Objection Letter on “Tesco Traffic and Parking Analysis 2012”

Sent to Mole Valley District Council on 17th May 2012

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Planning Application no. MO/2012/0234/PLAMAJ
Proposal for Tesco Metro, the Street, Ashtead Village

Please find attached our 4th Objection – our up-dated “Tesco Traffic and Parking Analysis 2012” Report by Quentin Armitage, with 5 Appendices. This Objection up-dates our 1st Objection “TESCO – Parking 2012” by Quentin Armitage, sent to you on 29th March 2012

The main sections are:

  • Introduction
  • Appeal decisions
  • Traffic volume and trip rates
  • Woodfield Lane Junction
  • Parking calculations in new application
  • Visitors to The Street
  • Delivery lorries

The Analysis demonstrates that although the current application is for a slightly smaller (9%) store, the issues arising from such a development are in many ways worse than in the previous application. In particular, it shows that the traffic rates generated would be higher than those set out by Tesco in their previous (second) application, and consequently the traffic and parking issues would be closer to those of their original (first) applcation, whose rejection was upheld by the Planning Inspector. 

The Analysis shows there are significant and numerous errors and omissions in Tesco’s own planning analysis. It concludes that were the proposal to proceed in its current form there would be significant traffic and parking issues that would result in Ashtead village.

The views expressed in this Report are those of SAVE alone. We not not represent any other group or organisation.

With kind regards,

Gillian Russell BA, M.Sc, (Oxon.), M.Phil (Town Planning)
Quentin Armitage BA (Oxon.) Maths
Judy Smale B.Sc., MBA

Spokespersons for SAVE – “Save Ashtead’s Village Environment”


Report on Tesco traffic and parking 2012

Re: planning application MO/2012/0234



Tesco have submitted a revised planning application for a supermarket in the centre of Ashtead. Part of the application relates to parking and traffic generation, which is set out in the Transport Assessment contained within the application.

Following the rejection of the previous two planning applications by Tesco (MO/2008/1127 and MO/2009/1322), Tesco appealed the decisions. On appeal, the Planning Inspector refused the first application, but allowed the second application with the condition (inter alia) that no development should take place until arrangements have been made for the relocation of the 74 long-term parking spaces in the APMH car park.

The allowed application not only was required to provide the additional 74 parking spaces, but also included 24 additional parking spaces which Tesco were proposing to provide through the enlargement of the APMH car park, giving a total increase of 98 spaces. Tesco’s current application (MO/2012/0234) neither provides the additional 24 spaces, nor makes provision for the extra 74 spaces.

The analysis below shows that Tesco have understated the additional parking demand that would be generated by the proposed supermarket, and that the shortfall of parking spaces due to this application is higher than that identified by the Planning Inspector when allowing the appeal for the previous application, but with the requirement to provide overall 98 additional parking spaces.

Appeal decisions

In the Planning Inspector’s report, he made the following statements in relation to parking:

  • “But of course Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall car park is already shared by others, many of whom have prior claims upon it.”
  • “That still leaves the crucial question of what to do about displaced long-term parking spaces. … There is no immediate answer. I saw for myself that there is limited space at Grove Road car park, and that kerb-side parking already contributes to congestion in and around The Village. The Character Appraisal confirms it. Any heavy and additional burden of kerbside parking would be unacceptable.”
  • “If existing long-term parking is removed, it is evident that the car park could provide enough short-term spaces day to day, even during medium to large events at the Memorial Hall. The total, agreed for the purposes of the final scheme, would be 181 car parking spaces. This capacity would rarely be stretched.”
  • “On that basis, the proposed supermarket should provide a maximum of 102 parking spaces (including employees’ spaces, and those reserved by condition for disabled).”
  • “On the basis of available evidence, the shortfall would amount to 74 parking spaces. I conclude that permission should be granted only on condition that development is not commenced until proper provision has been made for the relocation of 74 long-stay parking spaces to mitigate the problems of further on-street parking, and to ensure adequate short-stay parking for the supermarket, those attending Peace Memorial Hall [sic] and for other users of Ashtead centre.”

As a consequence of the above, the Inspector imposed the following condition on the allowed planning application:

  • “No development hereby permitted shall commence until the District Council has confirmed in writing that it has made arrangements for the relocation of the existing 74 long stay parking spaces in the Peace Memorial Hall Car Park and that all 181 proposed parking spaces shall be short stay spaces to be retained thereafter.”

