councillors appeared to be nodding in agreement as I made this suggestion.
I have been campaigning on this subject for some time.
Ex councillor Frank Gawthrope was present in the public seating. He told me that as the changes to the application were submitted late the statutory consultation period for the owners of the land affected by the application was still ongoing. The formal planning application refusal notice cannot be issued until that consultation period expires (even though in this case the relevant landowner is the City Council).
It sounds as if an objection from the city council’s property department could invalidate the decision made by councillors.
This is a crazy state of affairs.
Looking at the “key dates” on the council’s page for the planning application the date of 21 days after the owners/tenants etc. of relevant properties were notified isn’t one of those listed.
The determination deadline of: 16 Aug 2011 is there though – I think this means if the applicants had wanted to they could have appealed on the grounds of non-determination (the council failing to get round to considering the application) and gone straight to an unelected planning inspector. It is perhaps commendable they decided to allow the committee of elected representative to make their decision.
This plan of the loading bay shows the highway boundary (in this case the back of the pavement) in blue.
It shows how the proposed bay cuts into the exisiting pavement.
No plans presented at the meeting showed the new pavement, only the loading bay is shown.
Source; though as the council’s system is broken you need to visit this page first for a cookie.
I think that you are very unfair in your assessment of Cllr Zoe Moghadas. She is, by some distance, the newest councillor in East Area, and is finding her feet on planning, which is difficult to adjust to. She is active and well-known locally, and in her time as a councillor has already made more contribution to full council than many Lib Dems. Cut her some slack and don’t be so instantly judgemental. The role of a councillor involves a lot more than what goes on in committee meetings.
Cllr Moghadas and Cllr Owers are both members of the Labour Party.
Cllr Moghadas has been a councillor for almost six months.
The meeting dealing with the Sainsbury’s application was only the second East Area committee she has attended; though at the first one five planning applications were dealt with.
While it’s clearly up to the electors of Romsey who they choose to represent them I don’t think decisions which are of such huge importance to those whose properties and livelihoods are affected by them ought be being taken by those who are finding their feet.
Cllr Owers says that Cllr Moghadas has made significant contributions to full council. My report on the July 2011 full council lists her as one of those who didn’t contribute to any debates there either:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-city-council-0711.html
She only spoke to declare her union membership.
Richard, since Sainsbury’s was constantly submitting new information in the period before and after the original determination target date, they’d have had a very hard time pursuing a non-determination appeal – every time they submitted something new, they themselves extended the decision-making process. They’d have been laughed out of the planning inspectorate if they’d tried.
What’s not clear to me, and is a matter of concern, is whether the clock is still ticking on the bay consultation. The deadline on what was submitted last week would be (I think) 8 November, but no-one I’ve spoken to is clear about whether that still stands, and most people are holding off on sending comments until they know. Not helpful.
The council’s online planning system doesn’t appear to extend consultation dates when applicants amend their proposals. If the deadlines do change when this happens then the council’s web page for the application ought reflect this.
The consultation dates aren’t extended, as far as I know – although they should be as a matter of fairness, if not law, if the applicant is making changes to aspects of the proposal that have a significant effect on, e.g., highway safety or neighbour amenity (suddenly deciding to take a huge bite out of the pavement, for example).
I assume that as part of the consultations with the applicant, the planning officer will indicate to them if the application, as it stands, has no realistic chance of approval. Applicants may then indicate that they’d like more time to go away and come up with a refinement of the proposal (creating a hole in the pavement, perhaps) or more evidence. If they tell the planning officer that they would rather take the extra time to do this and go to a later committee than face certain planning death at an earlier one, the determination period will be extended and they will have zero grounds for a non-determination appeal.
I think that it is hugely unrealistic for you to expect that people are going to suddenly become planning experts after less than 6 months as a councillor. You obviously expect every councillor to be an expert in every aspect of council business instantly. If we want anyone who is a vaguely ordinary member of the community to get involved and represent their area, these ridiculous expectations are clearly prohibitive and unrealistic. People grow and develop their understanding as a councillor – I certainly have done, and expect that this is the case for pretty much every other councillor.
I said that Cllr Moghadas had made more of a contribution than many Lib Dem councillors at full council. Obviously, since many Lib Dems have never said anything at full council at all ever, and at her second meeting Zoe asked a very pertinent question about an important issue in her ward, then seconded a motion, she clearly has made a perfectly decent contribution, superior to many Lib Dems who are her senior.
