Tesco one more try

As Tav pointed out in a comment on my Woolworths entry Tesco have produced yet another planning application for the Carpets of Worth Site. From the online planning portal let's run down the history so far:

06/5079/INV 12/12/06 - 36 Documents (5 drawings, 27 supporting documents)
07/1105/EIA 31/10/07 - 71 Documents (24 drawings, 40 supporting documents)
08/1053/EIA 01/12/08 - 56 Documents (19 drawings, 33 supporting documents)

All the elevation drawings are done by Saunders, in 2006 we get ink outlines; in 2007 someone found the fill tool so we get coloured blocks; and in 2008 we get a more sophisticated fill with gradients and background clouds (wooo!).

Consistency not exactly a strong point here, in 06 the elevations are presented as North, South, West, East. In 07 we see West, East, South, North; and in 08 - South, West, North, East. The North entrance that had disappeared off the 07 drawings is back and looking sleeker.

The road layouts have been done by Arup. In 07 the overall plan was designated TS-G-01 r08, overall plan; in 08 we're up to revision 12. It would be much easier to compare the two if the 08 version didn't have an embedded link that takes you to Arup's homepage. Some minor graphical changes with the major additions being pointers to the listed buildings that are being retained.

The major concerns for traffic are found on the Mitton Street plans for 07 and 08. At first glance nothing different they still want to add in three controlled crossing points at Lion Hill etc. (though amusingly none lead to the supermarket directly due to the pavement widths), and they still want to put in traffic lights at Severn Road with crossing facilities, presumably to enable both pedestrians to cross and vehicles to get out of Severn Road. I'm unsure how that helps pedestrians trying to cross Severn Road from the town side, but hey that's their fault for not sticking to the plan (i.e. cross the road, cross the road, walk, and then cross back over.) and we all know that no-one would be stupid enough to use the not-crossing point to get to the correct side of Mitton Street and then use the not-controlled-by-lights to cross Severn Road - who'd do things like that?

The kicker on this plan is the layout of the bus stops. In 07 from Mitton Street we had a bay, probably as useful as the one in High Street, but hey at least you can attempt to get past it. Now in 08 the bay has gone and instead we have two stops opposed to each other. They have at least moved one down, but we've gained what appear to be parking bays on one side similar to Bridge Street. The road's nice and wide so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle though, again as with Bridge Street, if not handled correctly all traffic leaving the site may well be overtaking; it depends on widths.

The extension to the road relief from Discovery Road is interesting in that it shows a smooth curve to the bridge over the Stour and an almost afterthought access road to flood plain. The point of the relief road is that it will be continuing straight at this point and as with he original stop-dead of both Discovery Road and Millfield Road should reflect this as it did in the 07 plans.

The site plan has jumped from revision H to K with little difference, neither the 07 or 08 plans show the crossing from Severn Road across both lanes of Mitton Street. Oh and the 08 plans have removed the areas from the buildings hmmm.

Can't get at the 08 flood report, but the meat should be in the Environmental Report, for Traffic analysis substitute 4's for 7's in the new one and the wording is nigh on identical, the only addition being 7.1.21 which mentions that extra counts were taken in Nov and validate the 06 model. This is also repeated later (7.1.46).

I still want to highlight the base flow on pages 49 and 50. From Gilgal to Severn Road the flow is 4,764; from Severn Road to Vale Road it's 2,805. As once you start on this road the only exit available to you is Severn Road (no I'm not counting Stour Lane) the logical conclusion is the flow in Severn Road is the difference of the two figures - 1,959. The figures posted here - 246; slight difference.

Again with the forecasted flow, as with the previous locations the maximum flows are forecast at 1,988/hour, 1,100/hour, and 476/hour. Um add those figures up and once again we find that if we have a maximum of 1,988 vehicles entering Mitton Street and a maximum of 1,100 leaving then we need to offset 888 vehicles. If 476 are heading down Severn Road, then where are the other 412 going? I'm willing to accept that these are estimates, but it's the crowing tone 7.1.58 that it's "less than 25% of the capacity of the [Severn] road" that annoys.

Missed this last time, possibly because the document was so slow to load or simply wasn't there at the time, Transport Assessment as to injuries - apparently we had a cluster of pedestrian injuries at the "Lombard Street – Mitton Street – Bridge Street – Lickhill Road Junction" Bridge Street doesn't join any of those other three, I think they meant High Street. Nice to now they actually look at maps when they get this information.

Final point I just need to go back to the flow figures - remember it was 1,988; 1,100, and 476? Well according to the Transport Assesment they're 1,873; 1,911, and 529.

Okay that's it the challenge was regarding the traffic data and it seems obvious all they've done is got some moure counts 'validated' the model and just resubmitted with some tweaks. The traffic flow is something we take very seriously around here so how come one document can quote one set of figures and another a different set?