In summary, the Planning Inspector found that the shortfall of parking spaces in planning application MO/2009/1322, taking into account the additional 24 spaces proposed, was 74 spaces, and that this shortfall would have to be made good prior to the proposed supermarket being developed.

Traffic volume and trip rates

Tesco have calculated peak traffic and car park levels based on a trip rate per 100 sqm calculated from large Tesco stores, and applied that trip rate to the 1370sqm store proposed for Ashtead. This approach produces a significant underestimate of 40% of traffic and car park levels, as shown in Appendix 1, since the trip rate per 100sqm increases as the store size decreases.

The consequence of this is that all traffic generation levels and all car parking requirements need to be increased by 40% in order to provide a realistic demonstration of the likely impact of the proposed store. Increasing the figures by 40% makes the traffic generation and car parking demand higher than the levels set out in the planning application MO/2009/1322, as allowed by the planning inspector subject to an additional 74 parking spaces being provided, and closer to the figures for the original application MO/2008/1127, whose rejection was upheld by the inspector, in part on the grounds that the traffic and parking levels were not acceptable.

Whereas in the original planning application Tesco projected traffic rates forward to five years after the store would have opened, Tesco are now using those same projections which result in projections of old data to traffic levels for today, rather than 5 years hence. There is therefore no analysis of what projected traffic levels will be five years after the store has opened.

As a consequence of the above, there is a significant risk that the traffic levels, especially in relation to the Woodfield Lane junction, will be considered to be of the same levels as the original application and hence will not be acceptable to the Highways Authority.

Woodfield Lane junction

Appendix 2 lists the issues with the planning application’s analysis of the Woodfield Lane junction.

The key issues are:

  • For the revised junction, a wider carriageway width than currently exists has been entered into the PICADY model, whereas Tesco are proposing to narrow the junction. This results in an overstatement of the junction’s capacity.
  • Traffic volumes are understated by 40% (see above)
  • PICADY is not suitable for a 5 arm junction, not does it model the controlled pedestrian crossings, which significantly affect the traffic flow.
  • It is modelled using data 5 years old or more, whereas Stoke-on-Trent City Council rejected a similar application from Tesco where the information was only two years out of date (see Appendix 3).
  • There has been no validation of the model against existing traffic patterns, to the extent that the model suggests that the junction is acceptable whereas everyone accepts that it is currently unacceptable.

Due to the above issues, there is no evidence that the proposed development will not cause significant problems to the Woodfield Lane junction.

Parking calculations in new application

Tesco’s new planning application is for a supermarket with Retail Floor Area of 685 sq.m., a 9% reduction on the previous supermarket size. Tesco have undertaken revised parking calculations to seek to demonstrate that there will be sufficient parking, and this is set out in the Transport Assessment.

The details of the revised calculations are set out in Appendices 4 and 5, and they demonstrate that more additional spaces are required than the previous application, due to:

  • the car park no longer being extended;
  • the increased demand from other developments being omitted;
  • the omission of staff parking requirements;
  • the understatement of the trip rate by 40%.

The calculations show that approximately 120 extra spaces would need to be provided to be consistent with the approach adopted by the planning inspector in the appeal that he allowed. This additional parking provision clearly cannot be met within the existing parking provision in Ashtead, and in particular the capacity of the Grove Road car park is already taken into account in the calculations. Moving long term parking into Grove Road does not create any additional capacity, it reduces the current choice of both long and short term parking in each car park, and would still leave a shortfall of approximately 100 spaces.

Visitors to The Street

In an article in the Leatherhead Advertiser on April 5th, a Tesco spokesman said “… with approximately 80% of customers to Tesco also spending time in other shops”. Following identification that the figure of 80% was inconsistent with the planning application which gave a figure of 20%, in the Leatherhead Advertiser of 26th April, a Tesco spokesman gave the following clarification: “In fact, the 80% figure relates to the number of visitors to The Street who will be ‘new shoppers’”.

Recent counts of visitor numbers to The Street show that, at the times of the counts, the number of visitors varied between 69 and 99, with an average of 80. If, as Tesco claims, the number of ‘new shoppers’ to The Street becomes 5 times as many as now, that would result in an increase of 320 shoppers. Using RTP’s figure of 67% of visitors to The Street travel by car, this would result in an additional 214 parking spaces required at any one time in the village.

