MILL ROAD SOCIETY OBJECTION TO 14/0964/FUL This document constitutes the objection by the Mill Road Society to the application 14/0964/FUL, Change of use from Pool and Snooker Club to A1 (Shops). The Mill Road Society is a formally constituted community group, established in 2007. Its objects are: To promote the interests of Mill Road; To promote the vitality and viability of independent traders on Mill Road; To work with local councillors and council officers to ensure the views of local residents are represented in planning decisions affecting Mill Road. We object to the application on the following grounds: 1. By confining the application to Change of use only, much of the accompanying arguments are irrelevant as the Applicant admits that any changes or impacts would require separate planning permission or conditions once the occupier is known. 2. The application, if approved would involve the loss of the only leisure facility on Mill Road, with impacts stated in Cambridge Local Plan 2006 Policy 6/1 (‘Protection of Leisure Facilities’) and re-stated in Policy 73 ('Community, sports and leisure facilities') in the emerging 2014 Local Plan. 3. The application, if approved, would result in the site being serviced by vehicles stopping on Mill Road several times a day, posing a potential hazard to highway safety, both on the carriageway and on the footway, in a known accident blackspot, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan Policies 8/2 (‘Transport Impact’), 8/4 ('Walking and Cycling Access') and 8/9 (‘Commercial Vehicles and Servicing’). 4. Approval of the application, which makes no provision for car parking, would lead to increased pressure on limited car parking in the area and would be very likely to increase the incidence of dangerous and illegal parking on Mill Road. In this respect, the proposals are not compatible with Cambridge Local Plan Policy 8/2 (‘Transport Impact’). 5. The application provides no information concerning the possible installation of externally venting refrigeration or air conditioning systems so the noise impacts of the proposed application cannot be assessed. No acoustic assessment of the noise caused by deliveries has been included. For both of these reasons, the application is incompatible with Cambridge Local Plan 4/13 (‘Pollution and Amenity’). The unknown nature or business of the occupier, the removal of the only leisure facility on Mill Road, the impact of inevitable obstructions to the highway caused by delivery vehicles and cars visiting the store, and other aspects of the proposed operation would undermine the vitality and viability of the Mill Road centre, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan Policies 6/7 (‘Shopping Development and Change of Use in District and Local Centres’) and be to the detriment of 'its unique character' as outlined in policy seeking 'to safeguard the independent, cosmopolitan feel of the street' in the Mill Road Opportunity Area in the emerging 2014 Local Plan and its status as a Conservation Area. We reserve the right to augment our objection after the consultation closing date if further documentation and evidence is submitted regarding this application.

1 WHO IS THE OCCUPIER? It is disingenuous and misleading for the Applicant to trawl through the previous refusals of applications, the appeal decision and policy documents to justify their argument for planning permission for a Change of Use to Class A1 in the absence of a known named occupier of the building. In this regard, the application states: 1.3 The occupier of the proposed Class A1 use is unknown at this stage. 1.6 Any subsequent alterations to the building would require separate planning permission … once the occupier is known. 2.6 It is likely that the internal layout and exterior of the building would need to be altered for alternative purposes requiring planning permission but these are not part of the application to be decided once an occupier has been identified. 2.8, and again at para. 4.30, the Applicant states that as no external alterations to the building are proposed in the application, there would be no impact on the conservation area. There is no basis for this claim given the unidentified occupier. 4.28 The Applicant considers that the proposed mix of retail uses would contribute to the vitality and attractiveness of the local area. How can this be judged without a known occupier? [our emphasis] 4.29 Policy 3/15 stating shopfronts and signage should contribute to the design and characteristics of the building and its surroundings. How can this be determined in the absence of an occupier? 4.36 quotes Policy 6/7 on Shopping development and Change of use in District and Local Centres, “Additional development with classes A1–A5 will be permitted … if it will serve the local community and is of an appropriate nature and scale to the centre …” How can this be known in the absence of a named occupier? [our emphasis] 4.39 admits that ‘the size of the existing building is slightly larger than other units in Mill Road …” and para.4.40 argues that Policy 6/8 allows additional convenience shops below 1,400 sqm and they are well within that limit. These two paragraphs lend support to the idea that the unknown occupier could well be Sainsbury’s or another supermarket-brand convenience store. 4.43 deals with the Cumulative Impact Zone, maintaining that the A1 shop could still apply for an alcohol license if it can be shown that it will not add to problems associated with the cumulative impact and that this is, in any event, the decision of the Licensing Authority. However, the Licensing policy (8/10/12) para. 5.10 creates a rebuttal presumption in CIZs, which include Mill Rd, and in the proceedings during the application by Tesco on Mill Rd, it was clear that on-street drinking and off-sales were a particular problem the CIZ was designed to address. Both the police and traders opposed the granting of a license. The area to the west of Mickey Flynns by the public toilets has street furniture where consumption of alcohol bought from an A1 shop would inevitably attract street drinkers and clutter. The rejection of the license for Tesco is a good indicator of the view taken by the Licensing Authority and the police to supermarket convenience stores who offer cheap alcohol, as a result of their aggressive buying power. The naming of the occupier is essential to any reasonable appraisal of the risks. The Transport Policy discussed in paras. 4.44–4.50 and the Transport Statement provided for the Applicant by TPA are totally dependent on who the occupier is, so any

