News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Croxley Tesco refused


Plans to build a Tesco convenience store in Watford Road were thrown out by councillors last night.

The company wanted to build an Express store and seven flats on a former car showroom site next to the Shell petrol station.

Many residents and councillors, however, argue the development would bring traffic chaos to an already busy road and kill off smaller rivals.

The controversial application, heard by Three Rivers District Council last night, has now twice been rejected and twice withdrawn since it was first submitted in 2006.

After hearing speakers for and against the proposals the council’s Development Control Committee decided to ignore the advice of its planning officers and unanimously rejected the scheme.

The committee, urged on by nearly 100 local residents and traders, ruled the development would:

  • Damage the appearance of the street scene
  • Cause traffic congestion – mostly because of a lack of parking spaces
  • and prove too cramped for residents’ peace and comfort

The decision was met with a sustained round of applause from Tesco’s opponents – many of them shop owners. The council, however, has repeatedly said it cannot refuse applications on commercial grounds because it would almost certainly lose any subsequent appeal.

The Croxley Green Residents Association (CGRA) has campaigned against the plans from the outset.

Spokesman Stephen Martin spoke of his incredulity at a Hertfordshire Highways traffic report purporting minimal impact. He also expressed regret a detailed counter survey compiled by CGRA members had been rejected out-of-hand.

The only people who believed the former document (valid subject to an £82,000 Tesco payment for road improvements) to be correct, he added, “are Tesco themselves, Hertfordshire Highways and the council’s planning officers.”

In a surprise move, Tesco did not send a representative to speak at the meeting. Parish Councillor Frank Brand, however, did speak in favour of the plans. Stressing the need for greater choice, he described many of the objections as “utter poppycock.”

He asked: “Why does the name of Tesco seem to bring so many objectors out? Most people sitting here this evening shop in Tesco anyway."

He added: “In many other areas Tesco sits happily alongside other food outlets. In fact some of these shops even benefit as a result. In these times of recession this store will create 30 jobs. This should be welcomed.”

Tesco now has three options: appeal the council’s decision, make an amended application, or walk away from the development.

Spokesman Carol Leslie said the company was disappointed and would be “considering its options.”

Comments(15)

shavedhead23 says...
10:42am Fri 20 Feb 09

I guarantee you, they'll be back, a mere 100 people calling themselves the "CGRS" I call em rebels without a pension high enough to live on, will come back, Tesco does not lose, I worked for them years ago, so sleep tight my little 100...for now

Seeva says...
11:09am Fri 20 Feb 09

The main reason for the refusal was the traffic problems that would be caused by the 400 odd cars per week negotiating the roads of Croxley Green.
The local stores all have staff who have been serving there for many years.


Another reason for refusal was the comparative size of the store in comparison with other village stores. The legislation says it must be appropriate and fit without causing damage.
The protesters were a mix of people from all walks of life including local ward councillors who had all sort to get a brief on the local populations feelings and the level of objection.



Tesco are not cheap and choice does not increase when they arrive it decreases because they run others out of business. You don't make a 12% profit in a recessive retail market any other way they cut all the cost corners they could long ago. The recent proliferation of Superstores led to an increase of road miles of 38% in just one year so if you care about the planet as you suggest that and the way Tesco treat their suppliers should be reason enough for you to object.

Lastly the layout of the site was such that it would have caused immense pedestrian safety problems as accepted by the Planning Officers and the Members of the Planning Committee. These people do this job day in day out and they do know what they are doing. most of the time.

Paradise Watford says...
12:30pm Fri 20 Feb 09

Tesco may not be the cheapest but surely they would not be any more expensive than the local stores you already have who do not benefit from being able to buy in bulk. Nor are they able to sell the same amount of variety of goods that even a tesco extra can, nor do they normally open from the early hours till late in the evening.

As for the traffic, those 400 odd cars would not be coming from out of the area to the store but would be from within the area so not sure what your point is there!

As to people having worked in local shops for a long time? What's that got to do with it? A tesco store would probably employ more people than the local stores anyway.

As to being green, surely it is better for two or three trucks a week to visit the site for deliveries than hundreds of cars going greater distances to do their weekly shop?