Tesco now appear to be saying that the additional parking demand generated by the proposed store will be 5 times the figure they give in the planning application as the peak parking demand generated by the store, requiring an additional 214 spaces as opposed to the maximum of 43 that they state, and the 214 figure is excluding staff parking.

Delivery lorries

There is considerable concern about the arrival and departure of delivery lorries, and the impact that they will have on traffic and parking in The Street (A24).

  • There have been comments made that the turning spaces are too small for delivery lorries turning to/from The Street:
    • if there is room for the lorries to turn, it may compromise the on-street parking
    • lorries will need to traverse the adjacent pavements thereby putting pedestrians at risk, especially since this is the route to the nearest bus-stop. This was confirmed by Tesco at a meeting on 23rd February 2012.
    • if turning is difficult for lorries, there will be considerable traffic delays on the A24 while the lorries manoeuvre.
  • Tesco state that for safety reasons they will use a banksman while lorries are arriving and departing. In order to cover for sickness and meal breaks, Tesco would need to have at least 3 trained banksman scheduled to be on duty at any time that deliveries will be made. Tesco state that they will have a banksman (presumably one) on duty, and this makes no allowance for sickness and meal breaks.
  • Tesco have stated that they will manage the arrival of their delivery vehicles, and that they will have to park up near the M25 junction (although at times these spaces are full) and wait until they are informed that the delivery bay is vacant for them. On the other hand, Tesco have stated that they have no control over independent deliveries (for cash, newpapers, bread etc), and this demonstrates that their plan cannot work, since after one of their own lorries has been told it can arrive, a third party delivery vehicle could arrive. This will inevitably result in delivery lorries queuing on the A24, which is precisely the issue Tesco have said they need to avoid.


Although this application is for a slightly smaller (9%) store, the analysis above demonstrates that the issues caused arising from such a development are in many ways worse than the previous application. In particular, it has been shown that the traffic rates generated will be higher than those set out by Tesco in their second application, and consequently the parking and traffic issues will be closer to those of their original application, whose rejection was upheld by the planning inspector.

Due to the significant and numerous errors and omissions in the analysis in the planning application, it cannot be considered to be a demonstration that the traffic and parking issues will be acceptable, and the analysis contained in this document suggests that there will be significant traffic and parking issues if the proposal were allow to proceed in its current form.

Quentin Armitage
BA Hons (Oxon) Mathematics


May 2012

TRICS analysis

Appendix 1

In order to assess the trip rates, Tesco use data from the TRICS database, which contains traffic counts from various supermarkets around the country. For the analysis in the current proposal, Tesco use trip rates derived from Tesco stores in Bournemouth, Poole, Eastbourne, Ipswich, Barnsley and Chichester, with gross floor areas ranging from 4,300 sqm to 8,376 sqm. Tesco then calculate the trip rate per 100 sqm Gross Floor Area (GFA), take the average of these, and apply that to the 1370 sqm GFA for the proposed store, working on the basis, as they have stated verbally, that there is a linear relationship between GFA and trip rates.

It has always been considered to be dubious that the relationship is linear, and that the smaller the store, the higher the trip rates per floor area would be. This has now been confirmed by a statement made in Tesco’s planning application to Wychavon District Council, reference W/04/00752/PN, in relation to a Tesco store in Evesham. In the Highways Report, produced by Boreham Consulting Engineers, they state It is generally accepted that the trip generation rates do not increase in direct proportion to store size, and trip rate generation rates decrease as the store size increases. The trip rates shown in Table 1 above relate to a store with a GFA of 4,032 sq.m and the trip rates for a larger store should show a reduction” (the proposed store was to have a GFA of 6,638 sq.m.). By this argument, the trip rates for a smaller store will be higher than those extrapolated from larger stores.

Analysis of the data available in Tesco’s documents allows the following calculations to be made. Person’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (PMCC) of trip rates against store size is approximately 0.3, which shows that there is a very weak correlation between store size and trip rate, and hence there is no valid basis to use that and extrapolate to a much smaller store. Indeed, extrapolation, i.e. extending estimates outside the range of the input data, is generally considered not to be valid.

