|
As ward Councillor, on the behalf or residents, I’ve requested updates from Tesco on various aspects with regards to their planning applications and leading up to the third application, made requests for them to tidy up the derelict site and most recently with regards to the program of sale of the land - following planning refusal and their withdrawal of appeal.
During the planning application stage Tesco were very responsive and volunteered an investment of £15,000 to cleaning, securing and making visible the site with a view to discourage trespassing and anti-social behaviour. Sadly, and more recently, Tesco haven’t replied to my emails - however polite the request made. They may have spat their dummies out, but I view this as a result of rejected planning applications. Following my 'news item' where I said “I’ve read and heard that Tesco deliberately hang on to derelict sites as a punishment to communities who reject Tesco’s proposals to develop stores in their area”. Tesco wrote: “We are constantly talking with developers and property agents about this site on North Road, however as the land is restricted to commercial use and planning permission for retail use is not possible, the number of possible buyers is reduced”. It is NOT restricted to commercial use I contacted our planning department and asked them if this was true, if this land was indeed restricted to commercial use, or would the same apply as with the development at Sainsbury's and their reply was: “The permission for the development at Sainsbury's was granted about two years ago. The commercial use associated with the petrol filling station disappeared when the new permission for the flats commenced. The same set of circumstances would apply at the North Road petrol filling station, should planning permission be granted”. And “that the only other possible restriction of the North Road site to commercial use would be if there is a restrictive covenant on the land”. So I contacted ‘The Land Registry’ and applied for official copies of register of title which states no such restrictive covenant on the land, indeed, for all intense and purposes the land was originally intended for dwellinghouses. Moreover, the schedule of restrictive covenants does state ‘the purchasers shall not erect upon the said plot of land any buildings for the trade or business of a Publican or retailer of beer wines or spirituous liquors or any trade manufactory business or employment whatsoever which can or may be deemed a public or private nuisance or inconvenience to the neighbourhood or which may tend to depreciate the value of the adjoining or neighbouring land. Some History Detailed originally in 1920 this site formed 3 separate sections of land and at one point merged and was owned by Coop, who then sold it to Shell. When Shell decided to sell they offered the garage as a going concern to the people who managed it for £250k. This site along with many other Shell sites was then auctioned-off and bought by a London based petroleum company who bought it along with over 25 other sites. As this site was not one they wanted to develop, they sold it to Manhattan Corporation, who then submitted the first application to build a local store, which was rejected. Tesco then instructed GL Hearn to manage further applications, and the site was instantly put up for sale by Manhattan Corporation through Storeys Commercial agents for £475k plus £83,125 VAT (according to the price stated to have been paid on 21 December 2006 in the Title absolute) and bought by Tesco. Strangely, the Charges Register also shows a Unilateral Notice in respect of a contract for sale dated 9 December 2005 made between Manhattan Corporation Limited and Tesco Stores Limited… One year before Manhattan Corporation put the site up for sale through Storeys Commercial agents. |