Yet another Tesco application

Seriously I've lost count now of how many planning applications they've submitted (oh wait it's been three online at least), this blipped up in the notices of the Shuttle (kudos to Jim for spotting it). According to the notice they are

Amended plans, secure by design statement and statement in relation to third party representations received

which just seems to translate to 'the plans have been altered after talking with people'.

Now what I hadn't noticed until I checked the numbers submitted was that the code supplied was identical to the one back in December 08/1053/EIA Now back in December I counted 56 documents split into 19 drawings and 33 supporting documents. We now have 26 drawings and 36 supporting documents. The latest two supporting documents match the titles here "secure by design" and "third party reps" which suggests I may have miscounted the originals by one (which is quite possible).

The Secure By Design rather than being the name of some snobby furniture store is about how the proposals

will deter crime and promote feelings of security and safety

presumably via some sort of aerosol tranquilliser or having guards dressed in Lycra and masks? No it's about regenerative influence and crystal power... okay not crystal power; basically make the site look good influence those areas around it and make sure there aren't large number of muggings, rapes, or murders occurring in the car-parks by, you know, making sure they're well-lit and stuff. Sort of the things you'd kind of expect a store to do anyway, but hey best to be explicit in such matters or not...

Consequently it is anticipated that, following the granting of outline planning permission, Tesco will engage in detailed discussion with all responsible authorities including officers of the Council and the appropriate representative of the Police.

Because who wants to deal with all that before you get outline planning permission, yeesh you mean you want this sort of security built-in from the start - get real. The rest is blah until you get to 3.3 which starts to deal in specifics.

It is proposed to improve the quality of Mitton Street as a pedestrian link between the store site and the town centre

and later

pedestrian crossing facilities to assist in providing a safe connection, via Mitton Street, to the town centre

Yes we've been down this road and we don't want it narrowed or have traffic lights fitted to it thank-you very much.

The potential to enhance Lodge Road as a safe and convenient route to the site for pedestrians will be investigated in consultation with the responsible authorities

Bloody hell that's almost intelligent why didn't I think of that? Oh wait would that be because Lodge Road doesn't connect with Severnside unless you knocked someone's house down?

The other points listed are to provide lighting on footpaths; duh.

In terms of layout those big windows will be aces for "natural surveillance" of areas except at night when they'll turn into partial mirrors. They'll also put CCTV in to deter crime, well how thoughtful of them.

A nice heading of "Activity" reveals

The development will create a significant amount of activity, both within the store and the neighbouring external spaces. This will involve both customers and staff, and other visitors including suppliers.

and later

The opportunity exists to create an active and well used public area adjacent to the store entrance

Wait how does this tie in with the assertion that this development won't have any significant impact of traffic?

Just for fun

The regenerative effects of the proposal will assist in creating a sense of use and ownership and, as a consequence, will promote feelings of safety and security.

and

Tesco intends to have in place a management plan to prevent trolleys being taken and possibly dumped off site. This is not expected to be a significant problem but it is nevertheless considered desirable to establish appropriate contingency measures.

Say what? Supermarket + trolleys + river = not a significant problem? Awesome.

The third-party statements take the form of replies to objections.

We start of with a 'The store size is non-negotiable nah nah nah nah' and the need for one is justified by stating that Wychavon council considered that Pershore could be better served by an additional store. Oh well if Pershore needs one of course we do too. The size is justified by the closure of the existing store, the addition being deemed enough to leave scope for other retailers. Oh and yes of course it'll stop the drip-feed to Kidderminster and encourage people to stay in Stourport; yes sort of right if you consider shopping in Stourport to equate to shopping at Tesco. They go into this in some length and boring detail. No seriously multiple pages with occasionally duplication of points level of detail.

Oo spelling mistake 2.14 "Kiddermisnter"

Hmm worth pointing out street surveys from 2006 that state

key improvements sought by Stourport businesses are increased choice/range of shops and flexible/cheap car parking

What and you think a mono-store with customer-use only parking is the answer to that. Need I remind anyone of my call to introduce half-hour free spaces at Raven Street car-park?

Still justifying the size and 2.40 "Kiddermisnter" again looks like someone added it to the dictionary by accident.

2.41 and 2.42 - oh the pain it hurts it hurts. First place an objective definition of easy walking distance of 300m then measure the distance from the "defined primary shopping area" (I'm guessing the edge of such rather than the centre) to the store entrance a distance of 195m. Excellent just ignore the "easy" part by having to fit a new pavement and pedestrian crossing. Also worth highlighting that the car-park can be used for "linked shopping trips" that is people shopping at Tesco can use the car-park for short-term (define short) parking to visit the town. Of course you'd have to be shopping at Tesco first (or after) which kind of negates the need to go into town which is what everyone's complaining about. And on, and on, and on until section 3 - Highways.

Summed up as 'Thwupppp!' for the entire two paragraphs. Skip 4 Conservation it's rubbish using words such as "importance" and "keenness"; so onto 5 Design.

Summation - there's no objective standard, we like our buildings to look the same as the others, and it was an eye-sore before. We'll do our best but we're not promising anything.

Which to be honest pretty much sums up the entire document.