As an alternative, it was investigated to see if there is any correlation between GFA and trip rate per 100 sqm. Using the data for the 7 stores for which detailed data is given in the MO/2009/1322 application, the PMCC for the trip rates is approximately -0.7, which indicates that there is a strong negative correlation between GFA and trip rates per 100sqm, i.e. as floor area increases, the trip rate per 100sqm decreases, supporting the statement made by Boreham in respect of the Evesham application. Using the data for these seven stores, the regression line (line of best fit) of trip rates on floor area is T = 25.70 – 0.00170F where T is trip rate per 100sqm and F is the GFA. This is almost identical to the graph included in Tesco’s application for the Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent application, where a graph is included to demonstrate this, but the figures used in the Ashtead applications are slightly higher here due to them relating exclusively to Tesco stores, as required by Surrey county Council.

Whereas the SCC2 trip rate figure (generated from the large southern stores) gives a peak trip rate of 16.662 trips per 100sqm per peak hour, using the regression line calculation above the trip rate per 100sqm for a 1370sqm store is 23.374. This figure is approximately 40% higher than the figure used by Tesco, and would indicate that all traffic generation and parking figures should be increased by 40%.

From Stoke-on-Trent planning application 48769/FUL, see http://www.planning.stoke.gov.uk/Documents/6355_62.pdf


Woodfield Lane junction

Appendix 2

The planning application is flawed in a number of ways with respect to traffic:

  • The Picady modelling used in the modelling is for a 3 or 4-arm junction, whereas the junction in question is a 5-arm junction.
  •  The Picady modelling indicates the width of the carriageway of the major road (A24) is narrower currently than it would be under the development.  Inconveniently, Tesco have not provided modelling for the baseline situation, only for the situation following the proposed development.  However, the table of geometric data on p. 70 of the Transport Assessment for the previous planning application shows the carriageway width as 6.38m at the top of Woodfield Lane, whereas the similar table on p. 64 of the Transport Assessment for the current application shows the carriageway width as 6.74m with the junction improvement.  This cannot be correct if the proposal is to move the ‘give way’ line forward, thereby narrowing the major carriageway. In the original application, Tesco used 6.00m as the revised carriageway width, but inexplicably increased this for the second application and even further for the current application.
  •  The current application understates the trip generation for the size of the store.  Tesco’s own data for a planning application in Stoke on Trent shows that a smaller store will generate a higher number of trips per 100m2 of floor space than a larger store, and therefore the extrapolation of the trip generation rate based on larger stores is invalid and an underestimate.
  •  The modelling has significantly underestimated the length of queues of vehicles waiting to turn right into Grove Road and to turn right into Woodfield Lane.
  •  The modelling appears to show the development will have no effect on the length of traffic queues waiting to turn right into Woodfield Lane.  Compare the queue length data for stream AB-D in the current Transport Assessment with the 2009 Transport Assessment: p. 67 in 2012 TA with p.91 in 2009 TA;  p.74 in 2012 TA with p.97 in 2009 TA; p.80 in 2012 TA with p.103 in 2009 TA.  In each case, the length of the queue is unchanged.  This is not credible.
  • Colouring the carriageway is designed to slow traffic down, but no account of the consequent reduction of throughput of the junction has been taken account of in the model.


There are also a number of concerns about the proposed modifications to the junction and their effect on road safety:

  • Reducing the length of the blind spot by 1m is trivial and will have almost no impact on the ability of drivers coming out of Woodfield Lane to see what is coming round the corner past The Brewery.
  •  Reducing the width of the lanes on the A24 will have a serious impact on road safety.  The existing lanes are tight and lead to close shaves between traffic turning right into Grove Road and traffic turning right into Woodfield Lane.  There is significant competition between these two streams of traffic for the middle lane currently, with traffic wafting across into the middle lane well in advance of the junction.  Narrower lanes will make a poor situation dangerous and risks head on collisions.
  •  Tesco have not refreshed the data for the 2012 Transport Assessment and therefore have not taken into account recent serious accidents at the junction, including one just before Christmas where a vehicle was spun round and mounted the pavement.
  • The length of the lane for vehicles waiting to turn right into Grove Road has been reduced by approximately 4m, in favour of vehicles waiting to turn right into Woodfield Lane.  The lane for the Grove Road turn is barely long enough to accommodate enough vehicles currently, and a reduction will cause waiting vehicles to block the lane for traffic on the A24 heading towards Epsom.  This could lead to gridlock at the junction.


Letter re Stoke-on-Trent 

Appendix 3



Detailed parking analysis

Appendix 4


The revised calculations have a number of significant errors, as set out below.

