Tesco’s (3rd) New Application For A Metro Store
Application submitted by Tesco to Mole Valley District Council 23rd February 2012
The proposal is for a 682 square metres retail space Metro Supermarket on the former Esso Service Station Site, 53-57, The Street, Ashtead, Surrey KT21 1AA, with 9 flats above and 9 parking spaces for these flats. This is only 9% smaller than Tesco’s previous (2nd) application and still more than 3x the size of Tesco Express (215 sq.m.) at Craddock’s Parade, Lower Ashtead. Also because the aisles will be narrower than in the 2nd proposal, as there will be no large trolleys in the store, potentially more goods could be stocked.
OUR OBJECTIONS AND HOW TO OBJECT THE EASY WAY
Summary of Our View
We believe that a store of this size is still too large for the site because of the adverse impacts that it would impose upon the village, notably in terms of too much traffic and resulting parking need which Ashtead would be unable to cope with. Also this sized store is too large to meet the national and Mole Valley District Council’s targets for sustainability (e.g. construction and renewable energy standards)
Click here to read our 2nd letter of objection, submitted on 26th April 2012 on “Tesco’s Under Estimation of Traffic in their Planning Applications” (Based on surveys of traffic at pressent Tesco stores).
A Solution
We wish to stress that there is a solution for this site. A smaller, environmentally-friendly store, which would produce less traffic and parking need, with on-site parking which complements the village.
HOW TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL
Comments must be received by Tuesday 5th June 2012
- If you are a couple please send in 2 representations, especially as we have no plans (at present) for a petition. Every comment is vitally important and this will increase the number of representations.
- Please quote the application number MO/2012/0234 PLAMAJ
- Please give your full address.
- Please state your own examples of any concerns or difficulties you already have of parking in Ashtead.
- By e-mail to: planning@molevalley.gov.uk (click on the email address to email them directly)
- By letter to: The Planning Department, Mole Valley District Council, Pippbrook, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1SJ.
- By submitting an attached file via the council’s web site: Click here for the link.
You can view the full planning application on the councils website via this link here: www.molevalley.gov.uk.
OUR MAIN OBJECTIONS
- The village would be unable to cope with the resulting parking need.
- On a weekday Tesco predict almost 1,200 extra cars looking for parking
- On Saturdays Tesco predict almost 1,100 extra cars looking for parking
- Each week Tesco predict between 8,000 and 10,000 extra cars coming to the store through the village streets looking for parking
- Where would everyone park?
- The Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall (APMH) Car Park is already very often used to near capacity or full because of events, functions and meetings at The Hall.
- Parking pressure would be put on nearby residential roads, where there are already parking problems e.g. Grove Road, Rectory Lane.
- We believe the viability of The Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall would thus be threatened as people trying to come to the Hall would often not be able to park because of Tesco customers already in the car park. The Hall acts as a central focal point for village community life and it is vital that it is able to remain so.
- Will the reduced parking availability cause hall events to go elsewhere?
- Would this mean that using the Hall would become much less attractive?
- Is this what we want for the village?
- Insufficient Staff Parking would increase Parking Problems. We understand Tesco are only providing 5 staff parking spaces in a secret off-site location, even though there would be approximately 25 staff working at the store at any one time.
- Tesco in their own Transport Assessment state that 72% of their staff drive to work. That equates to 18 staff needing to find parking (i.e. not 5)
- Increased traffic congestion and delays on the A24. The section of the A24 through Ashtead village is already one of the busiest roads in Mole Valley. Traffic through Ashtead is often already at a standstill because of congestion. Local roads would become rat runs.
- The large delivery lorries which would access and leave the site via the A24, via a passage next to the Curry House, would cause even more congestion and hold-ups. We understand that the lorries would have to mount the pavements to enter and leave the site. This is an issue of pedestrian safety.
- Increased traffic would cause much longer queues and pressure at the already sub-standard A24/Woodfield Lane junction, thereby increasing the danger of accidents. Tesco’s so-called “improvements” to the junction consist mainly of moving the site-line forward and adding a pedestrian crossing at the top of Woodfield Lane in a position which we consider to be unsafe. There would not be any major changes such as traffic lights.
