Do you have comments? Please complete the form at the bottom of this page and we'll add them.

A couple of further thoughts. I would endorse the comment from the resident concerned that the entrance to the site crosses the main cycle path through the village. Presumably some of the estimated number of vehicle movements will be HGVs delivering, which would suggest an increased risk to cyclists and pedestrians. I can't see in the technical documents any statements about likely numbers of HGV movements - do we know what this is likely to be for a store of this size? 

I wonder how the proposed housing developments in Hauxton are likely to influence visitor numbers to the site. Is there any estimate?  I assume that people might well jump into their cars to visit, thus significantly increasing traffic that is generated by the store rather than passing by. 

I notice there is only provision for one staff car parking space. As a regular visitor to Aldeburgh which has recently had a new Tesco open, I would like to say that the issue of parking has been highly contentious. Staff are parking in neighbouring roads and even in the next door supermarket's car park.  Do Tesco really think that only one staff member will need to park? Where will others park? I expect this will be in The Limes and surrounding roads that are ill-equipped to handle it. In the Aldeburgh case there have also been problems with delivery vehicles queuing to enter the site from the main road, despite all the promises made at the time of planning. 

I must confess I don't really understand the traffic survey.  However I was somewhat surprised to see a comparator of the Co-op in Julian Road in Bath. This used to be my local shop many years ago, and I happened to drive past it on business today. I think this is a completely different site - there is no parking, and much of the local parking is now resident only, so in fact it is probably almost only used by people on foot. How is this useful data to support an application for a store on the A10 I really wonder. 

I would like to know on what basis the decision is made to re-survey in September, and to uplift the traffic numbers by 25%. My experience is that in early October when University full term starts traffic levels rise again, and it would be more appropriate to re-survey now. 

I wonder also what the residents of Shelford have to say. My experience driving into and through Shelford is that there is very often a lorry parked outside Tesco on the double yellow lines blocking sight of the traffice and generally snarling up the road. How will Tesco actually manage the car park in Harston? 

We currently get our newspapers delivered to the box in Newton from the Harston shop. I can't believe Tesco will provide this service so we'll all have to drive up to Harston to get newspapers. This will cause even more traffic

As outlined in the letter above, Harston needs its Post Office, and it doesn't need any more traffic. 
We already have a convenience store, and Waitrose is just down the road. I am sure the SAAB garage space could be put to much better use to provide Harston with something that it doesn't already have, such as a community cafe and more parking for Mace customers.

 I endorse the arguments of the Harston Residents Group.
1. It will not increase competition because the existing shop will be put out of business and the public will lose the benefit of a Post Office used not only by Harston residents 
but those from other villages such as Newton and Hauxton.
2. It will increase the traffic on the already congested A10.

I have a young family (my children are 4 and 2) and I have recently moved to Harston and I'm concerned about safety in the roads of this village. We live in London Road where 40mph is ridiculously allowed and there is no cross for pedestrians. In the High Street/ A10 there is many improvements that can be made e.g. Barriers to avoid pedestrians/cyclist be so close to heavy traffic, that includes many children in their way to school Mon-Fri. The noise pollution in Harston is worse than I'd have expected in a sought after village like this one and I think this is also something to be considered by the local authorities before approving any application that will eventually increase it.

The proposed Tesco on the A10 is likely to cause a huge increase in traffic along the A10 in Harston and also through neighbouring villages such as Newton which already experiences large numbers of speeding cars. This is because a) an extra store will generate more car journeys ; b) there are likely to be traffic queues in Harston which wiill encourage traffic to divert through Newton; c) the Harston store and post office will close resulting in more traffic through Newton to reach the next nearest post office in Great Shelford. I urge you to deny the planning application for Tesco.

We don't need another shop in harston as we have a good one already

As a resident of The Limes, I am particularly concerned about the traffic conditions. Last Friday, 3rd October, it took me 7 minutes to exit The Limes, and it would have taken longer, had someone not used the pedestrian crossing by the Post Office, thus effectively stopping northbound traffic.

 I also have concerns about the safety of cyclists using the cycle track on the same side of the road as the garage. a number of children use this for school

Nearly all my family live in Newton a mile from Harston and as we have no shop or post office we use the Harston shop. It not only provides those services, but the staff there also deliver our newspapers to Newton Village Hall for collection. I can't imagine Tesco providing any such services, and the loss of the post office would be particularly difficult for Newton residents.

As a Newton resident I feel that the development of a supermarket on the A10 in Harston, our neighbouring village would most likely have an adverse effect on the amount of traffic passing through Newton village, most likely, following a survey, the majority of which will not keep to the speed limit. There are two reasons for my conclusion.

