Kidderminster's nice early on there's barely anyone around at 9am, it's as if you have the town to yourself. I browsed Fopp and spotted S.A.C.:2.2 and 2.3 at £7 each, yee ha! After watching SAC:2.2 I'm getting into the story much more then I did with SAC:1. Oh and I'm still listening to the title song (running through my head now), it's interesting then when I first heard it I thought "She doesn't sound Japanese, she sounds Russian" Yep Origa is Russian-born.
Casino Royale was released last Monday (Monday, Monday always a bloody Monday; are games released on a Monday, was the PS3 released on a Monday? That's a whole other rant though) the RRP for the 2-discer is apparently £22.99, although most stores seem to be doing it for around £14.99 though I did spot one at £13.97. Sainsbury's had it at £8.99, at that price I'll pick it up. Why the mention? Well it was interesting to note that the RRP of the new Playstation 3 is £425 and that's the price that everyone is selling it at around here. Oh my mistake some are doing it at £424.99 or £424.95 big whoop.
Now with any other product you can spot some variance in price from store-to-store so why not with the PS3? If there are few consoles and high demand you'd expect the price to be higher, lots of consoles and low demand and the price should go down. As a new product I expect the price to be 'fixed' around a set figure, but from looking around there seemed to be a fair number of boxes around for sale; only one store had a "Limited stock" sign, but they seemed to have plenty. Hardly reminiscent of the time when only pre-orders got a PS2. So stock on the shelves not selling, in theory the price should come down with the biggest holder cutting their profit margins to get the stuff of the shelves and turning at least some profit. Place your bets, but don't hold your breath.
The WFA has announced the application for the Tesco Outline planning permission has finally arrived here. Tavis and his commentators have made a number of points, I'll add some more. Haphazard as I'll comment as I go and try to pull it all together at the end.
I'll come back to the site plans and applications later. I'll start with the air quality assessment report (the first supporting document), they're using meteorological data from the Birmingham Airport site as
This is the nearest meteorological station, located approximately 45km northeast of Stourport.
Firstly nearest isn't necessarily most relevant and secondly aren't there stations in Worcester and Great Malvern?
Oops almost missed this; the big date at the start is November 2006, but the first draft of the final draft was in August 2005 and that's on the footer of all the pages. Nothing sinister about it, but at first glance it appears to be much more recent then it really is.
Page 25 has the Proposed Construction Mitigation Measures, which are fair enough if adhered to. The outcome is that using the predicted traffic patterns there's no great change in air quality. Next task is to find the predicted traffic patterns, as the report neglects to mention the source of these.
Bat and Otter Surveys, necessary due to the proximity of the river. Oo page 5
a new link and two new river crossings
my emphasis. Outcome no appreciable impact, provided "insensitive" lighting was avoided, rubbish entering the river was dealt with and as much vegetation was retained along the banks of the river. I wonder if they said the same for the Kidderminster branch?
Consultation Statement. Ah the first phase of the "community involvement exercise"
Hmm more details on the site 5,015 square metre supermarket (matches the application document) and space for 324 cars. The petrol station, the road bridge from Discovery Road, and a footbridge across the Stour (just the two?). Page 8 has a list of people they should contact, how nice Stourport Town Council makes it at number 4, right after Disability Action Wyre Forest, Highways Partnership Unit, and Worcestershire County Council.
Public consultation held on 12th, 13th and 14th of October 2006, that's Thursday 10-5, Friday 10-5 and Saturday 10-1. Otherwise known as work, work, and shopping. To advertise they sent letters to over 120 local residents (I'm too far away), adverts in the local press plus editorial (missed it, my fault) and in the existing Tesco (don't shop there).
Of the 166 people who returned filled-in questionnaires 40% were deemed favourable and 60% unfavourable with traffic concerns making up the majority of the latter. Examine a quote on Page 11 though which wants a supermarket, but is worried about traffic. Put that in the favourable pile?
Oh and this is only phase 1 page 12 states that
residents in the immediate vicinity of the site will be invited to take part in further discussions
hmm no more public meetings? Oh and they've got the advert they put in the paper, how the hell did I miss that?
Design and Access Statement Page 4 has the nugget about the Local Plan and about conserving the character of the area. Yee ha page 8
Given that the previous buildings that occupied the site were of a different form and appearance then the buildings to the West of Severn Road there is no need to expect the development of the application site to copy their style or materials.