- The Sustainability Issue. Every new development has to meet certain target levels for Sustainability set by the Government and Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) (e.g. construction and renewable energy standards). Tesco do NOT meet these targets for this store. They claim it is too difficult for “technical reasons.” We believe this is unacceptable. Tesco can only get away with this if the Council grant them an exemption. This is what the Council did for Tesco’s previous proposal. It is vitally important that this time the Council do not grant an exemption. We thus call upon the Council not to grant Tesco an exemption under CS19 (para2). We believe that the best way Tesco can meet these targets on this site is to build a smaller development.
- Retail Impact. We believe the store is directly aimed at capturing trade from the existing local independent food shops, rather than complementing the existing high street traders as Tesco asserts. This Metro and the current Tesco Express in Ashtead would together have a combined retail floorspace of one and a half times the floorspace of all the other Ashtead food retailers put together.
WE MUST FIGHT ON!
Tesco have been unable to build their second proposed store of 750 sq.m. retail space. This is because they have been unable to find a new location for the 74 long term parking spaces within the village, which was the condition set by The Planning Inspector, following the Public Inquiry in July 2011 for the store to be built.
This proves that SAVE and the ARA were right in arguing that the 750 sq.m. retail space was too big for the village.
Tesco have come back with only a very slightly smaller store so we cannot see how this will be appropriate for the village, even if it is baskets only.
Despite the improvements (i.e. no change to exisiting car park arrangements in Ashtead Village with The Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall Car Park kept under control of Mole Valley District Council; no trolleys outside the store, only baskets and small trolleys within it; and no back entrance onto the car park, only a front entrance onto The Street) we must not succumb to Campaign Fatigue, which Tesco rely on, and give up now, especially when…
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Here are part of my objections and concerns regarding the Planning application MO/2012/0234 PLAMAJ, sent to MVDC
To understand the issues surrounding this application all one needs to do is be like the majority of Mole Valley residents, get up early (I and most others have to get up at 5.00 AM to get to work on time in London by train). Drive to Horsham and join the A24 at 7.30, imagine you are late for work (if you need to be at work in Tolworth, you will be!) and need to buy a sandwich for lunch.
The first thing you will notice is that there are no retail outlets with frontage on the A24 all the towns and villages, Ewell, Leatherhead, Mickleham, Dorking, Holmwood, Horsham and Dial Post have been bypassed.
The next thing you will notice is that the traffic builds up and slows down, by Dorking you will be in queues.
Approaching the M25 traffic will be stationary for long periods, unlike ( Roger Tym & Partners. November 2007 ”At the time of the healthcheck, Craddocks Parade appeared to be unaffected by traffic congestion as did The Street. The flow of traffic, however, was constant and may become busier at peak times.” ) you have made the effort to get up early and observe the true situation which is more accurately reflected by (SCC TravelSMART ”Average daily traffic flow for the A24 is 23,060, 76% greater than the national average, and during the morning (AM) peak hour (in Epsom) an average of 9 minutes of delay per vehicle is experienced.”)
You will still not have seen any retail outlet with frontage on the A24.
Reaching Ashtead you will encounter the first retailers with frontage on the A24 but no sandwich, most of them are shut!
This is why Tesco are want a site here and they don’t want to provide parking because they want maximum retail space and more importantly a frontage in the middle of The Village, right on the A24, not set back behind a carpark. It will also have opening times of 7.00 – 23.00 like the existing Ashtead store, so it can maximise sales to commuters.
Continue through the traffic jams in Epsom, now there are retailers with frontage but no supermarkets (competitors to Tesco,s proposed site) they are all set well back from the A24 to minimise disruption to traffic flow.
Continue to Tolworth (A3), still no supermarket directly on the road and no sandwich, turn round and enjoy once again the commuting and retail experience through Mole Valley.
Despite the style, this is a very serious critique of the real life, fact based experience, not a smokescreen of computer generated guesswork disguised as facts.
The site in Ashtead Village is a prime retail location for a supermarket / convenience store, Tesco is the largest Supermarket chain in the UK and 3rd largest retailer in the world. This site is therefore clearly intended to service the 23,000 + per day of passing vehicles.