comments in this planning application are purely hypothetical, full of general assumptions about possible servicing and delivery and other transport impacts. These will be discussed in detail below. In the Summary, para 5.3 again states that this application is for Change of Use only and there is no named occupier. All of this is of great significance since all of the arguments based on planning documents on the impact on highway safety, the Conservation area, the Cumulative Impact Zone and the viability and vitality cannot be reasonably examined without a named occupier and a knowledge of their nature of their business. Should a Change of Use be approved, the planning system is unable to restrict development on the basis of the operator and whether they are a small independent or a national retailer. Separating the Change of Use from the intended occupier makes a mockery of the planning system. This is why the rejection of the new planning application 14/0964/FUL is so critical. We plan to show that the inclusion of Mill Road as a Conservation Area (and the proposed designation as an Opportunity Area) requires that consent for changes of use should not be approved unless all appropriate issues have been addressed and their impacts on the building and area are felt to be acceptable. This is clearly not the case without a named occupier. 2 LEISURE The application is for change of use from class D2 to A1. We object to this proposal because it would result in the loss of the only leisure facility on Mill Road. This would have a significant negative impact on local residents and on the vitality and viability of the wider area. The Cambridge Historic Core Appraisal (2006) para. 5.6.6 on Providing Facilities for Teenagers said that surveys carried out by the City Council suggest that there is a lack of facilities for teenagers in the city. This appraisal informed the Local Plan (2006) Policy 6/1 and 6/2. This remains the case in 2014 particularly in local centres. Mickey Flynn’s provides leisure facilities in the local community at a reasonable cost, and has functioned as a meeting place in a safe club environment. The venue offers a unique sport that appeals to young people, particularly young men. It is competitive, cool and is accompanied by a social scene that is unique. As a community we need this venue. The only alternatives, such pubs, are not constructive leisure sporting options such as this. Sitting at the centre of Mill Road, between Petersfield and Romsey, as well as the station, it has been used by a wide range of local residents and visitors to the area, particularly in the evenings, contributing to the nighttime economy. In 2007, MF hosted the inaugural Grand Masters 8-Ball Open, featuring the best UK and European players. It was a popular venue with key national players regularly competing, until the owner started the planning application process for Change of Use to a Sainsbury’s Local in 2011. Since then there is the distinct feeling that the venue has been run down and hours and days of opening have recently been further reduced. We would dispute that this was inevitable and feel it has been a deliberate policy to support these applications. The Applicant makes much play of the conditions placed on the successful change of use application from a Carpet Warehouse in 2001. He maintains that if the snooker/pool hall ceased operating … the preferred reuse would be retail rather than more intensive leisure use. But Condition no. 2 was attached to ensure that the ‘level of movements’ for

this leisure use was within anticipated levels and not excessive for the area. Yet his first planning application for change of use in 2011 was for a Sainsbury’s Local, which would have massively increased the level of movements. The plans for servicing and deliveries to the front of the store on a busy and narrow arterial road out of Cambridge were judged to have huge impacts on highway safety, with road hazards to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. It could not have been in the mind of the planning department or area committee that this was preferable to other leisure uses. The Applicant cites the NPPF (2012) with its general presumption in favour of development and for retail uses in district centres, without consideration of the unique character of Mill Road with its independent shops and its distinctive community, without providing any evidence that the change of use would satisfy the requirements of ‘sustainable development’, i.e. what ‘sustainable development means in practice. The NPPF document defines Sustainable to mean ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations and Development as growth. It states that sustainable development is about change for the better and that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable growth. Based on this presumption, the Inspector in the 2013 Appeal gave little weight to Local Plan Policy 6/1 (Protection of Leisure Facilities). Yet para.12 of the NPPF document under Achievement sustainable development states:

This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved [this does not – MRS], and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise [there are none – MRS].

Para. 70 of the NPPF under Promoting healthy communities states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should “plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments”. [our emphasis] This is why our local community values a leisure venue in and amongst the other A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 class uses; a sports venue that is easily accessible within our local centre by walking and cycling and not by travelling into another part of the city to Cambridge Leisure or Kelsey Kerridge. Instead, the Inspector concentrated on whether there was a day-to-day need for this facility and considered that leisure facilities outside our community were sufficient to our needs. In para. 2.12 of this application, the Applicant goes on to suggest that “Cambridge Leisure also has ample parking, which is often important for the success of leisure-related uses”, unlike the more sustainable access to Mickey Flynn’s. Both Cambridge Leisure and Kelsey Kerridge also charge much higher prices for use of their facilities and have a completely different feel to Mickey Flynns. Neither of them offer snooker or pool. Policy 73 of the emerging Local Plan re-states the argument made in 6/1 of the 2006 Local Plan regarding loss of facilities: The loss of a facility or site that was last in use as a community, sports or leisure facility will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that “the facility/site can be replaced within the new development or relocated to at least its existing scale, range, quality and accessibility for its users”. [our emphasis]

