Forum Topic

Tesco Express London Rd

We residents who live above this shop are fed up with several things, we have twice Wrote to the store manager with NO reply and emailed head office twice they replied stating they would get back to us within 10Days.We have Written to Head Office with our complaint and still No reply.It seems they care about Profit not their Neighbours.What we are disgusted about.1. Lorries turning up to make Deliveries before the time they are allowed to by the Council 8am - 8pm some mornings they do deliveries at 0630 they are VERY noisy and it wakes up people who's bedrooms are above where the Truck Parks.We have notified the Councils but nothing has been done.2. Customers parking in front of our Front Communal door.This is a Health and safety issue as the door serves as a Fire Exit.Tesco are responsible for the Front Forecourt and for their Customers.We have a Single mum and a Disabled Resident who sometimes cant use the Front door because of Vehicles parking in front off our door.We asked Tesco to put a sign up telling their customers not to park in front off our door and they have ignored us.3. Big Metal trolleys at the Back of the Property.Sometimes there can be up to 30 Tall Trolleys at the back which they place half in our car park and sometimes they block are Back stairs when you tell them to move them they don't.4. Rubbish Bin.At the side of their store they have a large container Bin which is kept behind a tall wooden fence and gate, this Gate is always opened which allows kids to go in and pull stuff out of the Bins.We have asked Tesco to start padlocking the Gate, as a child could one day fall inside the Bin.5. Out Of date Bakery Items.Tesco do not place this in their Bin they place it ion a small open trolley which can cause Rats and Mice which they seem to not care about.6. Lastly a couple years ago tesco placed a air vent pipe in our communal area and the residents say they were not asked or notified about this.Now there is Damp around the Pipe.We Feel Tesco should sort out all these issues.

Simon Anderson ● 5932d146 Comments

On Monday myself and some Neighbors of mine met with the Landowner Downstairs who was very pleasant.He recognized our problem with Customers parking in front off our Black Communal door and has promised that in November he will pay to have a Yellow "No Parking Box" painted in front off the door and have a couple professional signs made up. He stated if that does not work after a Month he will have Rails put up either side off the entrance to the Door.I spoke to him about the empty unit and all the posters on the windows, he stated the unit belong to Tesco and its there Responsibility, When i came up stairs i emailed Craig Williams the Area manager to ask him why these posters have not been removed after he promised to get it done 2 months ago and if he can not arrange someone to do it i would.We then went around the back with the Landowner to discuss the Back Car Park, he told us that he owned the land but to put a chain across and for us to have Keys would mean if e moved we still had rights to park there or if he wanted the land back it would be hard for him to do so, so he suggested he would talk to his Solicitor about drafting up contracts for each Tenant where we pay £1 a year to park there, if we move we have to hand Keys back or if he wants the Land back he could so we agreed.Finally i told him the Local Police was doing a good Job, as they have been down here a few times and placed Tickets on Cars who block the entrance downstairs, he state the Police CAN NOT do this as its Private Land and NOT part of the Highways and therefore if any driver gets a ticket they have grounds NOT to pay.Lastly i checked the Leak that was mentioned earlier in this thread, upstairs there is a Black Pipe and it is supposed to hang over the opening off the Drain Pipe but it wasn't i have re positioned it but i feel the kids will probably move it again.