In other words the site didn't match up to begin with so why should we bother. Page 11 the number of car-spaces is 290, and a road-bridge from Discovery Road to Severn Road (later construction?), a footbridge and a link-road over the Stour.
Still on page 11 (what a busy page) we're told that the store will provide a range of food, non-food goods and services. Oh and the existing store is stated as 'smaller'
Page 15 it states that Severn Road "is likely" to be connected to Worcester Road via the previously mentioned link-road. Oh and the preferred route into town is along Mitton Street for various reasons including the fact it's "reasonably wide", sorry which Mitton Street are they looking at? Oh and a new bus-stop in Severn Road. Hmm okay the bus drives from Mitton Street to Severn Road and comes out... um Discovery Road?
Much as I want to pull everything apart, they've not done too bad here. The quip about the previous site rankles, but they're trying I'll give them that.
Ecological Surveys much of a muchness with the Bat and Otter survey.
Environmental Assessment followed by maps then check forms - medium-risk with respect to ground contamination. Up from the July issue which had a low to medium risk assessment. More maps, more check forms, photos. looks like we've got two environmental surveys here, one from July the other December.
Flood Risk Assessment parts 1 to 3. Low to medium risk. Car-park's back to 324. Road and bridge linking to Discovery Road and a footbridge and...? Nope no mention of the third here. Of interest is the 2nd part which has plans for the both
road bridge and footbridge on pages 5 and 6 Noise Assessment. Assuming no evening work, the construction noise will be tolerable for the short term (clearing and prep estimated at six weeks). essentially although more traffic will be flowing in areas it doesn't already the report indicates no major difference in noise levels. One point was that to assess car-park noise they checked out the Tesco Winnal, Winchester, Hampshire. Um Kidderminster?
Planning Statement Ah confirms the two environmental studies. Page 4 makes much of planting along the edges of the supermarket, gee that sounds familiar. Hmm a lot of things that the local council are expected to take into consideration... oo page 8
5.12 Extension of the primary shopping area or town centre may be appropriate where a need for large developments has been identified which cannot be accommodated in the centre.
So has the need for a large development been identified? Page 13 a key aim of the Local Plan is the adequate provision of a range of shops. Ting Tesco is not a
range of shops and the building of one may lead to the closure of a number of in-town stores. More joy the site is supposed to provide a mix of B1 and C3 although A1 and A3
may be acceptable. Tesco is an A1 proposal.
Page 19 5.64 states that they may try to make Mitton Street a more attractive pedestrian link from the site to the town centre, again are we talking about the same road here? Finally on page 21 it makes much that Tesco plans to use only 45% of the site, leaving the rest to residential or mixed-use development. Does anyone build a store next to a Tesco superstore, or in fact next to any major chain of superstore? Oh and it'll be good for the town centre increasing the town's status in the retail hierarchy, yeaaah right.
Retail Study Ah this'll be the 'need' for a new store. Wha.. woah hold on there fellow page 3
1.4 Stourport is currently underprovided for in terms of bulk food shopping floorspace[...]none of these is capable of providing an attractive bulk food-shopping environment.
You want to make statements like that be prepared to back them up with data. Yawn a rehash of the Planning Statement. Hmm page 15 "lacks a self-contained shopping centre"you mean other the market at the corner of Lombard Street/Lickhill Road and the one that used to be in Bridge Street. Hardly a rationale to build a superstore though. Page 23 mentions the Kidderminster Stores, retail area of 5,400 square metres compared to the proposed area of 2,403 it's more then twice the size, so from my previous estimates to size what's going on? As I said I'll look at the plans later. Spelling error page 24 "wherever" should be "whenever" I think.
Hmm I also note they point out the concessionary areas of the Kidderminster Sainsbury's and Stourport Co-op and don't mention those present in their store... oh wait they don't have any. Ah finally the need for a store - there are better ones outside Stourport so it needs one inside Stourport; brilliant.
Page 34 7.34 the previous store is likely to taken over by another food-retailer; with a large Tesco on the doorstep, yeah right I can see that happening. Hmm could be a cinema though.
Speculation that the drop in retention in town is based on the Kidderminster Tesco with no reference to either the entire Crossby Estate nor Weavers Wharf. Fiddle the reasoning and you could come to the conclusion that the site should be developed along the lines of Weaver Wharf, with a mix of large and smaller stores in an attractive setting. Though that could prove even more disastrous for the town centre.
I find it ironic that they echo my point that the Co-op will suffer some trade division but the greatest competition is their own Kidderminster Store, oh and lesser impacts on Lidl and 'Kwiksave' oops no more Kwiksave.
Basically it comes down to the fact that for bulk-purchase Stourport is under-provided for compared to areas surrounding it. Instead of people heading out of town let's keep them here instead. It's seductive, but flawed. They talk of bulk purchasing, anyone think that's not going to done by car? I don't see people popping into Tesco for bulk purchases then wandering into town, assuming Tesco allow you to use their car-park this way. Sure some may walk to Tesco from the non-town side, but why should they continue on?
Four part
Traffic impact assessment Oh love page 3 that the report
should not be relied upon by any third-party
Neat. Ah page 13 Link road from Severn Road to the proposed Stourport Relief Road, and the link to Worcester Road via Discovery Way. Page 15 it's nice to get some accurate figures regarding the roads in Stourport - Mitton Street varies in width from 7.4m to 5.5m oh and a mention of how drivers treat the incoming junction with Worcester Road as a priority; gee could it be because it's a tight turn, the change in width, the corners, the cars parked in the left-hand lane? I don't know, it's a mystery to me.
Hah York Street has no road markings, but has sufficient width for merging. Yeah take out that first car-parking bay and theoretically you can. Oh and reconcile "Traffic is therefore restricted to one lane for the majority of York Street" with their first statement. Oh and the mini-roundabout is an accident cluster - tell me something I don't know.
High Street has lay-bys for buses and delivery vehicles... no it doesn't it has a bus-stop and car-parking bays. It has double yellow lines down both sides.. no it doesn't have these people actually visited this town? When?
Gilgal narrows from 5.5m to 4.35m, oh and they neglect to mention the same sort of queueing as per Mitton Street.
Heh Mitton Street pavements are 0.85m to 1.68m on the side the development is (Severn Road side) and 1.16m to 1.69m opposite. Is this is the wide-route alluded to by the Design and Access Statement for pedestrian access.
The nearest railway station is Hartlebury, it doesn't mention the limited service, but it does run hourly to Kidderminster and Worcester um during peak periods. Oh ans there's one at Kidderminster and Worcester too.
Uh-oh page 18 is missing, by the internal count that's pages 6,7, and 8. page 19 (9) starts in the middle of a sentence. Just to confirm I've downloaded it and tried it on a different computer with a different version of Reader, yep not there either.
Page 19 - you have to laugh they say that the introduction of the New Link Road will allow an alternate route to Worcester Road via Lichfield Street, in the same sentence they predict a maximum of 318 vehicles per hour down it. That's about 5 a minute on a single lane two-way street with a minimum width of 4.63m, note the maximum isn't given. A real traffic reliever that'll be.
Oh to keep a straight face, they've spotted the Mitton Street is narrow so the proposed pedestrian route is the northern side, which means... crossing Mitton Street and no you're not going to try and put a pedestrian crossing on a corner, bad doggy.
Although they correctly identify the High Street/Bridge Street/York Street/New Street junction as crucial their queue data's a joke. The assumption appears to be total information awareness on the part of drivers and zero parked cars. Count the number of times the left-hand side of Mitton Street is blocked opposite the Chinese or outside the Yard, count how many people turn left at the left/ahead York Street turn without indicating. Throw in a smorgasbord of pub and other delivery vans unloading and a bus stop that doesn't quite fit one bus, then run your pretty computer program for queue lengths.
Oh 320 cars now + 6 trolley bays. Page 26 - traffic lights on service road due to only having room for two trucks at a time. One by the "loading pay" the other in the service yard. Two trucks can wait on the service access road. So four trucks maximum at any one time. A fifth would block the customer entrance. I'm sure they'll arrange matters accordingly and won't e.g. park one on Severn Road for a bit.
The remaining documents are the queue analysis reports. As I suspected they deal specifically with the junctions in isolation, how much traffic can this junction sustain. The main report made the point that the traffic situation is a figure 8, so a hold up at a junction here, causes a feedback through the whole system.