We would argue that WTs is not a site of at least comparable quality and accessibility due to the lack of disabled access. This was pointed out in the earlier 2011 planning application. Had Dawecroft been serious about the transfer of all Mickey Flynn members to WTs, it could already have made provision for disabled users. It is interesting that in para. 15 of the Appeal decision [APP/Q0505/A/13/2192500], the Planning Inspector notes the Planning Officer’s report that “the number of current members who cannot use the stairs is likely to be small”. This is no justification for the failure to provide disabled access? The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled people from discrimination and provides legal rights in the areas of access to goods, services and facilities. Planning officers and inspectors should be taking disability rights into account in all their decisions. They should not be endorsing discrimination towards disabled groups or individuals. Mickey Flynn’s is predominantly an American Pool Hall with competition size tables, leagues and competitions. Coaching is available and it is considered to be an important venue for the sport. WTs has snooker, English pool and poker. We would argue that the customer base is very different. The Inspector goes on to say that ‘planning permission has been granted to extend WT’s. This would allow the installation of a lift and increase the capacity of the venue’. Instead this planning permission [05/0263/FUL], granted in March 2009, has recently expired and nothing was done to provide better access at WTs. In any event, that application was for extensions to the 2nd and 3rd storey of the building, not for improving access from street level. WTs provides neither ‘improved accessibility or, indeed, any accessibility. The principle that local communities need leisure facilities remains. Mixed uses in a District Centre like Mill Road West in which retail shops, businesses, residential and leisure uses are in close proximity to the community, enhance the quality of life for residents, traders and other users. There are no a priori grounds for assuming that the building would not be appropriate for any other leisure use, as indicated in 6/4. Indeed, before change of use to A1 was permitted in the 1980s, the building was a leisure facility of long standing (it had formerly been a dance hall). In Section 3.3 of the current application, Januarys state that in the successful 2001 Change of use application, additional conditions applied: Condition No.2 specifically restricted the use to a member’s only snooker/pool club and no other use within Class D2. Condition No.2 was attached to ensure that the level of movements is within the levels anticipated by the application and not excessive for the area. [our emphasis] The conditions were applied to prevent the servicing and delivery requirements for the leisure use from being ‘excessive for the area’, while A1 use, particularly for an unnamed occupier with unknown operations, would always pose greater problems of an entirely different order regarding highway safety to that of the current D2 use. We will discuss these below. It is also pointed out that additional planning permission would be required to change from a pool club to another D2 use, but this is no reason to suggest, as the Applicant does, that the site would be unsuitable for any other leisure use. It seems curious that the Applicant’s contention is that his need for change of use is, in itself, evidence for the unsuitability of another D2 use. The sole objective for Change of Use is to “consolidate [their] investment”, by operating only one of their current two clubs, WT’s in East Road.

Equally, there are no a priori grounds for assuming that the site would become (and remain) vacant. Given the popularity of the venue and the evident need for a leisure facility on Mill Road, there is no reason to think that other companies would be unwilling to take over the site. Indeed, there is some interest from within the existing Mill Road business and residential community for doing precisely this, should the current application be refused. The emerging Local Plan also restates the requirements for any application involving the loss of a leisure facility, which includes the requirement for the applicant to reveal details, of site marketing attempts made to attract other community uses for which the premises are suitable, including details of all offers received. In para 5.3 of Chapter 5 of the Issues and Options consultation document for the emerging Local Plan, the Mill Road Opportunity Area, states “that this area is slightly different to the others … in that it is not an opportunity for further development, but rather it is an opportunity for a new policy approach in order to maintain and enhance the distinctive character of the area.” It also sets out opportunities to improve the public realm. Finally, the application fails to meet the requirements of para. 128 of s.11 of the NPPF (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment): “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an Applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.” 103 Mill Road has been a valued leisure facility, contributing to the nighttime economy and providing a unique sports venue in a social club atmosphere. WTs at Burleigh Street does not provide an accessible alternative. The fact remains that consent for changes of use should not be approved unless all appropriate issues have been addressed and their impacts on the building and area are felt to be acceptable. 3 SERVICING AND DELIVERIES The change of use from D2 to A1 class use would necessarily have a significant impact on the servicing of the site, which in turn generates obvious transport impacts. There are two reasons for this:

A change of use from D2 to A1 would, in itself, lead to a change in the volume and pattern of servicing of the site. Any proposed development will require particular servicing patterns according to the nature of the retail business. A specific retail use is not indicated in the application, but a convenience food store is not ruled out. An earlier application for change of use was made with the sole and specific object of opening a particular store, a Sainsbury’s Local, which would have had a servicing pattern far in excess of anything mentioned in the current application. As change of use to A1 would allow a store such as Sainsbury's Local to be proposed, it is necessary to look at a worst case scenario servicing pattern when considering this application.

All other retail A1 units are shop units. This is a warehouse unit, the only one of its kind on Mill Road (described as a ‘negative building’ in the 2011 Conservation Area Appraisal). In its size and scale it is incompatible with other A1 retail units on the street, raising the question of what occupier would be interested in this warehouse. In fact, the Environmental Health consultee comments [14/0964/FUL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH–1546346] read as if the department were responding to the earlier application 11/0710/FUL for the Sainsbury’s Local, signaling approval with conditions around Construction, Noise Insulation, Waste or Commercial Waste and ‘Informatives’ around Food Safety, even stating “As the premises is intended to be run as a food business …”. The Applicant says that they intend to service this proposed store via a number of daily deliveries, all of which would be in vehicles no longer than 8.2 metres. It is stated that there would be two or three daily deliveries. No details are given regarding the potential time or duration of deliveries. Assertions in previous applications regarding number, length, and (therefore) timing of deliveries seriously underestimated both the number and duration of deliveries for a store such as a Sainsbury's Local. We consider servicing this site as a retail food store to be wholly incompatible with planning policy, including Policy 4/13 (Pollution & Amenity) and 4/14 (Air Quality Management Areas) and its Climate Change Strategy. 3.1 Number and duration of deliveries Any increase in the number of deliveries to the site is significant in itself, since the number of additional movements by large vehicles would have significant highway safety implications. Information regarding the number, location, timing and duration of deliveries is important because these are matters with a direct bearing on the transport impact of an application. The Applicant's Transport Statement mentions a Service Management Plan 'setting out details of permitted delivery times and procedures to reduce the risk to the driver, staff and members of the public during deliveries', but no such plan is included. Previous applications have stated that there would be no servicing deliveries from 2300 to 0700 and from 0830 to 2000. In this instance the Environmental Health response states that due to the closeness of residential premises, delivery hours will need to be limited further to avoid noise disturbance to the local residents and advises that no deliveries are carried out between 07.00 and 20.00 Mondays to Saturdays or between 09.00 and 12.00 on Sundays, which will need to be conditioned. 3.2 Proposed Servicing Bay (see attached photos: Appendix 1) The Applicant's transport statement, prepared by Transport Planning Associates (TPA), proposes an off-carriageway loading bay capable of accommodating a 7.5 tonne box van (8.2m in length) on the North side of Mill Road outside the premises 103 Mill Road. The statement admits that informal comments from the County Council questioned the safety of the proposal. This proposed loading bay (shorter than the 2011 application), again amounts to a partial diversion of the footway to allow vehicles to pull onto the current footway. Being on the public highway, it cannot be restricted solely to the servicing of the premises at 103 Mill Road. It is also highly likely that it will be used for servicing of shops opposite and for short-term illegal parking for use of the ATMs at Lloyd’s Bank. Cars travelling east down Mill Road might cross over the flow of traffic to enter and then exit to park temporarily in the layby.