It is very easy to criticise from the outside, with no or little understanding of the personal circumstances, ward work and other issues that councillors face. If you think that the quality of councillors is so low Richard, I suggest that you put your head above the parapet and stand yourself, rather than sniping at everyone the whole time.
The full council meeting at which Cllr Moghadas asked her question on Seymour Court and seconded the motion on punt touting (requesting it be limited to the riverside) was her third proper council meeting, not her second.
That some LibDems are silent in full council for years after their election doesn’t excuse poor performance by others.
I do think councillors ought be able to contribute to debate from day one.
I think many electors wrongly assume that parties vet their council candidates and people they put forward will be able to fulfil the role. I think highlighting that this is not the case, and that the party system puts lots of dud councillors into office, is one of the ways that it will be possible to change the environment and make it easier for those who are not in the 1% of so of the population who are active political party members in Cambridge to get elected.
I don’t think what I’m doing is sniping. I think it’s reporting. I think Romsey residents will be interested to know one of their councillors had nothing to say on the question of Sainsbury’s application, which would have seen large vehicles unloading from Mill Road; something which many of them clearly strongly objected to.
‘Cllr Owers spoke in favour of retaining the leisure facility.’
Going to pay to make it a going concern then are they? That’s kind.
I doubt anyone is asking a councilor to be an /expert/ in six months but one /does/ expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of what can and cannot be given as a reason for refusing an application. It’s key part of what they do at meetings, after all.
I really think that you have little understanding of how difficult it is to get anyone to stand for the council at all, regardless of party. Given that councillors get a lot of abuse from some quarters for not being 100% perfect the whole time, often have family lives and commitments to honour, get (in Cambridge city at least) one of the lowest allowances of any local authority in the country, and have almost limitless commitments in terms of meetings, casework, and campaigning, it’s a constant surprise to me that anyone stands at all. I can only do it because I have a lot of flexibility in terms of time as a PhD student, no family of my own, extremely thick skin, and a strong notion of public service.
You think that the only council work that happens is in the meetings you attend as an observer. Well, you’re wrong, and because you have no experience of the actual hard donkey work of campaigning for elections and then doing the work of a councillor, you’re never likely to know. A hell of a lot goes on in terms of chasing up casework, knocking on doors to speak to residents, emailing officers and chasing them up on issues etc. I know that Zoe spends a lot of time doing that, and besides, judging her on the basis of a few meetings, and being so personally harsh, is unnecessary and frankly unfair.
Furthermore, if any non-political obsessive/ordinary person sees that any sign of weakness as a councillor merely gets them abuse and attacks for not being perfect, then we’ll never get any normal person, from any political party or independent, to stand. As I said before, it’s difficult to respect those who criticise from the sidelines without having the guts to actually put themselves forward for election. Answer my question – if you think the standard of councillors is so low, why don’t YOU stand and show us how it should be done?
I think it’s very brave of Cllr Owers to complain about the size of Cambridge City Councillor’s allowances given the current economic climate and the uproar at the allowance rise recently passed by the County Council.
It is not true that hardly anyone stands for election in Cambridge. All elections to the city council in recent years have been contested; in most cases by four or more candidates in each ward. This suggests that finding candidates isn’t as hard as Cllr Owers says.
I do understand that the political parties find it difficult to find high quality candidates and that is something which I seek to draw attention to.
I’ve said for some time that I would stand if nominated. I regularly make clear, in public, what my views are on various matters the council discusses, and put forward my views on how the city and country could be run better.
I have not suggested that. I don’t think it is helpful for others to try and state what I think, when I make my own views quite clearly known. However the key thing councillors do, which others can’t*, is participate in debate and vote at council meetings. That is where they ultimately execute the power which their electorates have given them.
*With the exception of co-opeted tenant reps on the housing committee and independent members of the standards board etc.
1) I am not complaining about the size of Cambridge City Council allowances. I am in favour of freezing them overall, in accordance with Labour Group policy. I was merely saying that the relatively low level of basic allowance is one factor (a relatively small one) that does not contribute towards the post of ward councillor being hugely attractive. That is why the Labour Group want to cut the allowances for executive councillors in order to fund boosting the basic allowance for all councillors, which would entail no overall increase in the amount spent on allowances.
