PEOPLE have moved home to get away from a Tesco Express store at Warrington, a senior councillor has claimed.
Deputy leader of the borough council Mike Hannon has slammed the supermarket giant over a planning application at its outlet in Orford Green, Orford.Tesco are seeking permission for various illuminated and non-illuminated signs at their store and petrol filling station on Orford Green, closed to the junction with Poplars Avenue
Their application will come before the borough’s planning committee next week.
Cllr Hannon (pictured) says Tesco have continually contravened all previous conditions attached to their existing planning consent.
He said: “They have not been a good neighbour and residents have moved because of Tesco.
“I accept these are not valid planning reasons to object, but there are real concerns in the locality.”
Five neighbours have lodged objections.
They say Orford Green is a residential area – “not a retail park.” The existing illumination of the outlet is “obtrusive” and the presence of the outlet has led to devaluation of local properties.
Planning officers are recommending the company’s application be approved.
They say Tesco are simply replacing existing signs due to corporate rebranding.
Luminance levels are within recommended limits and devaluation of residential properties is not a material planning consideration.
The officers say the proposals have no perceived detrimental impact on visual amenity or highway safety in the area.
Moving home – to get away from Tesco
33 Comments
Share.
3 Comments
Funny how things change…. when Tescos were promising a stadium in exchange for their permission to build on Winwick Road, the councillors were falling over themselves to to sign up…. and with scant regard to the bright signs the neighbours on the likes of Watkin Street have to now put up with
In other words, the residents don’t matter.
If “Tesco are seeking permission for various illuminated and non-illuminated signs at their store” and “The officers say the proposals have no perceived detrimental impact on visual amenity”
Does this once again confirm the officers involved in planning round here have a different view on what actually does amount to harm to our amenities? Perhaps if they put they glasses on, or went to Specsavers, they might see what we see and stop imagining what they would like see.