Simon Anderson ● 5770d

In my view, many local planning authorities are poor when it comes to the wording of conditions imposed upon the granting of planning permission.  Sometimes this is because Officers don't really think through the wording and fail to heed the advice/six point test given in the relevant Government Circular (11/95) and sometimes it can be because Members overrule their Officers (both Planning and Legal) and impose absurd conditions that won't stand up.Thanks for the link to that article, I just read it.  I think it is rather OTT if I'm honest, and the comment from the Leader of North Norfolk District Council is, in my view, laughable - if there are sound planning grounds for refusing an application from any applicant, be it a multi-national company or Joe Bloggs, then the application should be refused on those grounds, without worrying about the potential of that applicant being awarded costs on appeal.  Costs are only awarded upon appeal if the Council behaves unreasonably in terms of either its conduct during the appeal proceedings or for refusing an application on grounds that simply can't be defended.The flip side of the coin which the article doesn't touch upon is that applicants often spend thousands of pounds getting a team of experts together to prepare and submit a planning application, all of the professional Officers support the proposal, and then it gets reported to Committee recommended for approval and you have Elected Members, the majority of which have no planning expertise and only limited knowledge/training, making the final decision, often completely disregarding the advice of professional officers and refusing the proposal, essentially because it keeps their local constitutents happy.  I've often heard such Members then say in committee "well let them appeal if they want to" but the reality is that some applicants are working on tight timescales and because a public inquiry is typically being determined in over 30 weeks rather than go through an appeal they will instead spend more money trying to tweak the scheme to keep those Councillors happy and hopefully get a decision at least a couple of months sooner.  So there is a flip side too.Not, I should stress, that I'm necessarily criticising Elected Members, I don't envy the balancing act they have to perform being making rational/reasonable decisions and trying to represent their local constituents, but having been sat on both sides of the fence I can't begin to explain how frustrating it can be when either Councillors vote not to take enforcement action on something you've worked hard on for months, or when Councillors refuse to grant planning permission for a proposal that has the full support of professional Officers and you know that decision could mean the client gives up and therefore you lose business as a consequence.

Adam Beamish ● 5841d

Can they argue that they've done everything to ensure compliance if they are still paying the invoices of the newspaper delivery company ?I still reckon that the absence of the cycle rack is also non-compliance. The old rack from the Osterley store was installed on the Teesdale Avenue side of the store (between the glass and the bollards) shortly after the store first opened. But then it was taken away. The comments quoted from Simon (posting 22/07/09 12:34):I met with the Area Manager and Store Manager this Morning regarding several Issues.I asked about Bike racks and the store Manager stated he had been there 2yrs and he has never seen a Cycle Rack.He stated the store is just over 3yrs old.The Area Manager showed me the Plans and there wasn't any on them either.As to Parking at Front Tesco only own the 3 Bays (which inc the Disabled Bay) the other bays are owned by the other Units.The parking in front off our Fire Exit is an issue that the Land Owner needs to sort out they told me.may imply that Tesco feel they have some responsibility for providing bike parking for their customers - but it may be that the plans held by the Area Manager were not the ones agreed with the Council and the original applicant for the planning permission."7. Before the development commences details of cycle parking shall besubmitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the spacesshown on the approved drawing shall be available for use before firstoccupation of any part of the developmentREASON: G2"(Thursday, 19 January 2006 7:30 pm, Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning))

Tim Henderson ● 5856d

TimI met with the Area Manager and Store Manager this Morning regarding several Issues.I asked about Bike racks and the store Manager stated he had been there 2yrs and he has never seen a Cycle Rack.He stated the store is just over 3yrs old.The Area Manager showed me the Plans and there wasn't any on them either.As to Parking at Front Tesco only own the 3 Bays (which inc the Disabled Bay) the other bays are owned by the other Units.The parking in front off our Fire Exit is an issue that the Land Owner needs to sort out they told me.As to Rubbish out front they are getting their Cleaners to come out and give the forecourt a good clean up.The empty unit next to them has been sold (to who i don't know) but they are going to get their cleaners to remove all the old posters on the windows on this unit.He told me the Bin by the door should not be left out over night and would ensure this doesn't happen as i informed him about the sightings of Rats.The Steel cages at back he said they will try to store as many of them inside but if they need to store at back they will ensure they are not on our part of car pk.as to the several customer trolleys these belong to the Osterly Store and will be returned asap.They cant provide a chain across the back to stop their customers parking in our car park they say thats down to the land owner.The Pipe in our Block they say is to do with the empty unit.The Newspaper (6am) and Magazine (1230am) Deliveries i suggested they deliver at the back door so its less noise to us residents he is going to get this sorted with the delivery companies.