Their submission claims that the store is to service the needs of Ashtead residents, it may well do this but it will add a huge number of commuters to those figures, the submission calculations are done using data from 3 sites, none of which is in sight of a similar road or traffic flow and claiming it will only have turnover per square metre similar to that of the existing Ashtead store is nonsense.
This proposal allows Tesco to push it’s frontage right onto the A24 and to maximise its retail area whilst effectively pushing the cost, provision and ‘policing’ of it’s parking space onto the local ratepayers. It will clearly take all the on street parking spaces which are at present used by elderly and disabled local residents who are using and supporting the small independent retailers.
It is self evident that the figures used in the submission do not accurately reflect the situation that will pertain if this store is permitted in it’s present form
In 2009 MVDC adopted a Core Strategy setting out its “vision, objectives, spatial strategy and overarching policies to guide the provision of new development in the District (ie Mole Valley) up to 2026″.
MVDC’s Core Strategy is “the starting point for the determination of planning applications in the District in conjunction with the saved policies in the Mole Valley Local Plan 2000″.
Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that “the Council will resist the loss of key services and facilities (including community facilities), unless an appropriate alternative is provided or, evidence is presented that the facility is no longer required and suitable alternative uses have been considered”.
There can be little argument that both the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall (APMH) and the APMH car park are well used by the wider Ashtead community and are key community facilities as referred to in Policy CS17.
Parking demand (staff and customers) from Tesco’s proposed store will dominate the parking spaces in the APMH car park to such an extent that the use of the car park will effectively be regularly lost to the general community, particularly users of the APMH.
The APMH relies heavily upon the ready availability of parking spaces in the APMH car park for its users. A lack of parking readily available to users will jeopardise the future viability of the APMH as those users will simply move elsewhere to where parking is readily available.
Concerns over the APMH car park and the APMH figure prominently in the almost 700 submissions to MVDC by residents on Tesco’s current application.
In accordance with Policy CS17, the loss to the community of the APMH car park and, potentially, the APMH itself should be resisted by MVDC as there are no appropriate alternatives and Tesco’s latest application should be rejected in accordance with the views of Ashtead residents.
Here Here Linda. This is the real issue.
It’s all too easy for others to make this about another tesco in the village – which it’s not. This is about ensuring that appropriately sized and newly planned developments can co-exist with out significant detrimental impact on key aspects of the community, such as parking, traffic, and increases in anti-social activity such as noise pollution. The APMH must absolutely be considered by the council in it’s decisions and I am amazed that the previous application was passed with little reference to this point other than the relocation of 74 long term spaces which are shared with the hospital.
Where are the Tesco staff going to park? In the APMH carpark? How many staff? That would mean there would be no parking left for residents of Ashtead.
Susanne,
Your point is crucial. Tesco have stated that at any one time 25 staff would be working at the store. Their Transport Plan states that 72% of their staff would drive to work ie 18 parking spaces would be needed. (In fact more than 18 will be needed as you have to allow for cross over of workers at shift change over times). But Tesco are only providing 5 or 6 spaces in a secret off-site location. This means they are at least 12 spaces short and no provision has been made at all for them. One would assume these staff would park in the APMH Car Park.
For full details of the Parking Problem please see Quentin Armitage’s “Parking Analysis” http://saveashtead.co.uk/parking-analysis-2012/ which has been submitted as SAVE’s first objection – which calculates that an extra 80 parking spaces would need to be provided for a store of this size to be built.
I notice that on its website the ARA is suggesting that the
“views of Ashtead residents were polarised for the last Application, and it would seem the same situation prevails for this third Application”
and then goes on to say that the ARA’s
“Committee will represent your views but it is important you let us know what you want.”
Perhaps the ARA has overlooked the following:
1. There were approximately 1200 submissions to MVDC in relation to Tesco’s previous application with approx 98% opposed to the application.
2. In the ARA’s own survey in late 2010, 78% of respondents indicated they want any retail development on the Tesco site restricted to a small convenience store and 90+%, in answer to various questions, made it clear they want no changes made to the existing parking arrangements in Ashtead village.
3. There are currently approximately 550 submissions on the MVDC website in relation to Tesco’s current application and only 9 of them support the application ie 98% are opposed to Tesco’s current application.