The current drawings for the proposed loading bay are deficient in measurements so it is impossible to compute the true depth of the bay and whether this would be a full-width loading bay. In addition it should be noted that the Transport Statement's Appendix D includes a swept-path analysis of a 7.5 tonne box van demonstrating the proposed footway servicing option. There is no key given for the pathways but, assuming the red line to be the best case scenario and the green line giving a margin of error, it can be seen that even this smaller lorry would swing over the proposed designated footway inside the proposed loading area on arrival and swing into the opposite carriageway of Mill Road on leaving the site. Buses, 2.55 metres wide, pick up and set down passengers on the opposite (southern) side of the carriageway at this point taking up the whole carriageway. There also appears to be an area of adopted highway in the drawings, which is not mentioned in the TPA statement. Without knowing the occupier, it is impossible to assess whether this loading bay would be sufficient for their delivery requirements. The statement claims that the proposed bay would be according to "shared space principals" (sic). These principles are, however, misapplied. Shared Space is an urban design approach which seeks to minimise demarcations between vehicle traffic and pedestrians, typically used on narrower streets within the urban core and within residential areas where schemes are often motivated by a desire to reduce the dominance of vehicles, vehicle speeds, and road casualty rates. By contrast, this proposal enhances the rights of vehicles, by allowing them to impinge on footway currently exclusively for pedestrian use. Rather than enhancing the environment for pedestrians, as claimed in the statement, it would detract from the current experience for pedestrians, which is already difficult for many users. When in use by delivery vans (or misuse by illegally stopping cars), the proposal will force pedestrians to walk north and then east from the current footway. While Policy 23 of the emerging Local Plan calls for a more comfortable and simplified pedestrian environment with more generous pavements and more direct crossings that respond to key desire lines, these proposals do the opposite. The comparator sites cited in the statement bear little comparison to the traffic situation on Mill Road. Magdalene Street, Bridge Street and Sidney Street are all situated within the inner ring road and have traffic restrictions and/or traffic calming measures in place. In contrast, Mill Road is a major arterial route with many more vehicle movements, especially by cars. The photograph in Figure 4.1 of arrangements in Magdalene Street, shows a delivery van completely blocking the footway. Of most relevance to this application is the loading bay arrangement illustrated in Bridge Street. However this retains a permanent straight pavement inside the outer joint-use area, whereas the Mill Road proposal would oblige pedestrians to divert during servicing out of the direct desire-line of travel. Such an arrangement would be particularly hazardous for those with limited mobility, people who are blind or partially sighted, people pushing buggies or prams and children on school routes. The Transport Statement also claims that there are "good quality pavements on both sides of the road" at the site. In fact, the footway on the south side, opposite the proposed development, used to be of good quality but has been damaged by delivery vehicles to the detriment of pedestrians. On the north side, the footway is of varying