2) You don’t seem to comprehend the reality of how standing for elections in Cambridge works. It is expected by the national policies of all 4 major parties that they will stand candidates in all wards in Cambridge. In most wards in Cambridge, the Greens and Tories do not stand a realistic chance, so they stand paper candidates, i.e. anyone who they can get to put their name on the ballot paper, who stand on the basis that they clearly will and can not win. It’s a matter of obligation and nothing more. In most wards only the Lib Dems and Labour have a decent chance, and so they are the only ones who stand serious candidates who are put forward on the basis that they might win. Beyond the 4 main parties, very few people in Cambridge stand. Usually, there are maybe 2 or so UKIP and far left candidates, and occasionally an independent. The UKIP and far left candidates have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, so frankly they could put up a hat-stand as a candidate and it would make no difference. At the last elections, 1 independent stood, and he was, to be honest, the kind of person that you cross the road to avoid; he wasn’t a serious candidate. So actually, finding people to stand who know that they have a serious chance of winning and becoming a councillor is difficult, for both Labour, the Lib Dems, and the Tories/Greens (in a few wards). Standing in a context in which you know that you have no chance and don’t seriously contest the ward it is not the same – it is going through the motions. The number of people who stand wanting/hoping to actually win in any one election year is remarkably small – maybe 25/30 in one year, of whom around 14 are usually sitting councillors.
3) Saying ‘you would stand if nominated’ is both absurd and naive. Candidates only ever stand if they actively make an effort to arrange people to nominate them. I would make a significant wager that no candidate in a British local election has EVER been successfully nominated on the basis of people spontaneously nominating them in an entirely unprompted manner. Councillors, both party-political and independent (e.g. John Hipkin) only ever get elected on the basis of a colossal amount of hard graft. In order to stand any chance of getting elected whatsoever, you have to sort out your nominations, then write, print and deliver leaflets, knock on doors in order to get a sense of people’s issues, then identify your supporters, deliver eve-of-poll/day-of-poll leaflets, then get volunteers to get your vote out. You make your well-researched and often insightful views known in no uncertain terms Richard, and that is welcome and interesting. But putting in the huge amounts of hard work to get elected, then do the job of representing your constituents and scrutinising or running the council, is quite a massive step up from that. Criticising local councillors and policies is fine and valuable. But it is a little difficult to take when people who have no experience of local democratic elections, nor of being a democratic representative, make criticisms that are based on quite unrealistic views of the realities of what councillors have to do and the situations in which they find themselves. I say this with the greatest respect for your views, merely hoping to point out some of the realities that everyone who wants to get involved in local electoral politics faces.
If your real issue is the dominance of parties over independents, then I am rather sceptical. Independents do have some success in many local authorities – when they are prepared to do the hard work and electioneering that every party candidate has to do to get elected. If they don’t win, it’s because they don’t have the activists and voters to do so because they simply are not well supported. That’s called democracy. They may have to a work a bit harder due to the core vote that parties tend to have, but it’s not impossible – John Hipkin won against an official Lib Dem candidate/machine because he did all of that work, in addition to having strong views about how the city should be run. Criticism about how things are run is severely blunted when the critics have no real intention of putting themselves forward as an alternative. Be the change you want to be in the world.
George, perhaps you are unaware that Phil Rodgers has offered to get Richard nominated for Arbury in May and that Richard has accepted?
See here and here. My objective is not to get Richard elected (though that would be interesting enough) but rather to seek to persuade him by means of a practical demonstration that he is wrong in believing that political parties are unnecessary in local government. Imagine the consequences if I succeed!
I too disagree with Richard about the place of political parties, which I think are much more important, relevant and even desirable, than he does.
However, some of the ways people criticise Richard, usually along the lines of “you’ve no idea how hard it is to be a councillor, give it a go yourself if you think you’re ‘ard enough”, are very silly and wide off the mark when he could give most councillors a run for their money in many ways.
I’m a Romsey resident and not a member of any political party.
For what it’s worth, I’d rather be represented by Zoe Moghadas than her predecessor, Raj Shah. Ex Cllr Shah has become so invisible that the Lib Dems had to re-use the same photo of him pointing a stick at the road in several different election leaflets.
In the absence of 42 Richard Taylors we’ll just have to make do with a combination of planning experts and normal people.
I’ve not seen Cllr Moghadas in action yet so I can’t comment but Cllr Shah seemed peculiarly out of his depth in council meetings even by the standards of your average backbench Liberal Democrat.
Speaking as the Labour candidate in Romsey prior to Zoe Moghadas, I’d like to echo the point about the difficulty of finding candidates who intend to win. Were it easy to find quality candidates, I would not have stood a snowball’s chance in hell of getting selected, because at the time of selection I was 23, unemployed and hadn’t been to Romsey more than half a dozen times in my life.
I dread to think how terrible I’d have been if I got elected. I think you may need to lower your standards to a more reasonable level. Still higher than me, not not as high.