I would have thought the views of Ashtead residents have been, and continue to be, clearly and consistently stated. There should be no doubting what Ashtead residents want.
Far from being polarised, Ashtead residents were, and are, virtually unanimous in their opposition to Tesco’s applications.
Just how many more times and to how many more people must Ashtead residents make their views known before they are actually listened to.
Who are you?
Who are your Directors?
Who do you represent?
What are your aims?
Are you a not for profit organisation, and if so can you clarify how you operate?
You seem to be very vocal but secretive about your leadership and your aims?
Can you clarify this for me, please?
Andrew Lyons
PS perhaps access to your articles of Association placed on your website would alleviate my concerns.
Andrew, have you read the homepage of this website?
I would also recommend you look at the ‘Press Releases’ pages or the ‘Our Plan’ and ‘Our Objections’ sections, where everything is quite clearly stated.
Plus there are loads photos with names of the SAVE spokes people all over the site.
To be honest, you’d be hard pressed to find a more open group than SAVE; check out the ‘Archives’ on the left hand-side, they go back to November 2009 with independently written journalist articles (from all the local newspapers and the BBC) talking about SAVE and it’s aims.
Part of my letter of complaint against the Tesco Proposal
Parking
Tesco report shows parking on The Street (A24) at 100% (in reality, it is significantly above this level i.e. many more people want to park for no cost on the roads than there are spaces available) for most of the working day, this is borne out by real life observation, what the report does not show is that this causes persistent double parking by delivery vans, refuse collection vehicles, shoppers and buses forced to do so because of anti social parking in the bus stops. Also because parking spaces are often left short and the continuous traffic flow prevent vehicles from reverse parking, it is now very common for vehicles to be left sticking out into the traffic flow, all this generates congestion and pollution that is not reflected in the Tesco traffic assessment.
The report also cites parking on days when certain events take place, those chosen do not represent maximum figures for parking requirement, it is essential that a worst case scenario such as the Ashtead Friday Market is shown to give a true representation of parking requirements in the Peace Memorial Hall.
Because shoppers expect parking for this type of development to be free, they will not be prepared to pay for the two local car parks, this will lead to antisocial parking in side streets around The Village, blocking private drives, narrow local roads, junctions and bends. This will have serious safety implications for pedestrians and cyclists as well as other motorists. It will also lead to an increase in parking without paying in the car parks. Will the council be increasing parking warden patrols to control these problems?
Tesco’s figures show 1200 extra vehicles every day, searching for parking spaces, they will have to enter, leave and cross the carriageways of the A24 all of which add to the dangers, delays and bottlenecks on this already overworked major arterial road.
I note that on Saturday, an armoured security vehicle delivering to Tesco’s in Lower Ashtead, mounted and parked on the pavement amidst mothers, children and disabled shoppers who then had to manouver round it, has this type of delivery, municipal refuse collection, and emergency service access to both the proposed store and flats above been properly catered for in this proposal.
I have concerns that the whole computer program based traffic and parking assessments put forward in this application do not tally with my real world experience of local conditions, I see that similar reservations are expressed in the Transport Evaluation for Mole Valley District Council’s Core Strategy, about the TRICS database and its use.
’3.2.5 It should be noted that the TRICS database is a somewhat subjective tool. This is because personal choice and judgement plays a role when choosing appropriate sites in the database to compare with the proposed development.’
For an unbiased up-to-date view of live traffic flow in the area I recommend both BBC radio Surrey on 104FM or by computer enter Google Maps, go to Ashtead Surrey and select the traffic pull-down top right of screen.
This gives as close as possible live traffic flow information and shows clearly that there are regular problems in the Ashtead Village area
Traffic
At the Pedestrian Crossing in Ashtead Village, The Street (A24) has a carriageway width of 7.5M. The 2005 traffic flow evaluation of the A24 between Woodfield Lane and the Knoll roundabout (see appendix), where the road is wider and does not have such a congested frontage, shows a maximum operating capacity of 1300 vehicles per hour but an actual peak traffic flow of 1401 VPH, if in 2005 the road was already above its maximum capacity, it is clearly not sensible to allow further developments that will increase the problem. The development at Parsons Mead has already been allowed and must surely also aggravate the problem once it is fully occupied.
