Tesco’s New Planning Proposal
A few weeks ago representatives from SAVE met with Tesco’s representatives. We are very pleased that Tesco confirmed they want a two way consultation process with the residents and traders and will consider making amendments to their plans before submitting them to The Planning Committee. So it really is worth spending the time, to review the plans and making your views known.
Despite the very welcome improvements, this Tesco Metro (683 square metre retail space) will only be approximately 9% smaller than their previous 2nd proposal (750 sq. m.) with no parking provided on site, except for the 9 flats. For comparison, this is almost 3 times the size of Tesco Express at Craddocks.
Our primary concerns are that this sized store will still produce too much traffic and parking need for the village and will cause too much disturbance and impact from the volume and size of lorries required. It is important that total parking need for the village and the proposed new store (customers and staff) does not exceed the parking available.
We are very concerned that Tesco will increase the store in the future. Tesco assured us they will consider any planning conditions that we want to be attached to their proposal e.g. that they will not expand the store size in the future.
Please visit the exhibition to form your own views and give feedback on what you feel and on any conditions that you want to apply to any store. This can include you views on:
- The size of the store and its impact on the village (e.g. traffic, parking and lorries).
- Possible conditions you’d like associated with any plan e.g. restrictions on growth of store, restrictions on type of produce sold to protect local traders, restrictions on the number of lorry deliveries.
- Parking arrangements e.g. should staff parking and customer parking be provided on-site.
Tesco announced that they will be submitting a new Planning Application – their 3rd proposal – early in 2012.
The good news is that they have NOT found the extra 74 parking spaces needed to build their 2nd proposed store (750 square metres retail space ) passed at the Public Inquiry in 2010 subject to this parking condition. This proves that SAVE (Save Ashtead’s Village Environment) and the ARA (Ashtead Residents’ Association) were right to oppose it on the grounds that it was still too large for the village.
We believe it is great news that Tesco has finally been forced to listen to many of our main concerns given that they intend to build. Their 3rd proposal is for a TESCO METRO, a style of store that lies someway between a Tesco Express and their larger stores.
Tesco have indicated that their proposal would:
- Leave the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall Car Park exactly as it is, with control maintained by Mole Valley District Council. This represents a MAJOR VICTORY for the village following the SAVE/ARA Car Parking Campaign earlier this year!
- Only a front entrance onto The Street. There would no longer be a back entrance directly onto the Car Park, which would have drawn shoppers away from the other village shops. SAVE’s concern has always been to support our local traders and try to increase footfall into the village. Another MAJOR VICTORY!
- A basket only store. No large, noisy trolleys outside the store, but small ones within it. Another MAJOR VICTORY!
However it is disappointing that Tesco are only reducing the overall size of the store by less than 10% of the size of proposal number 2. It will be approx. 690 sqm. of retail space (to be confirmed) which is two and three quarters the size of Tesco Express at Craddocks. There will still be 9 flats built above it, although their parking spaces will be within the Tesco site. Tesco argue that because it is a basket only store, the demand for parking will be considerably reduced compared to their 2nd proposal.
SAVE will be meeting with Tesco in January to see and discuss their plans in detail.
We want there to be full, effective Public Consultation BEFORE Tesco submit this application. There are several important issues to be covered including:
- Ensuring that the store meets Sustainability Standards. (Tesco were granted an exemption from these for their previous applications – we need to ensure that this does not happen again).
- Ensuring there are acceptable plans for lorry size, frequency and access. Lorries will present a significant problem for neighbouring properties and the traffic flow through Ashtead.
- Ensuring that a basket store does result in reduced traffic by exploring traffic plans.
- Ensuring that any proposal MUST have limits set on future expansion. We must make sure that Tesco cannot break any conditions on which any plans are accepted.
Remember you can contact us here or post your views using the form below.
Tweet
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you Linda. Very well presented views.
It is all too easy for opponents of any planning scheme to be labelled NIMBYs, but in this case, the issue has to be brought back to what is that is actually being opposed? Certainly not the notion of development or a store on the site and SAVE/ARA have been quite clear on that.
I oppose the oversized and inappropriate development of a site on a prominent busy public highway, in the centre of the village and in area that already has parking issues, with very little regard for the impact on its surroundings.
In my mind, the only place for parking is under the store with rear access.
Lidl have provided us a great example in Leatherhead of how this can and should be achieved. An appropriately sized, basket only- front access only store with contained onsite parking is something I would personally support. This would help alleviate the demand for onstreet parking on the A24 (the Street), and pressure for parking at APMH and surrounding streets.
If Lidl can lead the way and manage that, why cant these guys!! ??
Cameron, thanks for your thanks.
My concern with under store (as compared with on-site) parking is basically twofold, namely (i) the entry/exit of vehicles at the rear would likely require significant modifications to the APMH car park and adversely impact the users of that car park, and (ii) it would result in a much larger store with all the other negative consequences for the village (traffic, delivery/service vehicles, local retail impact etc) which are of real concern to the residents.