  1. Hascombe House Development

The Officers’ Report for planning application MO/2006/0494 identified an additional demand of 30 spaces in the APMH car park from the extended Hascombe House, and this has been omitted from Tesco’s calculations. This parking need was recognised by the Planning Inspector.

  1. Curry House

The additional parking demand of 8 spaces in the APMH car park from the approved extension to The Curry House (planning application MO/2009/0963) due to the loss of existing spaces has been omitted. This parking need was recognised by the Planning Inspector.

  1. Linked trips

Section 9.2(3) of the Transport Assessment refers to linked trips, and that Tesco estimate 20% of trips will be linked trips. By this, Tesco mean that 20% of the trips to the proposed supermarket will be linked to existing trips to other shops in The Street. This is completely at variance with what was stated in the planning application MO/2009/1322, where linked trips were new trips to the proposed supermarket that would generate linked trips to other shops, thereby creating additional trade for the existing shops. Furthermore, whereas it is understood that trips linked to existing trips will not create additional traffic movements, it is quite clearly nonsense to suggest that such linked trips will not generate additional parking demand, since shoppers will need additional time in order to visit the Tesco supermarket as well as the shops they were already visiting. Therefore, the 20% reduction in parking demand due to link trips is invalid, and needs to be removed.

The Planning Statement at paragraph 5.12, and the Retail Assessment from

MO/2009/1322, on which Tesco relies for this application, both state that shopping trips to the Tesco supermarket will generate linked trips to other shops. The Transport Assessment at paragraph 8.6 quotes the Planning Inspector’s report in respect of linked trips: “Tesco think extra footfall would provide significant spin-off for other businesses in the village: that linked trips would actually create a positive impact. Experience at Craddocks Parade bears this out. Objectors argue that the spin off for convenience shops nearby might be greater if the proposed supermarket were to have frontage only onto The Street; not to the car park at the rear.” There is therefore a need to make an allowance for the additional parking duration of these linked trips, and it therefore seems reasonable to use Tesco’s figure of 20% linked trips, but to add this as additional parking demand.

  1. Duration of stay

Paragraph 5.10 of the Planning Statement states “Customers generally spend around 20 minutes in the shop”, which contradicts the statement at paragraph 9.2(4) of the Transport Assessment, which states “with the duration of stay (including visits to other shops) of around 20 minutes”.

Tests have been conducted of how long it takes from arriving in a parking space, including the time to purchase the parking ticket, return to the car to leave the parking ticket, and walk to the proposed supermarket, and likewise for returning from the supermarket to the car park.

Car park Time from parking to supermarket Time from supermarket to leaving Total additional time
APMH 3 minutes 2 minutes 5 minutes
Grove Road 4½ minutes 3 minutes 7½ minutes

These figures show that somewhere between 5 and 7½ minutes, say 6 minutes, needs to be allowed on top of shopping time in the supermarket for the total parking duration. If 20 minutes were to be the total parking time, as suggested in the Transport Assessment, then this would leave 14 minutes for both the shopping in Tesco, and the time for visiting other shops. This is highly unrealistic, and so the figure of 20 minutes from the Planning Statement for the time in the proposed supermarket should be used.

The addition of the 6 minutes to the 20 minutes adds an extra 30% to the total parking time.

  1. Staff parking

Tesco have identified that 20% of the trips to the supermarket will be the new style linked trips, i.e. 20% of the trips to the new supermarket will be linked to existing trips. At paragraph 8.12 of the Transport Assessment, Tesco state that this will result in a 20% reduction in the number of trips generated, and take the 20% reduction into account in their calculations. For the 20% reduction to apply to the number of trips, all the trips must be customer trips, since linked trips have no effect on staff journeys. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the trip rates, and hence parking demand, do not include staff journeys and parking, and that therefore due allowance for these must be added.

Planning Statement paragraph 3.31 states that the proposed supermarket will provide employment for approximately 60-65 staff, and Tesco have stated that up to 50% of the staff will be working at a time. Paragraph 7.9 of the Travel Plan states that 72% of people working in Ashtead Village ward drive to work, and Tesco use this figure for the proportion of staff that will drive to work. Allowing for 30 staff to be working at once, and 72% of these to drive, means that parking for 22 staff needs to be provided (and this amount to over 50% of the peak store parking demand of 43 identified by Tesco, i.e. there will be more staff parking than customers). However, this figure does not take into account the additional parking that would be needed at shift change times, nor that driving rates are likely to be higher for non daytime employment. The figure of 22 must therefore be taken as an under-estimate of actual need, and would need to be increased for any “robust” calculations.