1. A supermarket will slow down the traffic through Harston and will therefore encourage drivers to divert off the A10 through Newton and return to it further along the road.
2. If, as expected, the village shop and post office would be likely to close, residents from Harston would use Newton village to get to the nearest post office in Great Shelford.

I therefore ask you not to consider allowing planning permission for Tesco on the A10, on Harston High Street.

I agree with all the above objections.

We don't need or want another tesco store

This proposal is completely unnecessary and is not wanted by the village. There is a very good village shop already in Harston, plus an excellent Co-op and local shops at Great Shelford, in addition to a Tesco Express there. Waitrose is only 5 minutes further down the A10 in Trumpington, Cambridge. An additional shop at Harston is simply not needed, be it Tesco or anyone else. Nor is it wanted by the majority of the residents. A far better use of the site would be for shared ownership housing for local residents who cannot afford to stay in Harston due to very high house prices.

You might want to make more of the traffic movements generated by vehicles turning off the A10 to get to the Tesco site (particularly those vehicles going Westwards where they will be turning across oncoming traffic going towards Cambridge, where they may cause queuing which will back up towards the bend in the road about 200m to the East of the proposed Tesco site, which is dangerous enough at present). The same argument applies to traffic entering the A10 from the Tesco's site, particularly where it will seek to turn across the oncoming East bound traffic. The existing intersections on the A10 within Harston village are dangerous enough, without creating another high traffic movement intersection at the Tesco's site.

Totally agree with the points raised in the petition above. Harston Village is already being impacted with the new developments. One can see the increased amount of traffic each day. We have to consider how our elderly community will be affected if the Post Office is forced to close, and no-one wants to see a hardworking local business fold because of a Tesco in the vicinity, and many businesses have as a result.

We agree with the points made in the petition, as we also find the traffic in Harston is excessive already, and must not be increased by shoppers from Harston and surrounding villages which will happen if a supermarket of any size is built here. Furthermore it is of the utmost importance to keep the post office in Harston open, especially since some other post offices in this area have been closed. The Harston post office serves many, many households and businesses.

This will lead to more traffic and threaten the post office. The traffic assessment in the planning application is a bit of a joke. The TRICS data in appendix C

has a very select sample of regions and days for their traffic survey – e.g. Dorset and Bath on a Thursday. I’m sure they can’t really get away with comparing those areas with Harston which is on the doorstep of Cambridge and the A10 and M11. 

I’m also a bit suspicious on why they choose a Londis in Dorset and a “Best One” in Leicester and extrapolated from that the numbers for a Tesco in Harston. I’m no expert in crowd analysis but I think choosing another Tesco in an equivalent location would have been more prudent.

The conclusion of the assessment is the ludicrous value of one car turning right every 5 minutes at the peak hour of say 8-9am. My four year old son playing with his toy cars could come up with a more accurate figure. No mention of all the cars that will be slowing down on both sides of the road to see if there are any free spaces etc… which will no doubt impact on the High street and eventually back up the M11/A10. 

I’d prefer to have a post office within walking distance – than a Tesco to drive to and inevitably park on the street/pavement as the carpark’s full.

I do not want a Tesco in Harston

As stated in your letter on the Tesco Planning Application for the former Saab Garage site on the A10, objections cannot be made upon grounds of competition, but what is not pointed out is that they can be made upon grounds of need, and possibly of change of use as indicated in the final sentence below. In view of the fact that we already have two very adequately provisioned convenience stores in the village (near the Village Hall, and at the BP Filling Station), and also a supermarket within 3 miles of the village (Waitrose at Trumpington), there is therefore no 'Need' for a further store to provide for local residents and others. Such an application would also involve a Change of Use to an established facility which for many decades, by the nature of the garage activities, has only involved a very limited number of traffic movements each day. To suggest that there would be over 500 traffic movements to this site on a daily basis would considerably increase the already hazardous traffic situation through the village on the A10 main road, exacerbate the access and egress to and from The Limes residential area immediately opposite the subject site, and lead to increased risk to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on the pedestrian/cycleway past the site.

Consequently from the above, no change of use to this site, other than for possible residential development, should be considered, and the Application should be rejected. 

P.S. - You may also wish to consult with Great Shelford councillors regarding the recent introduction of a Tesco convenience store in Woollards Lane, and the consequent increase in congestion along that road, particularly during normal working hours and at times when deliveries to the site are being made.