quality and varying widths. The statement admits that the 'pavement can be constrained in width in places’ but neglects to mention that the worst pinch point is directly east of 103 Mill Road at the western corner of 105 Mill Road where a lamppost is already situated in the middle of the footway and now an additional bollard is proposed. To the west of 103’s forecourt, the pavement is in a poor condition with uneven surfaces and different pavement textures. The report claims that there are good opportunities to cross the carriageway with both controlled and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. While there is a controlled crossing site to the west of the site, there are no safe crossing options to the east of the site where the junction with Kingston Street and Devonshire Road is located. This aforementioned junction has more traffic accidents than any other on Mill Road. Poor visibility for vehicles pulling out of Kingston Street is exacerbated by all manner of vehicles illegally turning right into Devonshire Road and bicycles turning left into Kingston Street. Pedestrians travelling west along the north side of Mill Road, would need to contend with an existing dangerous junction, an existing narrow footway, especially outside 105 Mill Road, an existing lamppost in the middle of the footway, a new bollard giving only 1.5m access width, and a need to avoid stationary or moving delivery vehicles impeding a straight 'desire line' for walkers, with no option of safely crossing over to the south side of Mill Road at the Kingston Road junction. Policy 23 of the emerging 2014 Local Plan states that improvements should "create a more simplified pedestrian environment by providing more generous pavements and more direct crossings that respond to key desire lines". This proposal does the opposite by reducing the width of the pavement. The section in the emerging Local Plan 2014 dealing with the Mill Road Opportunity Area acknowledges that "Mill Road is an extremely busy, narrow road and there are conflicts between cars, buses and cyclists. In places, the pavements are narrow and cluttered with signs, lampposts and parked bicycles, making it difficult to move along them, particularly with a pram or wheelchair." Emerging policy "seeks to encourage improvements to the public realm to ensure that any development proposals in the area contribute to them". The problems presented by this aspect of the proposed development would, of course, be exacerbated by the fact that the site is in the middle of an accident blackspot. As is well known, this stretch of Mill Road has one of the highest accident rates in Cambridgeshire, and Cambridgeshire County Council’s mapped accident data shows that this part of Mill Road – between the railway bridge and Gwydir St – has one of the highest concentrations of road accidents on Mill Road. It would clearly be entirely incompatible with local and national planning policy to approve an application whose stated, necessary consequence would be a servicing pattern that would increase the safety problems on the road still further. The loading bay proposed in the 2011 application was unanimously opposed by local councillors for the following reasons: "The pattern and intensity of deliveries required for Class A1 use on this site would create a potential hazard to highway safety, both on the carriageway and the footway. The proposed delivery bay would not eliminate the hazard, whose layout would itself create a potential hazard for pedestrians with impaired sight or limited mobility and those using wheelchairs and pushchairs. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policies 8/2 (Traffic impact), 8/4 (Walking and Cycling) and 8/9 (Commercial Vehicles and Servicing)."

4 VISITS TO THE STORE BY CAR The proposed development would have an additional, significant transport impact because it could lead to increased visits to the site by car, with the consequences that further pressure would be placed on existing car parking, and that an increase in dangerous parking on Mill Road would be extremely likely. The Applicant's Planning Statement claims that A1 use of the site would attract extra visitors to Mill Road. Without wishing to engage in a protracted examination of the likelihood of visits to the proposed store by bus, we contend that the Applicant’s expectations regarding likely visits to the proposed store by public transport are implausible. The Transport Statement claims that, "it is unlikely that there will be any additional car bourn (sic) trips generated". We do note, however, that in looking at the worst case scenario of A1 retail food provision from the site, in each case (that we are aware of) in which a transport statement has been included in an application for a Sainsbury’s Local, they acknowledge that there will be a consequent increase in car journeys to the site. If it is likely everywhere else, we see no reason why it would not be likely here. Of course, given the congested and dangerous character of Mill Road, even a very small increase in car traffic is likely to have an impact. We suggest that a more significant problem would be that existing car trips would be interrupted or diverted to the store. It is more likely, in other words, that people already driving past or near to the site would visit the store by car for ‘top up’ items of shopping. Pressure on the existing Gwydir St car park is already very great during significant periods of the day (previous evidence has shown an 88-98% occupancy rate between 18.00 and 20.00 on the weekday surveyed, for example). In addition to placing more pressure on very limited parking, experience with other stores (the Mill Road Tesco Express, for example), shows that a significant number of visitors to the store by car will be likely to drive partly onto the pavement at the front of the store and/or into the layby, posing an obstruction to other road users and an obvious danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Several of our members have witnessed ‘near misses’ of this kind at the Tesco Express site, sometimes involving pedestrians with small children. Clearly, this is very dangerous and the proposed mixed-use environment of a servicing bay would enhance such danger. Finally, the Applicant has provided no traffic generation assessment. It is very likely that there would be significant traffic impacts resulting from trips to the store by car (whether diverted from existing, passing traffic or not), and the failure to provide any traffic generation assessment means that these impacts on an accident cluster site cannot be assessed. The lack of a named occupier, and the nature of their operations, makes such an assessment impossible. Insofar as the Applicant has failed to address these issues, the application is incompatible with Cambridge Local Plan policy 8/2, ‘Transport Impact’: Developments will only be permitted where they do not have an unacceptable transport impact. Proposals must include sufficient information in order for the likely impact to be assessed.” [our emphasis]

5 NOISE AND POLLUTION The proposed development would generate significant noise impacts from two sources – deliveries and plant, neither of which are addressed in the application. 5.1 Deliveries As the City Council's Refuse and Environment Service notes, "deliveries to stores can be noisy due to roof mounted plant on refrigerated trucks, air-brakes on vehicles, reversing warning alarms on vehicles, the use of roll cages and general noise (vehicle radios, bangs, clanks). Given the closeness of residential premises, delivery hours will need to be limited further to avoid noise disturbance to the local residents." We have seen that when conditions are placed on A1 developments restricting delivery times, widespread anecdotal evidence suggests it is common practice for delivery vehicles to arrive significantly before the permitted unloading time and wait until they can start to unload, generating significant additional noise. 5.2 Plant The application does not include any information about the plant required by the proposed development. This is a matter of concern because of the proximity of residential properties, and the much lower background noise levels at the rear of the site. Taken together, these factors mean that any plant would present a significant risk of creating noise pollution for nearby houses and flats. Since refrigeration plant and, possibly, air conditioning plant running continuously, this is likely to be disruptive for nearby residential properties at night-time. 5.3 Air quality Mill Road is within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). A number of air pollutants were monitored in the 2012 Air Quality Assessment. National objectives for CO2 emissions are >35 ìg/m3. This target is regularly exceeded – hence the continued need for the monitoring area and action to reduce emissions. We see in para. 8.2 of the assessment conclusion that: Road transport remains the principal local source of emissions in Cambridge City. [our emphasis] From the 2013 Air Quality Progress Report, point 6 on Local Transport Plans and Strategies states that: A reduction in vehicle emissions will be required to meet these targets. In fact, a £60,000 grant was awarded by Defra for the Cambridge Real Emissions Project to monitor effects of emissions upon human health. In para 8.3.1 on Congestion we see that morning journey times in central Cambridge, at 4 minutes per mile, had failed to meet the 2010/11 target and air pollutant levels do not achieve the national objectives. Meanwhile, the current Local Plan Policy 4/14 remains in place and states that “Development within or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) will only be permitted if: a) it would have no adverse effect upon air quality within the AQMA or b) air quality levels within the AQMA would not have a significant adverse effect on the proposed use/users.” Under Policy 4/13 (Pollution and Amenity): “Development will only be permitted which: a) does not lead to significant adverse effects on health, the environment and amenity from pollution (…) since it is also specified that ‘the potential risk and significance of pollution will be considered when assessing planning applications’ (4.48), and this is not possible given the complete absence of any information about noise pollution impacts or a named occupier.