Simon Anderson ● 5861d

Dear Ms FelsteadFurther to our conversation, I can confirm the action our Area Express Operations Manager is going to take as a matter of urgency to improve the situation for residents surrounding our Isleworth Express store.We understand that customers parking outside residents’ doors are an issue and will arrange for signs to be placed in this area asking our customers to park elsewhere. Staff will make every possible effort to enforce this.At present we are liaising with our Distribution Centre and suppliers to prevent early deliveries. This presents a particular challenge for our newspaper deliveries however we will do all we can do prevent the disruption this causes.I appreciate your concerns about items being taken form our bin. Regrettably it is impossible to lock this area during the night as the rubbish is uplifted at 4.30am. To prevent disruption, we will ensure this area is locked from 6am to 11pm each day. Under no circumstances should wasted bakery products ever be left exposed. From now on these will be placed in the bin and not on a dolly beside it.Having viewed an image of the store, I can see that a large area is being taken up by the cages we use to transport our products. We will seek to store these inside and if not possible, will collapse them so they take up a smaller area.Please be assured that it is never our intention to upset residents who live near our stores. I hope the above information will give you some assurance that we will do everything possible to minimise disruption.Kind RegardsAngela GorrieCustomer Service Executive

Sarah Felstead ● 5873d

The normal procedure for enforcing planning conditions is by way of what is (highly originally) known as a Breach of Condition Notice (BCN) under Section 187 of the T&CP Act 1990 (as amended in 1991).In simple terms, if the Council consider that a condition imposed upon the granting of a planning permission is being breached, then it serves a BCN.  Once  the BCN has been served the Council has to, by law, give a period of at least 28 days before the BCN takes effect.  This period is because unlike most statutory planning notices there is no right of appeal to the Secretary of State, the notice can only be challenged through the courts on a legal technicality etc.Once the BCN takes effect, the recipient is then committing a criminal offence if there is any further non-compliance with the BCN.  The maximum fine, upon summary conviction in a magistrates court, for non-compliance with a BCN, is Level 3 on the standard scale (used to be £1000, is now £2500).BCN's aren't exactly the most effective weapon in the planning armoury, they are fine for dealing with minor issues like the lack of obscure glazing in a residential extension, but not the more major breaches.  The 28 days before they can take effect is also a major problem, as I've mentioned on here before I never understand why Councils impose conditions on planning permissions relating to hours of construction, because the BCN powers are totally useless in this regard, even when a notice is served a recipient could work 24/7 and under planning legislation there's nothing the Council could do for that 28 days (hence why such matters are usually dealt with by the Environmental Protection legislation).Simon should be talking to my successor, Gerard McCormack, who's the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer at LBH - I suspect Councillor Hardy has already spoken with Gerard about this.

Adam Beamish ● 5903d

Adam, thanks for posting the link to the appeal decision on extending the delivery times.How does Simon go about enforcing the planning conditions on Tesco ?Is there a commercial equivalent of an ASBO which gives the company a slap on the wrist while warning them of more severe consequences if they do it again ?I would agree that following the succession of applications, refusals and appeal, they would be unlikely to be successful.(Interesting that the history doesn't apply to the betting office - if I've read it correctly. I wonder if they could take in the Sunday papers and then smuggle them next door !)----------------------------------------------------Extracts from decsion notice:The condition in dispute is No 3 which states that: No deliveries shall be taken at ordespatched from the site outside the hours of 8am to 8pm nor at any time on Sundays,Bank or Public Holidays.Decision1. I dismiss the appeal.17. During my morning site visit I witnessed a delivery to the store. The vehiclearrived around 0750 and parked in front of the store with its engine switchedoff. Unloading of the delivery began just before 0800. Metal cages with goodswere put onto the tailgate and lowered to ground level. Empty cages or cages with waste were loaded onto the lorry for removal. The delivery lorry left ataround 0830. I observed the delivery from the corner of London Road andTeesdale Avenue, outside Milestone Court. I was able to clearly hear the noiseof the tailgate being raised and lowered and the rattle of the delivery cages asthey were moved from the delivery lorry into or out of the store, above thetraffic noise on London Road.19. The owner of Flat 5 Teesdale Court stated that the delivery noise could beheard within that flat, which is towards the western end of the block. In myview, due to the proximity of delivery lorries to the front elevation of thebuilding, the movement of the tailgate and metal cages being delivered andtaken from the store is also likely to be audible within the residential unitsdirectly above the parade of shops, even with their windows closed. Whenwindows to the flats are open the noise and disturbance experienced would begreater. The extension of delivery hours on Mondays to Saturdays wouldincrease the time when occupiers of Teesdale Court were disturbed bydeliveries, which would harm their living conditions.21. I therefore find that the proposals would harm the living conditions of theoccupiers of Teesdale Court. This would be contrary to the objectives ofPolicies ENV.B.1.1 and ENV.P.1.5 of the Hounslow Unitary Development Plan2003 which seek to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers.