Furthermore, Tesco have taken no account of the approximately 5 or 6 spaces staff parking spaces they have arranged (see below), which further reinforces that the parking figures do not include staff parking.

  1. Staff parking (5/6 spaces)

Paragraph 5.16 of the Planning Statement states “Tesco are pleased to confirm they have arranged a private agreement with a local business for approximately 5 or 6 spaces ”, and paragraph 3.62 states similarly “Tesco are pleased to confirm that they have managed to secure a private agreement with a business in the Street which has parking to use 6 spaces for Tesco staff .”

Not only do Tesco appear to be uncertain about the number of spaces, but the lack of information about the location and the nature of the agreement means that there can be no certainty that the spaces would continue to be available in the medium to long term. For example, these spaces might be the spaces behind The Curry House (which currently has parking for about 8 cars), but the approved development of new flats behind The Curry House means that those spaces will be lost.

Based on the above, and the fact that Tesco have not taken them into account in their calculations, it would be unsafe to make allowance for those spaces now.

  1. Usage of long-term parking for shopping trips

At paragraph 9.11 of the Transport Assessment, Tesco calculate the number of available spaces for parking by taking the number of spaces in the AMPH car park, and add the Grove Road spaces and the spaces on The Street, and then deduct the 41 spaces allowed for Ashtead Hospital, resulting in 181 “available spaces”.

As acknowledge by Tesco when stating that shoppers will stay for approximately 20 minutes (although this figure needs to be increased as shown above, it still remains below 1 hour), parking for shopping will only use short term parking. The above calculation is therefore flawed, in that it includes the 33 long term spaces in the APMH car park not used by the Ashtead Hospital staff.

Since Tesco suggest that the long term spaces should be included in the short term parking availability, this would mean that shoppers parking in the long term parking would spend £4.50 for parking, to spend on average only £12.50 on shopping. This is clearly nonsense, and demonstrates that long term parking spaces must be excluded from the overall availability of short term spaces.

Revised parking calculations

Tesco’s calculations show that when there is not event at the APMH car park, on a weekday there will be a minimum of 81 public parking spaces available in the village. Tesco then provides calculations to show that 81 spaces are sufficient to meet their estimates of peak parking demand from APMH events and the proposed store.

The table below shows the adjustments that need to be made due to the issues identified above.

Reason Reduction in available spaces Net available spaces
Tesco calculation 81
Hascombe House demand 30 51
Curry House displaced spaces 8 43
Generated store parking 43 0
Correction of “new style” linked trip parking 14 -14
Additional linked trip demand 14 -28
Addition of 6 minutes parking time (30% x 57) 17 -45
Staff parking 22 -67

The above shows that, far from there being at least 81 available spaces when there are no events in the APMH car park, without an event there will be an over demand of 67 spaces at peak times, and an excess of demand over supply throughout the working weekday.

The addition of parking demand for an event such as the Ashtead Flower Arranging Group, which creates an additional demand of approximately 48 spaces, results in a shortfall of 115 spaces.

This position is summarised in tabular form in Appendix 5.

The above calculations take no account of the upwards revision of the TRICS trip rates to take account of non-linear relationship between trip rate per 100sqm and GFA. Appendix 1 shows that the trip rates should be increased by 40% in order to be a reasonable, as opposed to robust, estimation of the trip rates. That would add an additional 35 spaces of parking demand, resulting in an even larger shortfall of 100 spaces with no event, and 150 spaces during an event such as ADFAS.

Comparison to previous application

Tesco appear to has apparently chosen to ignore the parking condition imposed by the planning inspector on their second application. At appeal, the Planning Inspector allowed MO/2009/1322 on the condition that an additional 74 parking spaces were provided.

The current application does not seek to extend the APMH car park as was previously the case, resulting in a loss of the 24 additional spaces that were previously to have been provided.

The previous application showed that the SCC2 traffic profile created a peak parking demand of 62 spaces, whereas Tesco state in the current application that the generated parking demand is 43 spaces. This is a reduction in demand of 19 spaces.

The effect of these changes is that 19 fewer spaces are required, but that 24 fewer spaces are to be provided (thereby creating a further increase in demand over availability of 5), and therefore the overall need for additional  parking spaces increases by 5 from 74 to 79. When the difference between Tesco’s stated 43 spaces and the above calculated 88 spaces is added, this results in a shortfall of 124 spaces.