In this case, as in the previous one, it seems to us that the application cannot be compatible with Cambridge Local Plan policy 4/13, ‘Pollution and Amenity’ or 4/14 on Air Quality Management Areas and should not be permitted. 6 SUSTAINABILITY, VITALITY AND VIABILITY The term sustainable has lost all meaning when linked to development, more often than not to describe self-sustaining projects by developers, which can pay for themselves. By contrast, the Sustainable Development Commission states that “its core is an approach to development that looks to balance different, and often competing, needs against an awareness of the environmental, social and economic limitations we face as a society.” It is not just about the environment, but about ensuring a strong, healthy and just society. The Commission also states that “poor planning of communities reduces the quality of life for the people who live in them”. (www.sd-commission.org.uk) For the Applicant to refer to the NPPF ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ in the context of a Change of Use for 103 Mill Road is an oxymoron. One cannot make a generalised presumption without localised knowledge of potential outcomes. When Mill Road Society applied for a Sustainable City Grant for the Milly Card scheme we were told we must demonstrate that it delivers measurable outcomes against specific objectives, i.e. the Council's environmental objectives [our emphasis]. We were required to collect evidence to support the claims that using independent shops resulted in a quantifiable reduction in car journeys, measurable reduction in CO2 emissions, carbon saving in terms of local food distribution and environmental improvement with reference to reduced packaging, street litter and reduction in waste sent to landfill. We see no similar rigour in the Planning or Environmental Health departments when considering their response to this planning applications. When we talk about sustainability, it has been proven that Supermarkets – and their Local or Express spin-offs – harm us all. Supermarkets are hostages to oil and increasingly control a global food system based on the unsustainable use of energy and water. This system also encourages concentrated factory farming, causing cruelty to animals and diseases in the food chain. The mid-noughties manifestation of the H5N1 virus can be traced directly to large-scale, concentrated meat farming operations, which are a direct consequence of the drive to increase profits. Their distribution systems do nothing to support the supply of local food. Mill Road prides itself on access to excellent local produce and a network of local suppliers and shops, such as Urban Larder, which sources food within a 20–50 mile radius of the store. A footfall study done in Stalham, using a ‘pedestrian flow’ check, showed that the supermarket’s arrival in their locality had significantly reduced footfall in Stalham by an average of over 55%. A retail impact study in Burnage by Friends of the Earth, comprised of four repeated surveys, was carried out to find the impact of a new Tesco supermarket. The group found there were significant impacts for other retailers in the area, not just in the food retail sector. Three stores had closed down and other stores reported major impacts. We ask if similar studies have been done by Cambridge Council following the opening of the Tesco Express on Mill Road or Sainsbury’s Local on East Road and Regent Street.

We, therefore, dispute the contention that Change of Use to an A1 food retail use for a building of this size, can be called sustainable development. We are deeply concerned that the impact of the proposed change of use, and the potential occupation of the site by a convenience food store, would damage the vitality and viability of the Mill Road West district centre. There are several reasons for this: The loss of the existing leisure facility would, in itself, have a negative effect on the area, in particular on the nighttime economy. When the change of use to D2 was considered in 2001, it was noted by the planning officer that an effect of change of use to D2 would be increased footfall, particularly in the evenings, and that this would have a positive effect on the viability of the local centre. Removal of the leisure facility would achieve the reverse effect. The significance of servicing and delivery to an A1 shop at the Mickey Flynn’s site would inevitably create significant additional impacts on Mill Road with consequences for the flow of traffic and for the safety of road users. Both of these problems would have obvious negative consequences for surrounding business, as well as for residents and visitors to the area. This is not sustainable development, nor does it lead to viability and vitality for local traders. In paras. 2.9, 4.17, 4.28 and 4.53, the Applicant maintains that an A1 use will contribute to the viability and vitality of Mill Rd. It is hard to imagine how it can be argued that a brand supermarket convenience store would ‘attract visitors to the area’. The Applicant also claims that such stores offer competition and choice, [our emphasis] when these shops offer mostly ready meals, individually priced fruit, packaged vegetables and a vastly reduced selection of items at higher prices for the same products sold in their large stores. They ‘compete’ through their aggressive buying and pricing policies and loss-leaders on basic foods and have been guilty of price-fixing in the past on commodities like milk. The argument that another A1 food retail shop will increase competition is undermined by an APPSSG report, which states:

Evidence from contributors illustrates that large retailers will compete using ‘conventional’ means such as competitive pricing strategies on key footfall generators. If, however, the performance of the larger operator is considered poor when compared to the smaller retailers competing in the same catchment, then, on occasion, anti-competitive practices are undertaken.