Anyway, its your loss

bovered says...
1:06pm Fri 20 Feb 09

I live close to Broads and am fed up looking at the derelict place.Traffic is bad with the Shell garage, shall we shut it down...no! cos it benefits us all. damage the appearnce etc...has anyone looked at the site recently?

kmask says...
1:09pm Fri 20 Feb 09

"The main reason for the refusal was the traffic problems that would be caused by the 400 odd cars per week negotiating the roads of Croxley Green".
So tell me oh clever cloggs,where do the people of Croxley Green do their shopping.....Rickman
sworth.How do they get there....CAR.This would have reduced car journies conciderably but CG residents are pig thhick if they think they are different to anyone else.
I bet everyone who moaned about the plans,go shopping in Ricky and that makes them the mother of all hypocrites.To them its ok to clogg up Ricky but it not ok to do the same to CG.

kmask says...
1:32pm Fri 20 Feb 09

Also i might add that 400 cars a week = a massive 60 cars a day over say 10 hours.So the main grounds for not going ahead were that 6 cars an hour will bear down on CG.OOOOoohhh how scary,perish the though.Just a bunch of snooty pensioners,stuck in the past.
Wait till your driving your mobility scooters and see how much fun they are in the rain....if Tescos is good enough for the rest of us,its certainly good enough for a one horse hick town like CG...
Watch this space,Tescos WILL go up in CG.The economy need this sort of thing to happen.

bovered says...
1:42pm Fri 20 Feb 09

yeh! go kmask! Bring on Tescos now.
They go on about 1500 sign the petition ... so 10% of CG what about the other 90%? Doesn't the bright yellow Tattoo Parlour damage the appearance?

Flyonthewall says...
5:04pm Fri 20 Feb 09

So the local shopkeepers have their little victory, they'll now feel they can carry on ripping off the locals with their high prices. What hasn't been mentioned is that a lot of the so called little shops in Croxley are all owned by the same bloke, oopps ! that wasn't supposed to be made common knowledge I bet.

Bart Onway says...
6:03pm Fri 20 Feb 09

Cllr Brand on the Tesco side eh?
Last major topic he woke up and spoke about was the "Dog Poo" saga.

Oh well at least he's still talking the same content.


Cosmopolitanlady says...
7:06pm Fri 20 Feb 09

I am absolutely gutted that the Tesco bid has been rejected. I live in Croxley with my family. The only store in Croxley which at present stocks any remotely interesting ingredients to cook with is the Co-op. Everyone drives there, it is a nightmare to park and there is ALWAYS a queue. I will have to continue to drive to either Rickmansworth (Tesco or Waitrose) or Budgens in Watford, adding to their congestion, instead of walking to a well-stocked local store - Tesco!

bovered says...
7:54pm Fri 20 Feb 09

why aren't these discussion meetings better advertised? Why don't Tescos say why they withdrew their applications? Perhaps we should start a petition for those who want Tescos!

Dennis The Menace. says...
9:02pm Fri 20 Feb 09

They'll get it in the end....section 106.....you know?

bovered says...
10:07pm Fri 20 Feb 09

but who gets the money?

Bart Onway says...
6:53am Sat 21 Feb 09

CosmoLady, the proposal is a TescoExpress not a full store. About as interesting as Cllr Brand.

If you live in Croxley Green why are you driving to the local shops, Get a minor bit of exercise! Bike it or walk it!


kmask says...
8:56am Sat 21 Feb 09

Bart Onway wrote:
CosmoLady, the proposal is a TescoExpress not a full store. About as interesting as Cllr Brand.

If you live in Croxley Green why are you driving to the local shops, Get a minor bit of exercise! Bike it or walk it!

Just like you do,eh.Only a doughnut would suggest a woman walking home with a weeks shop.Maybe your Mrs can manage it but shed have to be able to kick start jumbo jets to manage.
Have you ever tried cycling with several bags of shopping across the handlebars SAFELY,i assume not.So why suggest it to someone else when we all know YOU drive to the shops like everyone else.Thats the whole point of these new supermarkets,you drive there.Dont tell me you havent noticed to wacking great big car park,they all have...theres a clue..


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses