Tesco Meets the Council - Act Three

And so we reach the really interesting bit - Tesco introducing its new store, including some details that didn't make the company's press release last month!

Cliff Saunders (CS) explained that Tesco have tried hard to respond to all that came out of the last meeting with Officers in November 2006. The main change now shown on the revised layout is the retention of the Alma Road properties and that the size of the store has been reduced as a consequence suggesting that a 13% reduction in overall floorspace (including parking) has been achieved. This equates to gross floorspace previously being 7297 sq m and now being 6366 sq m. The net retail floorspace (including cafe) falls from 4900 sq m to 4280 sq m and the store layout has changed from “format 55” to “format 45”. CS explained that parking provision has been reduced overall from 546 spaces to 479 spaces. It's great to see these numbers - we can't understand why Tesco wouldn't share them with us before! Of course, this still remains a massive store and there are still almost 500 parking spaces.

CS discussed another major element of change was the removal of parking control (ie barriers) in the car park which enabled a gain in spaces and also to change the vehicle access onto London Road to be turned by 90 degrees, instead of being perpendicular to the road.

CS explained that the expanded retail frontage (small units) now shown across the face of the service yard removed the need for a blank wall in this location. However, the revised layout did not go so far as to remove the necessity for separate servicing and customer vehicle accesses.

CS indicated that three locally listed residential properties in Inkerman Road would be lost (surely demolished - you can't just 'lose' a house?), but that modifications to the parking ramp meant that the parking deck was removed further from the rear of properties in Inkerman Road and that it would be possible to introduce landscaping to soften the appearance of the deck. (again, here we have Tesco looking to appear reasonable by suggesting something no-one wants and then withdrawing it!)

CS stated that although Tesco acknowledge that it would be the Council’s preference to see the residential properties along London Road retained, nevertheless the revised scheme showed their replacement with 11 new town houses. We think that after the meeting, Tesco did revise its plans to retain the London Road properties. The rest of this section deals with technical design aspects of the store, which are interesting, but not perhaps relevant to our goal of not having a store there are all!

A further overall benefit of the revised scheme as outlined by CS was the reduction in the size of the store made possible by the change in the format of the store. This gives rise to a height reduction of 1.2m below that previously proposed coupled with a 30-40% reduction in the overall external volume of the store. CS stressed that this represents a significant reduction in the amount of development now being proposed. CS/RF explained that there is now an additional area of parking proposed off Alma Road to serve the dwellings on that road.

Andrew Robley (AR) opined that the change in the vehicle access helps the overall appearance of the development in that the entrance to the car park will be less likely to present itself as the entrance to some sort of dark “chasm”. AR also stated that saving the existing Alma Road frontage is clearly a positive improvement. He was pleased with the retail units on London Road as they are likely to increase the active frontage. Further AR stated that the positioning of these units was starting to address the issue of the alignment of the development with the road frontage. However, AR stated that he still has reservations about the second (service) access. He also suggested that Tesco look at the service area and the possibility of roofing this area.

CS indicated that the problem with roofing the service area would be that this could reduce the “green credentials” of the scheme. However a canopy is envisaged over part of this area. RF stated that an assessment of the impacts of the delivery yard on local amenity will be made as part of the application submission.

AR reiterated that the Council would wish to see the retention of the locally listed buildings on London Road. If they are (as has been claimed) in such a poor state of repair as to necessitate their being rebuilt then this case will have to be made and AR would need further information in order to provide a view. CS outlined that significant constraints are apparent to the rear of the present buildings in terms of servicing/access.

AR opined that it was again regrettable that 3 locally listed buildings on Inkerman Road were to be demolished and the negative impact this would have on the character and appearance of the street. Clearly the view from the rear of the remaining properties would be of the car park deck. AR indicated that he would provide further feedback on this matter.

AR pointed out that the Council has yet to see elevations of the store itself and that the design of the roof was a particularly important element. AR acknowledged that a building of this size could not have a pitched roof but he would expect a roof of architectural quality rather than merely a flat roof with rooflights “applied” to it.

CS expressed concern that a “northlight” approach to the design of the roof could give rise to a building with an overly industrial appearance, but that the design did reflect a requirement for rainwater harvesting. BB acknowledged that a more traditional northlight roof could potentially impact on the height and bulk of the building. CS explained that Tesco had tried to keep the perimeter parapet height as low as possible. AR said that he would like to see a roof with more “interest” and this could also reflect in a roof design that is exciting internally. Keeping the perimeter low in certain areas would still be advisable as part of an altered roof design.

CS indicated that Tesco were not looking necessarily towards metal cladding of the building. AR stated that he was not entirely dismissive of metal cladding and this might be acceptable within the context of the service yard. AR stated, however, that he did not wish to move into the realm of stone cladding applied to the store.

Notwithstanding AR’s comments already made about the separate service entrance (ie his in principle concerns), AR explained that the treatment of gates to the proposed service yard would be important. He suggested that this required much design thought to come up with something acceptable. There was a danger that gates would look too utilitarian in such a prominent location.

AR stated that he would formulate views relating to the design of the town houses proposed for London Road and supply these at a later date. AR also requested comparative (ie existing and proposed) street scene elevations and cross sections, similar to the sort of drawings discussed at the previous meeting, to facilitate further consideration of the design of the scheme.