Since the first campaigns against Tesco in 2006, Mill Road Society has raised the issue of the impact of supermarket convenience stores on local high streets. We conducted surveys documenting the closure of retail shops on Cherry Hinton High St. as a direct result of the opening of the large Fulbourn Tesco superstore, closely followed by the rebadging of the One Stop Shop (chain bought by Tesco in 2003) as a Tesco Express. We did supermarket trolley comparisons, which showed that supermarket convenience stores charge more for the same products they sell for lower prices in their large stores, while shopping at the independents on Mill Road, was competitive with a far wider range of foods on offer. We reported on the growth of Clone Towns and the death of high streets up and down the country. We studied the All-Party Parliamentary Small Shops Group reports on the massive impacts of these shops on local communities with a third of all independent convenience stores closing between 2000 and 2006 – a trend that is continuing. We looked at studies on the ‘multiplier effect’ of 2.59 for every £1 spent with local traders, which remains in the area, because the money is recycled over and over in the local economy, instead of going to shareholders of one of the Multiples. We launched

the Milly Card as a joint loyalty scheme between the community and our independent traders. We have fought to protect the fragile ‘ecosystem’ of Mill Road’s distinctive and diverse offerings, while watching the continuing closure of independent retail shops on Mill Rd. The matter was taken up by our MP Julian Huppert, who in 2011 secured a debate in the House of Commons on Cambridge’s bid for legal powers to protect the city’s Mill Road through an amendment to the Localism Bill. We believe we have shown that a supermarket-brand convenience store on Mill Road is not sustainable and has a massive impact on viability and vitality and should be rejected. The emerging 2014 Local Plan states: "Development proposals along Mill Road Opportunity Area, identified in Figure 3.10, will be supported if they add to the vitality and viability of the street and protect and enhance its unique character, including the development of arts and cultural facilities." The newly finished mural on the hoardings along the Mosque and Co-op sites, co-ordinated by Oblique Arts, employed eight artists to run workshops with different community groups to visually describe their connection to Mill Rd. The Independent Traders were partners in the project. Projects such as these demonstrate the unique balance of community with independent retailing. The small retailers offer diversity through their multi-ethnic backgrounds and the products they sell. These are brought to the street parties and festivals and creative activities in the area. A mural on the bridge that connects Romsey with Petersfield in Mill Road ‘Respect and Diversity in our Community’ is brightly proclaimed. This diversity is the basis of the vitality of the area. The Cambridge Retail and Leisure Study Update 2013 has identified there is capacity for further comparison goods floorspace (including clothing, home and electrical goods, etc.), but no capacity for additional convenience goods floorspace (food and drink and non-durable household goods) beyond proposals already approved or in the pipeline. [our emphasis]. Mill Road is an area known in Cambridge, and nationally, for its independent businesses. As Julian Huppert MP told the House of Commons, “Mill Road, has been renowned for decades for its vibrant mix of independent shops and restaurants”; Mill Road’s distinctive character as a centre known for independent shops was also discussed in the House of Lords, and has been mentioned by national news media on a number of occasions. The vitality and viability of Mill Road is inextricably connected to its status as a centre with a predominance of independent shops and other independent businesses. This character is undermined, and the continued existence of independent businesses threatened, by the opening of national multiple convenience stores in the area. We believe that the potential opening of another national, multiple retailer on Mill Road would have severe, negative consequences for the area’s vitality and viability. A decision to permit Change of Use, which would damage the area’s independent businesses and the vitality and viability of the area as a whole, would run counter to the emergent 2014 Local Plan and wider public debate. It would also be contrary to the Cambridge Local Plan policy 6/7, which is qualified by the statements that:

6.16: "Shopping policies (...) seek to enhance the vitality and viability of the City Centre and support the role of the District and Local Centres (...) [our emphasis]

6.17: "Applications for retail developments will, where appropriate, be subject to the demonstration [...] that there will not be an adverse impact on existing centres, and that transport and environmental matters have been considered." [our emphasis]

6.1 The Tesco Comparison The Applicant’s 2011 planning application attempted to demonstrate that the opening of the Tesco store on Mill Road had no impact on the surrounding independent businesses, or the area more widely, and that there was consequently no reason to expect that a Sainsbury’s Local at 103 Mill Road would have a negative impact. However, the Tesco Express store did have a negative impact, leading to the closure of one independent A1 convenience store in 2009, and some independent A1 businesses have reported significant negative effects. As local residents, we are also acutely aware of the increased risk to pedestrians caused by cars frequently pulling onto the pavement in front of the store. However the Tesco store has had a much less significant impact than was originally anticipated, partly because the store remains deeply unpopular and very little used by local residents. Some of the most significant reasons for the reduced impact of the Tesco store are instructive:

– Tesco wanted to extend the store. This was refused (a refusal upheld on appeal) because of the unacceptable transport impact, contrary to Cambridge Local Plan 8/2, which would have been greater from a larger store. Even with the extension they sought, the Tesco store would have been much smaller than the proposed store at 103 Mill Road. The current Tesco Express only has a gross floor area of 270m2 – some 140m2 smaller than 103 Mill Road. – Tesco wanted to service the site from Mill Road. This was not permitted for reasons of highway safety – one of the most widely expressed concerns in the current Mickey Flynn application. – Tesco intended to sell alcohol at the store (another issue of very widespread concern). They were refused a license, and this refusal was upheld on appeal. An A1 store at 103 Mill Road is likely to want to sell off-sales alcohol at this site and would have a significantly increased negative effect on the CIZ if permitted to do so.