I’d add that setting the bar so high is actually likely to discourage independent candidates. A lot of people stand because they’re known in their local area, they want to make a difference to their community and there is a particular issue they feel passionately about. Most of them will not also have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Town and Country Planning Act and if you expect them to you will kill their enthusiasm.
Whereas if you accept that people will take a little while to grow into the role, they will start to see the need for and logic behind the various rules and procedures and familiarise themselves with them accordingly.
I would much rather have an enthusiastic councillor who spends six months learning the ropes and making a reasonably small contribution to debate than a dessicated calculating machine who knows all the rules but does not engage with their electorate. The one can be fixed, the other cannot.
I think that’s commendably honest; perhaps recklessly so if you were planing on a future in the Labour party!
Despite your own admission you got almost a thousand votes. I doubt there were almost a thousand people in Romsey who wanted to be represented by someone who had only set foot in the ward a handful of times. As I’ve said I think the problem is that there is an assumption that parties vet candidates and electors can put their cross next to a party member without looking into the background and views of the individual themselves.
The problem is that candidates like you often do end up getting elected on the back of the party name.
I don’t think I’m asking too much. Remember this councillor, in office for six months, so not that new, didn’t say anything during a substantial debate on a matter clearly of interest to very many of her constituents.
I’ve never suggested it would be desireable for our councillors to have such knowledge; it certainly wouldn’t have been required for Cllr Moghadas to take part in the debate on the Sainsbury’s planning application.
I think that councillors ought organise councils so that those with little time and expertise can fulfil the role of councillors. I don’t want councillors to be experts, or professionals, I want them to be people who also do other things with their lives. I’ve been arguing this point a lot in the last couple of weeks in the context of the county council allowances rise debate.
====
The May 2010 Election Results in Romsey were:
source
Moghadas won in 2011 with 996 votes
For such a marginal ward, the choice for Romsey voters in 2010 was bizarrely rubbish, with all candidates apart from the Lib Dem living outside the ward, and with no obvious connection to it. I think Edward is being harsh on himself – he may actually have been the best candidate…
I’ve bumped into this Ed chap a couple of times: in the Guildhall public gallery and on the campaign trail. He’s a nice guy and seems to know his stuff regarding campaigning but on this particular point he is quite wrong: he is overestimating the quality of councillors in general and underestimating himself. I didn’t vote for him because I support Conservative policies not Labour ones but he would undoubtedly have been better than the elected Lib Dem.
re 25., Edward has a track record of being commendably honest. In the 2010 campaign I was surprised to see him admit “I can’t say that I expect to win” on his blog a couple of months before polling day – an unusual tactic in local elections.
I think the 2011 Romsey result was a bit of a surprise to both Labour and the Lib Dems, as was the extent of the collapse of the Lib Dem vote in the student wards.
Although reading what Edwards had to say about Nick Hillman on that blog post I’ll take back any positive sentiment towards Edward as Nick’s a brilliant bloke.
Yeah, I think I’d agree that I was unnecessarily harsh on Hillman, who was a good candidate and seemed personally pleasant based on the one occasion on which I met him. I’m going to use that post as more evidence of my general unsuitability.
I did get nearly a 1000 votes, but that was as much to do with general election turnout as anything else. We were relatively flat from 2009 and it’s never been a secret that a lot of people voting in local elections on general election days are purely voting for a party.
My point is that the selection in Romsey in 2010 was not made with a reasonable hope of victory. In 2011 it was and this certainly suggests that greater care was taken with the selection of candidates.
But enough of my personal shortcomings. From me, anyway – everyone else can continue. On the substantive issue, this was certainly an important planning decision, but not a close one. Ample reasons were given by other councillors, and as these will be written up by officers any individual contribution would not necessarily be noted. If Cllr Moghadas shared or agreed with the statements of other councillors, I don’t see that the residents of Romsey lost out in any real sense from her failure to note this duplication of opinion.
What’s more, the direct impact of this application on Romsey, though certainly noticeable, is not that significant, as most of the ward is already well-served by nearer shops and supermarkets and I doubt (as, evidently, do Sainsbury’s, who ought to know where their market will come from) that it would have attracted many customers from Romsey. If a Petersfield councillor had failed to contribute, that would be a real cause for concern, because it’s a very important issue there. That a councillor from another ward failed to note which of the several reasons raised for objecting she found most important strikes me as something less than a tragedy.