I have nothing against Tesco and can see why the company sees potential in this site. However, it would be short sighted for the council to approve this application in an area where there are serious safety issues. Harston is a busy and thriving village, with a vibrant community. Every day we walk to school, ride our bikes, fetch our papers, all the time navigating our way along the edges of one of the busiest roads in the eastern region. The A10 is a major trunk road running right through the heart of the village. A constant stream of cars, vans and lorries use this road, many not adhering to the speed limit. It is often, quite frankly, a terrifying experience, especially with young children. Friends of mine who live on the high street say the traffic levels have increased dramatically in the last 5 years.
Tesco has said its store will bring 500+ vehicles a day onto this already busy road. That is 500 more cars and lorries that we, the residents, have to be wary of. If all those cars are going in and out of the new Tesco site, it could be disastrous. Turning right at the best of times is really difficult. I dread to think how parents walking their little ones back from school will tackle this new danger.
I am really very worried about this application and I urge you not to approve it.

My husband & I run Cambridge Farm Machinery in Hauxton and use the post office in Harston on a daily basis as I am sure do many other small businesses. Having a post office so close (they closed Hauxton Post Office many years ago) means that we are able to dispatch spare machinery parts to our customers up to 5pm. If we had to travel further afield we would not be able to offer this service which would be detrimental to our business. Also I seem to remember a few weeks ago the government were asking us to use smaller fridges & freezers to conserve energy, - how many fridges & freezers will Tesco be wanting in a new shop?

As a resident of the Limes I am very concerned about the effect on traffic in the village. It is already difficult to turn right out of the Limes in the morning and the fact that the entrance to the store will be directly opposite the Limes will make this much worse. I also agree completely with the comments above about the effect on the Post Office, which is a valuable asset to the village.

A traffic hazard, a death knell to local businesses, unnecessary. There is nothing to recommend that a Tesco is built along the A10 in Harston. Nothing apart from the pockets of the ever greedy Tesco.

I want tesco because it has a larger selection of products then The village shop and will certainly cheaper, and this is a big parking at the side in the comfort rather than the main road.

The comments below relate to the five objections made against Planning Application Ref: S/0884/14FL, and the resultant responses by the applicant, plus other points.

1) “The Applicant has also failed to provide an appropriate drawing showing the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions and in full”.

  • This may be the current standard, but may not be in relation to the actual junction layout required - See Point 6 below.

2) “The Applicant has failed to provide any cycle parking for staff or visitors to the store”.

  • Currently there is only one car parking bay marked for staff. Can it be confirmed that this is correct?
  • If a facility of this size could be run by one person, what about at staff change-over times.
  • Also at least two members of staff, one will be required to serve customers while the other attends to other matters, such as placing cones for the exclusion of public cars prior to the arrival of the delivery vehicle. (TPA Technical Note clause 2.6 (page 3) and 2.9 and associated drawing(s). 

3) “Due to the proposed over run of the proposed car park spaces the Highway Authority would request that the Local Planning Authority condition that no deliveries are made within the store opening hours”.

  •  TPA Technical Note, Table 2.7 (page 9) gives typical opening hours from 7am to 10pm.
  • 3.5 (page 11) refers to a Service Management Plan. Can a copy specific to the Harston site/application be requested?
  • 2.6 (page 3) the applicant does not agree that deliveries should be made out of hours but suggests instead that they are “undertaken outside of peak hours when there is spare capacity in the car park”.
  • The services management plan should include safety of pedestrians as well – see Point 8 below.
  • It is difficult to understand how the management of deliveries can be achieved safely during opening hours. See ‘sweep path analysis’ of an 8.4m rigid vehicle in the Appendix of the Technical Note. This shows that at least 3 parking spaces will need to be cleared prior to the arrival of the delivery vehicle including the disabled parking space. In reality this is likely to be a minimum of 5.
  • This also requires the delivery vehicle to reverse very close to the cycle parking and directly in front of the shop entrance.
  • Therefore deliveries would have to be restricted to outside the store opening hours, as the Highway Authority have already stated. (See clause 1.7 of the TPA Technical Note). This must be kept as a Local Planning Authority Condition (if it gets that far).
  • The applicant’s comparison of the proposed site with an existing site in Melton (clause 2.9, page 4 of TPA Technical Note) is misleading as the sites are quite different. Melton has separate access and egress points from the site. As such it cannot be understood how the Summary and Conclusion clauses 3.2 and 3.5 (page 11) can be supported.

4) “The Applicant states with the submitted Transport Statement (page 2 2.1) that The Limes serves ‘approximately sixty dwellings’ the Highway Authority can confirm that it serves approximately 70 dwellings”.

  •  Without junction improvements access to/from The Limes will undoubtedly be affected as the A10 thoroughfare – including access to the proposed facility - will take precedence for traffic movements.