Lidl’s location lends itself to an under store parking solution, whereas the same approach on the Tesco site would, I suggest, simply lead to many of the problems which the residents have identified.
Whilst parking is a crucial issue, it is not the only issue.
Because the fundamental cause of most of the residents’ concerns is the excessive size of the store, the obvious solution is to significantly reduce the size. This, of course, is something Tesco will not contemplate voluntarily so it falls upon MVDC councillors to ensure the planning process forces an appropriate development outcome upon Tesco in line with wishes of Ashtead residents.
There can be little doubt Tesco will keep trying to get their way, all the time denying (well they would say that, wouldn’t they) the obvious consequences of what they propose. It is therefore vital residents continue to make their views known and that their representatives do just that ie represent the views of those they represent.
Tesco’s previous proposal was for a 750sqm store.
In an unprecedented 1000+ submissions to MVDC on that proposal (almost 100% opposing it) residents made clear their concerns over issues including, but not limited to, the unacceptable increase in traffic and congestion on the A24 and particularly at the dangerous Woodfield Lane junction, the unacceptable increase in parking which would swamp the APMH car park and lead to greater on-street parking in Ashtead, issues (including pedestrian safety) arising from the movements of delivery/service vehicles and the unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties.
In essence, these concerns largely stemmed from one basic fact – the excessive size of the store proposed which:
(a) directly impacts traffic numbers,
(b) left no space within the Tesco site itself for the parking demands and movement of delivery/service vehicles arising from the development, and
(c) resulted in the development encroaching unacceptably on neighbouring properties, particularly those at the rear of the site.
It is not surprising then that in a subsequent survey of Ashtead residents carried out by SAVE and the ARA 78% of the 2252 respondents indicated that any new store development on the site should be restricted to a convenience store ie a store similar in size and content to the existing Tesco Express at Craddocks Parade. Residents recognise that a development of the size of the Craddocks Parade Tesco Express would (a) provide the best chance of avoiding the traffic problems, (b) allow sufficient space within the site itself for parking and the movement of delivery/service vehicles, and (c) move the development further away from the neighbouring properties.
How has Tesco responded to the clear and unequivocal views expressed by the overwhelming majority of the residents of Ashtead?
Tesco is now proposing a store almost THREE TIMES the size of the existing Tesco Express and only marginally (less than 10%) smaller than its previous proposal, a store taking up almost the whole of the existing site.
Tesco is always very quick to say that it will consider the views of residents and take those into account in its plans. Words are, of course, easy and cheap. Perhaps Tesco can explain just how, in any meaningful way, the publicly expressed concerns of the residents (indicated above) have been taken into account in its new proposal.
As for the recent public exhibition in the APMH by Tesco of its new proposal, no forms were provided for attendees to register their comments/feedback on the proposal but forms were provided for attendees to indicate what goods they would like sold in the proposed store. In other words, there was no genuine attempt by Tesco at community consultation on its new proposal – in fact, it was simply the presentation of a fait accompli.
No one should be surprised at Tesco’s approach and it is little wonder Tesco has zero credibility with the residents of Ashtead.
It is clear that Tesco is simply out to optimise its commercial position within the constraints (such as they are) imposed upon it by the planning process and that Tesco will say and do whatever it feels necessary to achieve that goal.
It is also clear that Tesco has absolutely no regard for the views of Ashtead residents and does not care about the irreversible impacts of its development upon Ashtead, except to the extent those impacts are consistent with its commercial aims.
These are not criticisms of Tesco’s approach (since it is only to be expected) but a statement of the obvious reality residents are confronted with.
It is imperative residents and, more importantly, their representatives (councillors, the ARA and SAVE) recognise this reality and accept that taking a reasonable approach with Tesco is fruitless, since it will never be reciprocated. Tesco is not reasonable. Tesco simply does what Tesco wants whilst telling the world how reasonable Tesco is.
Although Tesco may not have given residents a genuine opportunity to comment on its new proposal, residents will have the opportunity to submit their comments on the proposal with MVDC, as part of the planning process, once Tesco has lodged its formal planning application with MVDC, which is expected to be within a few weeks.
It is essential that as many residents as possible make their views known in the planning process so that the apathy (or the ‘oh no, not again’ factor) that Tesco is relying upon does not occur.
Residents should also make their views clearly known to their Ashtead councillors and to James Friend (Leader of MVDC) as, from various recent press comments and as incredible as it may seem given the views of the residents they represent, it appears local councillors may be taking the view any development on the site is better than fighting for a development that is right for Ashtead.
Cannot get up to the hall this evening but thought I would mention again that I think supermarkets are greedy (but you knew that anyway!) – if we cannot stop them then this last proposal seems manageable – although the lorry delivery situation is going to be unbearable.