Has the councils road maintenance program taken this into account and has it been fully costed in?
Another survey around the same time, shows delays at the Knoll roundabout of 77 seconds per vehicle. Flow rates of 1401 VPH gives figures of time wasted per vehicle as, 30 man hours per hour for 4 hours of rush hours (am and pm) = 120 hours per day, for the 4 days per week this happens (Friday is usually clear) = 480 hours per week, assume 50 working weeks = 24000 per year. On a 40 hour working week, this is 600 weeks or 12 man years years of productive work lost every year and a massive amount of vehicle exhaust pollution due to congestion caused by poor traffic flow on the A24.
Increasing congestion through Ashtead Village will add to these figures, thus discouraging business set up and employment throughout Mole Valley.
The Tesco traffic flow report was done on Fridays and Saturdays when traffic flow is much lower than Monday to Thursday (because of major traffic delays between 6.30 and 9.30 every morning, local commuters need to be on the M25 by 6.15, so they arrive at work early and use the time built up to take part or all of Friday off) when peak commuter traffic flow is often well above the engineering limits for this type of road.
Hi Nick
Great points – have you put these in an objection letter?
Judy
I think SAVE is doing a brilliant job and we must all do our bit to stop Tesco bullying their way through – I’ve sent my objections.
Why on earth do we need another Tesco anyhow? We have one on Craddocks Avenue and another just down the road in Leatherhead. There is a Co-operative in the Village in addition to the independents – Surely that is sufficient?!
It seems that these ‘Giant’ companies are trying to muscle in everywhere and although we are the ‘little peole’, together we can stand against them just as big!
I think Tesco say that every percentage reduction in store size corresponds to the same reduction in cars. So 50% reduction in store size (from this proposal) would equal a 50% reduction in car trips making 4,000 – 5,000 extra cars a week rather than the twice that amount in this proposal.
In your leaflet you say “a smaller store could solve these issues”.
Surely it would only marginally reduce the impact of the car parking issues, far from solving it. You quote Tesco as predicting 1,200 extra cars per day – even cutting this by half or even a three quarters is far from solving the problem.
I have written to the council objecting to the proposal.
David Johnston
David,
Unfortunately, the site is owned by a retailer and designated retail so realistically Tesco (or any other retailer) cannot be stopped from building a store – the only issue is how big.
The 1200 cars extra per day, indicated by Tesco, that the store will generate does not withstand critical analysis and is understated. Having said that, it is crystal clear to Ashtead residents that ANY increase on current parking levels, from a new store or any other source, will cause a problem with parking in the village. The Planning Inspector clearly recognised this problem which is why he imposed the condition that 74 extra spaces had to be created BEFORE Tesco’s previously proposed store could be built. Thus, unless any new proposal can be shown to generate NO extra parking demand on Ashtead village then, without additional parking spaces being created, it will clearly contradict the Planning Inspector’s decision.
Given this, what has Tesco done? Tesco has now put forward a proposal which seeks to create a significant increase in parking demand in Ashtead village without there being any new spaces to accomodate the demand. This not only flies in the face of the Planning Inspector’s decision, it also flies in the face of simple common sense.
The audacity and arrogance of Tesco is quite astonishing, since even a cursory analysis of the position shows its proposal should be rejected.
As to the call for a smaller store, this (consistent with the clearly expressed views of residents) is a call for a Tesco Express sized store similar to that in Craddocks Parade. Tesco can then provide all required customer and staff parking plus parking for the flats above the store, plus all delivery/service access and activites on its own site, thereby minimising the impact elsewhere.
Whilst this would largely solve the parking issues, there would still be traffic problems, issues with delivery vehicles and noise issues. At least an Express sized store would minimise these issues and perhaps also give the local independent food shops a chance to compete.
Climate Week, which Tesco is the main Headline partner is 12th to 18th March. If they are serious about agreeing that cliamte change is the most serious threat facing mankind which is what they say, they should be doing all they can to reduce the CO2 emmissions and all the other requirements for sustainablity so that this store reaches a minimum of Code 3 and ‘very good’ for the BREEAM targets.
A good, clear, well thought out summary of the issues. Thanks.