This is consistent with the approach taken in the Revised Parking Calculations section showing a shortfall of between 100 and 150 spaces, and that therefore, these analyses taken together must represent a sound analysis of the true parking situation.

Parking Standards Requirements

Current parking standards for food retail developments in excess of 1000 sqm Gross External Area are 1 space per 14 square meters. Based on a Gross External Area of 1,370 sqm in the current proposal, the requirement is for 98 car parking spaces. Although the proposed Dorking Lidl development (MO/2011/1307) was recommended to be allowed with fewer spaces than the standard sets out (see Officers’ Report 16/12/2011 paragraphs 8.6.2 to 8.6.6), since Lidl as a deep discount store has a lesser need for parking spaces, the Officers’ Report specifically sets out the need for 1 space per 14 sqm in relation to supermarkets like Tescos and Sainsbury’s.

Taking the figure of 124 additional spaces required, as calculated above, and deducting the 14 spaces for the additional linked trips, since that is not parking for Tesco purposes (although it is additional parking demand generated by the proposed development), the figure of 110 spaces just used by the store is very close to the 98 identified by the Parking Standards.

That the figure of 98 spaces identified by the parking standards is such a close match to the parking needs analysis undertaken above gives very strong credibility to the calculations and further verifies that Tesco have significantly understated the parking requirements, by some 56% over the overall need, or alternatively the need is more than 2¼ times the figure Tesco states.


The 3 different methods of analysis above, which all give a very similar result, demonstrate that Tesco have significantly underestimated the additional parking demand that would be generated by the proposed supermarket. The additional parking requirements for this proposal, due to the removal of the 24 additional spaces, is now higher by 5 spaces than the 74 spaces identified by the Planning Inspector in respect of the previous application, and the planning application should only be granted if it is conditioned that approximately 120 extra parking spaces are provided.

Further to the above, if Tesco are now saying that in future, 80% of visitors to The Street will be new visitors generated by the proposed store, then the parking demand is very significantly above the 120 spaces identified above, and is in excess of 200.

                                                                                                                  APPENDIX 5


Time of day Public spaces used per Tesco  (1) Store customer  parking (adjusted Tesco figures) (2) Demand for long- stay parking in short-stay spaces

(3)Total village short-stay parking demand

(4)Total available short-stay spaces in village

(5)Remaining short-stay spaces before APMH event demand  (6)APMH peak event demand for short-stay spaces

(7)Remaining short-stay spaces after APMH event demand   (8)10-11  798833200148525110311-12  948633213148655111612-131007833211148635111414-15  69683317014822507215-16  656333161148135063



  1. This column shows the public spaces used as per the table headed “Existing Car Park Usage and available parking spaces within Ashtead Village Centre” in Appendix K to Tesco’s Transport Assessment.
  2. This column shows Tesco’s estimates of the customer parking demand from the proposed store as per the table headed “Net Traffic predicted to use proposed Metro store allowing for 20% linked trips” in Appendix K to Tesco’s Transport Assessment, adjusted upwards to incorporate the errors in those estimates as discussed in detail on Appendix 4 attached.
  3. This column shows the estimated shortfall in available long-stay spaces in the APMH car park.  Observed (7 March at 11.30) peak demand during March 2012 for long-stay spaces in the APMH was 47 spaces.  As detailed in Appendix 4, to this must be added the future daily demand of 38 spaces (as per the relevant planning applications and accepted by the Planning Inspector) from the new/proposed developments at Hascombe House/Curry House and from Tesco staff of 22 spaces (average number of staff in store 30 x 72% travel to work by car), giving a total peak demand for long-stay spaces of 107 spaces.  Tesco shows 74 long-stay spaces in the APMH car park, so there is an identified shortfall of 33 spaces.
  4. This column is the total of columns 1, 2 and 3.
  5. This column shows the total available short-stay spaces in the village, which are the total 222 public spaces (per Tesco’s planning application) minus the 74 dedicated long-stay spaces in the APMH car park which leaves 148 spaces.
  6. This column shows the short-stay spaces remaining in the village (shortfall shown in red) before the demand from APMH events.  It is column 4 minus column 5.
  7. This column shows the peak demand from events at the APMH based upon car park counts in March 2012.
  8. This column shows the remaining short-stay spaces in the village (shortfall shown in red) after demand from APMH events.  It is column 6 minus column 7.