6.2 Conservation Area The application site is within a Conservation Area. The Council is under a statutory duty, in determining applications in a Conservation Area, to have regard to the preservation or enhancement of the character of the area, yet there does not seem to be any Council conservation consultee response. Have they been consulted and, if not, why not? The 2011 Conservation Area Appraisal says that “… Overall, the [Mill Road] Conservation Area provides an example of a well-detailed and well preserved Victorian suburb, with only a few examples of modern infill.” … “The great majority of shopfronts remain at their original size, and very few have been amalgamated; the survival of the original frontages reinforces the rhythm and character of the street. Neither of the applications even mention the Appraisal. The 2011 Appraisal lists the designated local heritage assets that are in the immediate vicinity of Mickey Flynn’s: Lloyds Bank (90a Mill Rd), 92–104a Mill Road (directly across) and the Bath House. The 2006 Conservation Area Appraisal states under para 5.4.3 that consent for changes of use will not be approved unless all appropriate issues have been addressed and their

impacts on the building and area are felt to be acceptable. How can these impacts be addressed without knowledge of the occupier and the nature of their business? [our emphasis] We would point out that the conservation area has been in effect since 1993 when the importance of the area, including its buildings and wider character, was recognised. We see from archive material that each shop has a history dating from the mid- to late- 1800s. The Mickey Flynn building sits within these historic buildings. It is not an historic retail unit but a more recent leisure facility. Clearly a large national retailer’s façade would negatively impact on the conservation area. The resource offered by a leisure facility mitigates to some extent the building’s lack of coherence within the Victorian-built environment. A large A1 retail warehouse would therefore be totally unacceptable as an alternative. SUMMARY We oppose the application for Change of Use on the basis of Local Plan Policies 6/1 (Protection of Leisure Facilities) and 5/11 (Protection of Existing Facilities); on 6/7 (Shopping Development and Change of Use in District and Local Centres); on 8/2 (Transport Impact), 8/4 (Walking and Cycling) and 8/9 (Commercial Vehicles and Servicing); on 4/13 (Pollution and Amenity) and 4/14 (Air Quality Management Areas); and 3/15 (Shopfronts and Signage). We oppose the application on the basis of emerging Local Plan 2014 Proposed Submission 73 (Community, sports and leisure facilities) and 23 (Mill Road Opportunity Area). The emerging Local Plan restates many of the policies from the adopted Local Plan 2006, listed above. We oppose the application on the basis of the NPPF para. 70 (Promoting healthy communities) and para. 128 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Point 12, under the heading ‘The presumption in favour of sustainable development’ states “This NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.” We oppose the application because the Council are in breach of the national targets for AQMAs and additional transport movements by A1 retail use would only exacerbate this situation. We oppose the application because it is not in keeping with the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2012–2016. We oppose the application because it ignores the implications of Conservation Area status and the Council has a statutory duty to have regard to the preservation or enhancement of the character of the area, in determining applications in a Conservation Area. We oppose the application because it does not take note of the Equality Act 2010, with regard to disabled access to leisure facilities. We oppose the application because without a named occupier it is impossible to assess all impacts and risks.

Appe

ndix  1  

 

Selected

 Images  Highlighting  the  Issues  

of  Traffic  Co

ngestio

n  an

d  Limite

d    

Pede

stria

n  Ac

cess  On  Mill  Roa

d  

 All  pho

tographs  were  taken  on

 31/07

/201

4  

 

Image  of  an  

illegally  p

arked  

7.5-­‐ton,  8.2m  lorry  o

f  the  siz

e  prop

osed

 in  

the  

Applicant’s  transpo

rt  plan,  sho

wing  the  redu

ced  access  for  w

heelchair  users  on

 

the  pavemen

t  by  the  ‘pinch  point’  at  the

 corne

r  of  1

05  whe

n  de

liveries  are  be

ing  

made  ou

tside  Mickey  Flynn’s.    

Image  illustrating  lim

ited  access  fo

r  mothe

rs  with

 children  whe

n  de

liveries  a

re  being  m

ade  to  M

ickey  Flynn’s.  The

re  is  alre

ady  lim

ited  

access  due

 to  lampp

ost  situated  in  the

 middle  of  the

 pavem

ent  and  the  plan  to  pu

t  a  furthe

r  bo

llard  on  the  forecourt.  The  lorry  

wou

ld  be  off  road  in  th

e  layby  making  it  even

 more  difficult  to  negotiate  aroun

d  the  parked

 veh

icle  whe

n  un

loading.  

Image  show

s  the  im

pact  on  congestio

n  of  traffic  on

 Mill  Road  whe

n  

two  de

liveries  are  be

ing  made  at  the

 sam

e  tim

e.  N

ote  that  in  this  

instance  the

 lorry  outsid

e  Mickey  Flynn’s  (on  rig

ht)  was  m

aking  a  

delivery  of  a  fridge  across  the

 other  side

 of  the

 road.  

 

The  im

age  show

s  a  de

livery  from

 a  7.5  ton

ne,  8.2m

 lon

g  bo

x  lorry  with

 exten

ding  tailgate  of  the

 kind  prop

osed

 in  the  

Applicant’s  transpo

rt  plan.  The

 lorry  is  parked

 half  o

n  and  half  off  the  pavemen

t,  un

like  the  servicing  plan  w

ith  la

yby,  but  is  

already  effectively  blocking  th

e  key  de

sire  lines  fo

r  ped

estrians  usin

g  the  pavemen

t.