5) “The applicant has also failed to mention that The Limes which is opposite the proposed access to the site is the access to the local recreation ground, village pavilion and play area which has the potential to be a significant generator of traffic in their own right”

  • The applicant has also failed to mention other generators of traffic, including:
  • The local Park & Ride – the resultant immediate increase in quantity of traffic as the majority of the bus passengers will leave the park & ride facility together and head south on the A10.
  •  Hauxton / Bayer site – scores of new houses to be built and increase in traffic – behaviour of traffic will be affected by commuter and primary & secondary school run times.
  • Qualitative change in traffic flow when Foxton level crossing is replaced by a bridge and it will also mean that there are no longer gaps in traffic flow.
  • The bridge at Foxton is also likely to increase the volume of traffic, as motorists return to a currently restricted route.
  • TPA Technical Note, Clause 2.16 refers to having carried out “ . . a robust analysis of the access junction”. How can this be so if they have failed to:
    •  mention several potential factors that are significant generators of traffic in their own right (as noted above)
    •  include, in their analysis calculations, a percentage increase to reflect the traffic associated with the bullet points above.
  • Without addressing the above 2 bullet points, TPA cannot support the only three points of their conclusion to the Technical Note: 3.9, 3.10 & 3.11.
  • A further traffic assessment should include all of the above and the potential need for a bypass to Harston which, if required, the applicant should contribute to.
  • A further traffic assessment should also include the potential effect on the existing buses that service Harston.


Other issues.

6) Access / Junction upgrade

  • The quoted ‘anticipated vehicle movements’ appears to be very low. Can a copy of the applicant’s business plan/model be requested to confirm that these figures will support the business?
  • To cater for the increase in traffic movement associated with the proposed site, the necessary improvements to the junction should include at least one of: a south bound filter lane; traffic light controlled junction; or, more likely, a mini roundabout, particularly when considering access to/from The Limes as well.
  • There are likely to be problems incorporating such requirements into the space available without purchasing private land.
  • Depending on the arrangement of the resultant junction improvement, this will affect the visibility splays referred to in 1 above which will still be required.
  • The above demonstrates that the second application has not addressed the concerns of Cambridgeshire County Council, as stated in clause 3.10 of the TPA Technical Note which is: “the proposed development has the potential for significant conflict within the public adoptable highway for which mitigation measures have been suggested”.
  • Similarly, as the NPPF states, the residual cumulative impacts of the development are fundamental considerations of the planning application that must be addressed. 

7) Provision of safe access for pedestrians

  • The applicant has not shown safe walking routes for pedestrian from the A10 to the store entrance.
  •  Additional traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing(s) will be required across the A10 which have not been included in their assessment or application. The crossing(s) will cause further delays to the already congested peak-hour traffic on the A10.

8) Loss of the current shop, post office, etc

Harston already has a shop, with post office and other services plus a filling station with shop. The village does not need another shop.

If the proposed development is permitted, it is likely that the competition will:

  • cause the current shop to close and thereby the village will lose the post office and the other services that the shop provides including dry-cleaning service, shoe repairs, DVD rental.
  • affect the shop facility at the filling station and may result in the loss of the filling station as well

Should the introduction of a competitor to the current services be allowed to result in their demise and thereby affect the character of the village?

My reading of the application suggests the following;
Planning Policy 
4.6 The proposals for new retail provision are not in scale for Harston.
The assumed catchment area at fig 5.18 and Annual expenditure on convenience goods in the area at fig 5.19 are totally subjective.

The Turnover estimates at fig 5.22 for existing local businesses I suspect would make amusing reading for the proprietors.
The comparison with “small shops around the country” makes no reference to any number of variables such as location or urban/rural.
The conclusion at fig5.23 that there is a surplus capacity of £3.12m may be statistically possible but unlikely in practise.
More likely is that a suggested turnover of £1.94m from a national store operator would detract from the existing local stores leading to a reduction in local facilities competition and choice.
As such I reject totally the conclusion at fig 5.31,and the application does not accord with Local Plan PolicyE/22

Has there ever been any thought given to using the site for building retirement flats.   There are a number of Harston folk who live alone in big houses because they don’t want to move away from the place and the people they know and love.   Flats might free up houses which are much needed for families.

We don't need another shop in Harston. We Already have a nice shop and post office,fuel station .we don't need tesco. If you can try to open fish and chips shop. We living this village around 3 years. We like this village because it's a very peaceful village. always this road is busy.every morning we have to face big traffic.when they open a new shop this village we have to face more traffic jam.when we do our shopping in Harston shop after we going to pay our bill some times we don't have a right money.some times 2p or 5p short but these people don't worry about that money they let us go.but when we go tesco we have to face same like this problem we have to remove our items.they don't let us to go.we don't need another shop this village. Dont destroy our village.