Tim Henderson ● 5903d

I didn't mention in my posting of excerpts from the Jan 2006 planning decision the restriction on unloading times (no deliveries before 8am). I was reminded of this as I hoiked my bike onto the wall to lock it to the stair railings at 7.24am this morning (after voting) and the British Bakeries lorry pulled up at my back!Thanks to Adam for pointing out the subsequent application dealt with at the November 2006 IBAC Planning meeting. That sought to change the delivery point from the roller shutter doors in the back of the store to the front door and in so doing it removed 7 car parking spaces. The application also sought to extend the delivery term an hour earlier to 7am.The officer's report suggested agreeing the application - but my reading of the minutes is that Phil Andrews argued against changing the conditions on delivery time and Matt Harmer suggested splitting the application, allowing the front door delivery but refusing the extended times.It appears that the front forecourt area is within the curtilage of the development appplication - but presumably it is meant to be managed by the shadowy unknown freeholder rather than Tesco, who only have one of the four units.What sanctions are able to be exercised against the shadow ?If the conditions are not met, can the council enforce that deliveries revert to the back of the store ?And how can I get the shadow to provide six bike parking stands and two disabled car parking bays ?I hope Simon added this morning's bread van to his diary of out-of-hours deliveries (and if he has a moment to pop down to the Civic Centre in office hours and see if he can get a glance at the application drawings ? Boreham's Drawing No 205232/6/A ? I'd be interested in how the scheme (and the bike park) was supposed to work).Tesco appear to have put in several more recent applications for extended hours deliveries and it seems something they are keen to get legally. (The planning index seems to indicate that they may have appealed against the Council's refusal but I couldn't see a record of the appeal result.) I wonder what the chances are of Simon and the tenants negotiating a decent outcome where they trade a modest extension in delivery times (7.30 ?) in exchange for proper signage for proper car parking spaces, protection of the front door, a bike park for me and .............The agenda report included :4.5 It is now proposed that servicing vehicles will utilise the two existing crossovers adjacent to the London Road frontage and deliver to the front of the shops. An existingcrossover would be closed. A row of five car parking spaces on the frontage would be created to allow a delivery vehicle to access the service road and exit in a forwardmanner. A one-way system would be implemented. The reduction in the frontage parking would reduce the overall number of parking spaces for the four units from 30 to 23. Two spaces for people with disabilities and six cycle parking spaces are to be provided. 7.4 UDP parking standards would require 14 spaces plus loading and unloading space for the four retail units and there would be 23 spaces provided on the overall site. Themajority of the spaces are now proposed to the rear with a reduction in the number on the frontage that would alleviate noise and disturbance to residents living above. Cycle parking would be provided. Minutes:Members were informed that there were 12 flats above the application site and that the rear of the site would be laid out for parking, but that only part of this had been completed to date. The Planning Department had also requested that the existing “Tesco Only Parking” sign be removed. Referring to the addendum report Cathy Gallagher confirmed that there was no evidence of that vehicle deliveries had been made out of hours in the past.Councillor Reid drew attention to photographs submitted by a local resident, showing a large Tesco delivery van, the top of which was level with residents’ windows on the upper floors. Councillor Hibbs agreed that this sized delivery van seemed excessively large for such a small store. Cathy Gallagher suggested that any restriction on the size of the delivery van would only be governed by the size of the available parking/ loading space and was outside the planning remit.Councillor P. Andrews proposed refusal of the officer’s recommendation, on grounds that the original conditions had been imposed to protect residents and Tesco had not demonstrated to date that it could mitigate the impact on residents. Councillor Harmer requested a separation of the two variation requests, supporting refusal of the variation to Condition 3 and moving approval of Condition 6, which members supported.  Resolved:That the variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 00707/317-331/P2 (change of use from car dealership to 4 x A1 retail units) to allow for the relaxation of hours of servicing to allow deliveries between 7.00 and 20.00 Monday to Saturday and 10.00 and 16.00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays be refused, on grounds that it would lead to intensification of activity and further impact on local residents. That the variation of Condition 6 of planning permission 00707/317-331/P2 (change of use from car dealership to 4 x A1 retail units) to allow the loading, unloading and turning and parking spaces to be laid out without accordance with the approved servicing and parking plan be approved, subject to the completion of the parking layout to the rear of the building and the removal of the “Tescos Only Parking” sign.