Edward, I don’t agree that being from a different ward is a good enough excuse. It wouldn’t be in any other committee and a Romsey councillor would expect councillors from other wards making decisions over Romsey to do so with all due care too.
What Edward says about limited impact on Romsey residents isn’t really correct, given that the major issue for most councillors was road safety. Road safety on this stretch of Mill Road is going to be pretty important for any Romsey resident going into the city centre, for example, or going to the shops in Petersfield, as I’m just about to do.
I don’t think that judging a fairly new councillor on whether they ask a question about a planning issue that has already been covered extensively in questions by four of your party colleagues (Cllr Moghadas was around the table from Clls Marchant-Daisley, Hart, Herbert, and Owers) is that useful. Given the (necessarily) hugely lengthy answers from the planning officer, I suspect I wasn’t the only person at the meeting to have been profoundly grateful that no more questions were asked. And the fact that she didn’t ask a question is not necessarily an indication of lack of understanding or interest.
Cllr Moghadas is active (compared with her predecessor)in other ward contexts which you probably aren’t aware of, Richard – attending residents’ association meetings, and meetings between EAC councillors, local community groups, and the planning dept, for example. As a Romsey resident of no political affiliation, I think she’s doing a pretty good job so far.
Generally, the EAC has benefitted greatly from quite a lot of new blood over the last 2 or 3 years – a lot of people who were at last week’s meeting remarked on the improved standard of councillor contributions compared with, say, the Tesco-related meetings in 2008.
I agree that this application had a large impact on Romsey residents. It’s close to the ward border and on a route many residents of the ward will use regularly.
Cllr Moghadas didn’t just not ask a question of the planning officer; she made no contribution to the debate.
As for a contribition to residents associations; one point is that councillors need to fulfil the role they’ve been elected to – saying they do lots of other good stuff doesn’t mean they should avoid criticism for their role as a councillor.
Another point is that residents associations are given huge influence in Cambridge by the Liberal Democrats. I think this is often undue influence. I would like to see more of the city’s residents associations operate in an open, transparent, and public manner.
“residents associations are given huge influence in Cambridge by the Liberal Democrats” – not in Romsey! The residents’ association was inactive for years until started up again earlier this year. It’s open to anyone who lives in the ward, and anyone can come to meetings – I don’t see how it could be any more open without ceasing to be a residents’ association.
On Cllr Moghadas: as you’ll see, I didn’t actually suggest that her presence at residents’ association meetings was a substitute for her official role. What I said was that she has been (so far) a good ward councillor in other contexts, of which that is merely one. Suggesting that her competence as a councillor could be measured by her relationship to residents’ association meetings is as absurd as suggesting it could be measured by whether she asked a question or made a point 2 hours into one meeting when a very large number of pertinent issues had been raised by her party colleagues.
Clearly, if she never utters a word in any council meeting that will be a matter of concern, but we need to wait and see on that. And again, I doubt that many Romsey residents at that meeting would have thanked her for asking a question just to prove that she was in command of the issue. The reaction from people around me when, at about 9.45 – after the chair had asked councillors to move to a vote – Cllr Hart decided to come back with more questions for the planning officer, didn’t suggest that an even longer meeting would have been enthusiastically received.
Dear Richard,
I am somewhat bemused that the debate about my action, or perceived inaction, at the Sainsbury’s debate appears to rage on and thought I should set out my position.
As I pointed out during our discussion, I find that council meetings are often unnecessarily long with councillors feeling the need to make speeches setting out points that have already been well made. I do not wish to partake in such political grandstanding and if a Labour, Liberal, Green or Independent councillor make the points I wish to raise then I see little reason in replicating same for my own personal gain, or “just for the sake of it”.
I considered each and every of the great many e-mails and conversations I had with residents; listened carefully to the debate; and relied on my own experiences of having lived in Romsey for over 13 years before voting against allowing Sainsbury’s into Mill Road. When submitting my vote, in accordance with the rules, I set out my reasons.
As a side issue, I have noted that many members of the public are dissuaded from even attending our meetings as they are put off by both the length of time they take, and the fact that they often run until midnight. As a working teacher and mother,I understand only too well how difficult it is to juggle your time so as to be able to attend these meetings. I wish to make council meetings a venue where local residents feel able to attend to watch, and engage with, a dynamic debate as opposed to repetition and overly long meetings.
Sometimes “less is truly more”.
I hope this clarifies my position and that no one else feels the need to jump to my defence!
And finally, please let me assure Ruth and others that I have indeed spoken publicly at both full council and East Area committee.
Regards,
Cllr. Zoe Moghadas