Letters: Not time to roll over on Milford Tesco plans

THE front-page report, on the proposed development in Milford for a convenience store, in last week’s edition (A&T 24th July) gives me cause for concern.

It appears to be a factual representation of the current situation and yet fails to question anything that the NFDC has said.

Before continuing it is essential that I remind everyone that Milford has numerous unique qualities unlike other villages throughout the land. This is born out by the number of objections to the planning application. The feelings of the village in general is that the proposed development would be devastating to the existing businesses.

My main concern is the statement by the senior NFDC planning officer which appears to indicate that the matter is a forgone conclusion. He asserts that a ‘retail impact assessment’ suggests that the new convenience store would have ‘no adverse impact’ on the existing shops.

The document to which he refers was presented, with the planning application, by a London-based company employed by the applicant developer. It would come as no surprise to even a small child that such a document would favour the developer. Why has he taken the report as ‘gospel’ without doing due diligence? Can he provide further evidence that this and the Bristol expert’s transport impact statement are wholly accurate? Has there been any direct interaction with the village retailers?

If your readers would care to peruse either of these documents (available on the NFDC planning portal) it will soon become apparent that most of their ‘evidence’ is based on national averages, not an in-depth study of the situation in Milford.

Naturally any applicant will seek to put a favourable slant on their proposal, but I feel it is inherent for the NFDC planning department to actually do their job and plan, not roll over and accept the words of paid advisors. Simply accepting such an assessment, however well presented, is in my view naïve at best and a dereliction of duty at worst.

The residents and traders deserve to be better served by public employees.

Peter Lee

Milford

* * * * *

RE the proposed Tesco at Milford, if the planners, despite overwhelming objections, are to base their decision on future demand, then that surely comes from the 190 houses soon to be built off Manor Rd (that’s 200+ cars).

Could the new Tesco be put in the middle of that estate? Walk to the shop?

I fear that if all objections are ignored then the Keyhaven Road residents east of the development will take to Lymore as a rat run.

A Phillips

Milford

* * * * *

SO, we have had almost 800 objections to the Milford Tesco Express development (A&T 25th Jul)? and only 11 approvals? I await the inevitable chaos that will follow if it is given the go-ahead, and sadly I think it will.

This situation sounds like a classic local authority/big business pow-wow behind-closed-doors stunt. I have seen it many times in my past working life and generally it is a case of what they conveniently do tell you, as opposed to what they don’t tell you.

Let’s look at the bigger picture. What is the future for Milford? What about the Manor Road development for starters? Around 190 houses currently at outline planning stage and moving along at a pace. If I was a betting man, I would say the Manor Road development will actually go ahead in one form or another. Tesco, I suspect, probably know this and are preparing for the inevitable increase in footfall in the village and are on the starting blocks.

The two existing convenience stores are small and cramped, so would they be able to cope with this increase? I don’t know.

Tesco, like all big companies, will stop at nothing if they can smell a profit. They have no respect for the opinions of residents. Why should they? They don’t live here.

The future is not bright.

John Walsh

Address supplied

* * * * *

I READ your article (25th Jul) about the proposed Tesco store in Milford with interest.

Apparently the senior NFDC policy planner stated that “the supporting material provided by the applicant… is considered to provide sufficient evidence that there can be a need for the development”.

My question is this: if said senior NFDC policy planner is apparently unaware (or worse, willing to overlook) that supporting material provided by the applicant is likely to be heavily biased, should we as taxpayers be paying him to do the job?

Mark JA Duke

Milford