Tim Henderson ● 5908d

Tim/Simon/all,Interesting points.  Looking at Hounslow's online planning history this shows that in October 2006 permission was granted for a new shopfront, ATM and external ramp (ref. 00707/317-331/P5) and then in November 2006 the Council granted permission (ref. 00707/317-331/P6) for the requirements of condition 6 imposed upon the granting of the original P2 permission, relating to car parking, turning area etc, to be revised in accordance with a newly submitted drawing.What I'm not clear on is whether, as required by Condition 4 (recycling details) and Condition 7 (cycle parking) of the original P2 permission, details to satisfy either condition were ever submitted and approved in writing by the Council.They don't come up on the postcode planning search via Hounslow's website, despite the other applications I refer to above appearing.  There could be a simple explanation, as not every Council treats (or treated back in 2006) applications to discharge details required to satisfy a condition as a fresh application, or alternatively it could be that, given the fact the Council's planning history service has only recently gone online, as yet details relating to conditions discharges haven't been uploaded onto the website.The only way to know for sure there is to visit the Council offices and ask to see the relevant files and planning decision notices.Re. the parking blocking Simon's entrance, that is I believe outside the curtilage of the application site, so there's no way of Tesco controlling that particular area, hence why it can't be covered by planning controls.  If the cars aren't trespassing on land, the only legal breach I can imagine existing would be something in the deeds and covenants that requires the occupiers of the flats to have unimpeded access to their properties, but that would be controlled via civil legislation, not by the Council.Adam

Adam Beamish ● 5909d

Thank you for your contribution, George.Moving on,I finally got a chance to look at the IBAC meeting where the application was granted.Thursday, 19 January 2006 7:30 pm, Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee (Planning)It was before Jon Hardy's time, but Phil Andrews was at the meeting.http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/Published/C00000236/M00002971/AI00022739/$317331LondonRoad.docA.ps.pdfcontains the officer's report.Extracts include:7.9 An existing enclosed rubbish area in the rear parking area would be retained and acondition would be imposed requiring the provision of recycling facilities. It is notconsidered that the disposal of rubbish would harm neighbours living conditions.Parking and access7.8 UDP parking standards would require 14 spaces plus loading and unloading space andthere are currently 30 spaces provided on the site. A condition requiring cycle parkingprovision would be imposed.7. Before the development commences details of cycle parking shall besubmitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the spacesshown on the approved drawing shall be available for use before firstoccupation of any part of the developmentREASON: G2The meeting minutes record :Members were assured that the applicant would be required to resubmit a formal request to the Council, should any future requests for changes of use be necessary.  It was also confirmed that the management of the on site car parking facilities would be the responsibility of the site owner.  Members noted support for the application, particularly in light of the efforts made to market the site (4.2 of the report) and the available public transport links. Resolved:That the application number (00707/317-331/P2) (P/2005/1970) for the change of use from car dealership to four A1 retail units be approved, subject to the conditions in the report.--------------------------------------------------------So my questions would be:What happened to the cycle parking ?What was agreed  and where is it ?andWho on earth is the site-owner who is responsible for the management of the car parking ? And shouldn't he be doing something to prevent the cars blocking Simon's entrance ?