Right finally the actual drawings and application form. First of all the
application form kills off a rumour that Tesco already own the site, "Prospective Purchaser" is the box ticked. They're also unsure as to how to get rid of surface water "To be advised". The entire site will be 5,015 sq.m, but only 2,403 sq.m will be used. There are 5 spaces for this, the figure is next to the second space which is "office floor space" either they meant the third space "floor space for retail trading" or it's a total for all five types. Inquiring minds would like to know.
The site itself is listed at 4.5 hectares or 45,000 sq.m that leaves 39,985 unaccounted for. Also is that 4.5 hectares the 45% already mentioned of the whole site, or the entire area that Tesco want? I'm guessing the latter, which makes the 39k the car-park and surround.
Site plans now. So why does it
look the same size as the Tesco in Kidderminster when it's half the size. Perhaps the overall size is the same, but more space for warehousing etc. This would jibe with a rumour that Tesco wanted to use the Stourport store as a central warehousing point. Or I'm only human and I've screwed up somewhere. Check the pictures and scale though.
The car-park appears, as usual, the standard f***-up. I've parked my car and want to get to the store, "No that's alright I don't need a footpath I'll walk along the car-park playing dodge the traffic with a trolley." I could say that the footpaths aren't visible except that a nice gap between two sets of bays is displayed filled with trees. Ah and trees at the entrances and exits "Why would I need a clear line of sight to pull out of a junction?"
The splitter triangle at the end of Severn Road is inspired, traffic already has difficulty getting out there let's make it harder. Oo they can build it nice and high and put some bushes on it too, make it look real purty.
I note some bright spark had put in a slip-way to turn right from Lichfield Street into the store. As I'm sure most people leaving will be turning right they now have three lanes to watch instead of two.
The building itself looks like your standard supermarket model, admittedly they've made it a two-tier affair to keep it low.
Summing up: We need a Tesco as apparently we'd currently undersupplied despite the predictions of the local plan that say we aren't or at least not as much as warrants a new superstore. We need an A1 building on this site despite the preference for B1 and C3 types, because it's the only place you can build one and we need one because as above. It doesn't matter that it's of the town centre as we need one see above and it's the only place to build one see above and you (the council) can't reject them for that reason Nah nah nah nah nah.
It'll provide good links to the town centre despite the pedestrian links being too narrow and it being unlikely anyone will drive back into town for some more shopping. It'll keep people shopping in Stourport and not Kidderminster despite the fact that might not be why people shop in Kidderminster and all the money will fly straight back to headquarters, and once we're done building we won't spend a penny more on this area.
Tesco will try and keep in character with the area, but won't really as a) they have their own design ethos towards maximising profit and b) you can't make them as the previous buildings weren't in character nah nah nah nah nah. Oh all right they'll keep the main building lower, and that's nothing to do with the cost of raising the entire area up to level.
The roads they provide will give some relief to the town though in specific only for Vale Road and Gilgal and that at the laughably high maximum 5 a minute rate down Lichfield Street. We do get part of the fabled Stourport Relief Road though, a small part, a cheap part, that also happens to benefit the store too. Damn that's some concession.
They'll be 324, 320, or 290 car-parking bays depending on which report you read, no discussion on whether they'll be trying the old barrier trick they attempted in Kidderminster.
Oh and more trees to be planted along the edge of the entire site, like they did in
Kidderminster then. No mention of how they'll be keeping rubbish out of the river as requested in the ecological report, so a bit like the Kidderminster store again. Damn does this sound familiar?
Oh but you'll get two new bus stops, one right outside the store well actually you'll have to go through the car-park to get there, and one um pretty much right next to it on Severn Road opposite the new access road? Sorry who proposed a bus-stop opposite a junction? Hey they're both on the same sides of the road, where do you get off when you're coming back? Are they going to be just part of a giant loop?
So the reports are inconsistent, have been done over different time frames and make references to things that aren't there anymore. The TIA only deals with each junction in isolation when the system has to be viewed as an entirety and assume perfection on the part of driver and road. The store itself is an A1 which according to the Local Plan we don't need and the site itself is for B1 and C3 with A1 or A3 only as an if-we-must. No mention is made of how they'll deal with the findings of the ecological assessment or the environmental one. I know it's only a proposal for outline planning, but still all-in-all I'll sum it up as "C- needs more work, check your sources"