Tim Henderson ● 5909d

About the landscaping, from what I read of the original report of the Planning Officer to committee, it confirms that the forecourt is not in Tesco's ownership, hence why the Council was unable (in law) to impose any conditions relating to landscaping etc (it would be like me getting planning permission for an extension subject to a condition that required me to plant some trees on someone else's land whether they wanted the trees or not).Really, other than the delivery issue, this is a civil matter between the residents, Tesco and the freeholders of the land concerned.Re. the delivery issue, the Council can enforce by way of a Breach of Condition Notice.  Not the most powerful piece of ammunition in an Enforcement's Officer weapons collection - if such a Notice is served it cannot take effect for at least 28 days, so for 28 days the planning system can't do anything, even if the Notice has been served.  After the 28 days, if there's evidence that the hours are still being breached, then the landowner can be taken to court, although the fines are fairly small.Old petrol stations turning into car washes is a problem across the country - in planning terms it's slightly questionable whether it amounts to a change of use, and even if it does Councils are hard pressed to refuse applications as its hard to argue what increase in harm is generated by the use of a site as a car wash compared to a petrol station.  Of course, residents stop complaining about the car wash when a developer dares to submit an application for residential development on the site !.Technically the adverts will probably require express consent, assuming they don't relate to the car wash.

Adam Beamish ● 5912d

Sarah And TimThis is a email i got weeks ago from the Senior planning officer at Hounslow Council:1:  The application for planning permission to change the use of this car showroom was first submitted on 30 June 2005.  Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee approved the application on 19 January 2006.    The application showed 11 forecourt parking spaces. Tesco (who were not the original applicants) subsequently occupied Nos 317-323 following further applications, one of which amended the car parking layout (reducing the number of forecourt parking spaces to 6) and provided for loading and unloading at the front of the shop and was, again, approved by Committee.  I attach a copy of the approved layout.    A subsequent amendment provided for the temporary closure of some of the forecourt parking spaces so that Tesco lorries could pull over and not obstruct the through access.  It also made minor changes to the parking layout, but did not put any bays in front of the building (I attach an extract).  They remained on the other side adjoining the public footway. 2:  Responsibility for the forecourt is not a matter on which the Council can advise you, but the land in front of the Tesco Store does appear to be owned by Tesco.  If parking is taking place other than in the approved bays, I suggest that you take the matter up with them and refer to your own lease to establish what rights you have to pass and re-pass over the forecourt.  We have no planning powers to control this, I am afraid.  The ownership of the rest of the forecourt is not clear to me, but is most likely the freeholder's, the other units probably being leased. 3  A condition of the consent is that deliveries and collections may only take place after 8 am and before 8 pm and not at all on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.  Tesco applied in 2007 to vary that condition, seeking to bring forward morning delivery times to 7 am and to include Sundays and public holidays.  The Council refused permission.  Tesco appealed to the Secretary of State against our decision and the appeal was dismissed.  I attach a copy of that decision. 4:  If trucks arrive at the site before 8 am (to Tesco or any of the other units) or after 8 pm, or at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, can you please keep a diary of these occurrences and send them to our Enforcement Team (email address above)?  Please note which units they are delivering to/collecting from, the time of day and the company name on the delivery truck. We will approach Tesco or the other occupiers and, if they do not stop doing it, we will consider taking enforcement action to secure compliance with the condition.As you can see Tesco is responsible for the Forecourt but in the letter i recvd from Tesco Head office its nothing to do with them.I have written to them again and enclosed photos this time.They also promise to sort Trolleys out but yet again they have failed to do so.Sarah most off us sleep in the Front which is nosier especially when they get deliveries there is always shouting and banging and thats done by the staff.I feel it would be better if they took deliveries at the back.As to the Bin at the side of the building still no padlock on the gate.Tesco don't give a dam about Residents its about time they listen and do something about this.You are right about the door and the Safety issues that you have raised but Tesco don't care maybe they would if one of their customers kill 1 off us.

Simon Anderson ● 5913d