The basic arguments against the Tesco extension, and the better option of South Side and Smiths Meadow
Tesco have stated that they want to demolish Homebase (because they own the land it is built on) increase the size of their store by 44% of gross space, about 2650 square metres of which 1525 square metres is for retail. Homebase are not sure what they are going to do, leave the area or look for new premises.
They wish to remodel the store. Put in some improvements such as rainwater harvesting and other environmental things. Remodel the delivery area and re locate a lot of the car parking. And increase the car parking by 34 places (possibly 32 they are not sure)
The main point in their S106 to help benefit the community is to re-landscape the area bordering Leighton road with trees and shrubs as public realm, with improvements with steps and seating. In addition set back from this on the canal bank a building, to be run by another company, either as a café or other items. This would be a large building with extensive seating and faces onto the canal.
Tesco’s main arguments are
1. The store is “overtrading” which means that against company average sales per square metre they are trading 78% above. This causes them problems in supplying the public, congestion and overcrowding. Overtrading is just set against convenience goods which are day to day essential purchases such as food, drink, newspapers and cigarettes as the main basis.
2. That according to this they need to expand to accommodate this “overtrading”
3. Also that they have seen in the local retail statistics gathered by CBC, and confirmed by the Milton Keynes Borough survey, that over half of all comparison spend in LB goes to MK and another 10% to other centres. That is about £60 million. Comparison goods are primarily clothing, footwear, furniture, books, CD’s, DVD’s Jewellery. 90% of all clothing and footwear spend goes out of LB and the local area. Most goes to MK.
4. Therefore to accommodate this overtrading and to get back some of the comparison spend that goes to MK they propose that 511 square metres of the retail expansion will go for convenience goods and 1014 square metres will go to comparison goods, over and above what they have already. The amount of space they can go up to according to condition 13 in the original build they can go up to 30% of retail space for comparison, which is 1480 square metres (15,930 square feet or 1.5 times the size of Waitrose retail area, therefore that is the approximate size of the Tesco retail extension)
5. The ongoing figures that the retail study has come up with are an increase in the convenience area for the town of about 2,500 square metres by 2016 and between 6,900 and 9,400 square metres by 2016 for comparison goods (75,000 square feet or 10 times the size of 99p store ground floor area and 102,000 square feet or 10 times the size of Waitrose’s retail area) Bear in mind the whole of Waterbourne Walk retail space is 66,000 square feet you are looking at an area slightly bigger again for new space.
6. Tesco is looking a fifth of the convenience area and at least a sixth of the comparison area for their store for the increase by 2016.
7. Tesco state that about 400 square metres of the comparison space will be taken up by things that Homebase sell already – small electrical devices, kitchenware so only 600 square metres for “new comparison” goods.
8. That the extension will provide 140 jobs, 25:75 full to part time.
9. That traffic levels will not go up.
10. The whole area will be re-landscaped and the building improved.
11. Their stated aim is to keep people shopping in town.
That is what Tesco are saying. It looks quite innocuous but it is not.
The main problem for LB is getting people into the town centre. The shops the community needs more than anything are clothing stores, especially for men and a range of them. The shortfall in clothing and footwear is about £30 million.
Tesco wish to extend their comparison goods ranges because
1) They make up to 5 times the profit on them than food.
2) It is the main growth area they have seeing as the convenience business is very tough
3) That they are getting into more diverse areas of retail.
4) Getting in now will increase their chances of success and make them out to be benefiting the town.
Arguments against
1. “Overtrading”. This is used by Tesco in a number of ways. To get more space and to argue that if they are not too well represented in an area that other stores overtrading is an excuse to put one of theirs in. Overtrading is an ambiguous term. On the figures in the area we could ask for and get a 2,500 square metre supermarket – Asda, Sainsbury and Co-op anyone? – On the same principle that Tesco use themselves.
However, in the same figures Waitrose are overtrading. Unlike Tesco who can remodel their store Waitrose have no room to maneuver. Their store has reached its capacity and they have as much right or even more right than Tesco to expand. If Waitrose move into a 2,000- 3,000 square metre store that will take care of most of the capacity for convenience goods.
Tesco in theory should have all the extension for food to accommodate the overtrading but they are not.
2. So as far as the convenience side is concerned they are not in a great position. They could take care of most of the overtrading by taking a lot of the comparison goods out.
3. As far as the comparison goods are concerned most, if not all, the comparison goods they want to sell will be sold in the Town Centre. Bearing in mind that the town is deficient in clothing and footwear that is the major area to address and would the clothes that Tesco sell actually make a difference to the town deficiency? Not by a long way.
4. Their main argument is that they can address some of the problems. However, their major setback is they are not in the town centre. In the Planning Inspectors on words “the stores location is out-of-centre rather than edge-of-centre as the store is 400 metres from the edge of the designated town centre (Dorvics) and over 600 metres from the High Street proper.”
5. This is a major setback because Government Planning rules are that town centre areas are to be explored first for redevelopment/regeneration. Edges of town if there are no areas suitable are next and out of town centre and out of town are frowned upon and you need a very good argument to win that. LB has two areas South Side of the High Street and Smiths Meadow, both of which fit in with Government planning guidelines. Tesco have rejected these.
6. There is sufficient space on the South Side and Smiths meadow to accommodate the increase of both convenience and comparison goods by 2016. These fit the Government guidelines and would always get preferential treatment. The reasons are quite simple. The town centre area is usually well developed. The transport links are there. They are walkable, there is usually more choice and a town centre is more than retail it is the heart of the community with government offices, library, doctors and other health facilities. The approximate percentage of adults without their own transport in the UK is around 25% which LB is around 16%.
7. It is a fact that a study conducted by Somerfield in 1996 proved that the further out a supermarket it the less is spent in the town centre. This argument was used by the Planning Inspector where he argued, and it fitted the figures, that for every £ spent in Tesco about 10p was spent in the town centre. Waitrose, in the reasoning of the Planning inspector that Waitrose which is in the town centre as well as Iceland, was more beneficial to the town with around 46p per £ spent in town. That several £ million more is spent by Waitrose and Iceland customers in the town than Tesco.
8. Therefore that was the reason the previous application was refused. That the position of Tesco was not good for the vibrancy and vitality of the town centre. The Planning Inspector thought that the extension then would be bad for the town centre.
9. This is the main reason a number of Tesco, and other supermarket, applications get rejected. That they are not in the town centre and the increase in space or a new supermarket would actually take enough away from the town centre shops to cause closures and loss of choice. Vibrancy and Vitality are key words. Other reasons are transport problems, the type of building does not fit in with the area or see no reason for another supermarket.
10. As for the jobs figure involved, 140, it is in the ratio of 3:1 part-time to full time. 105:35 or about 87 full time equivalents. First observation is what are they all going to do? Will there be more skilled jobs, senior positions? 140 is a big leap from 100 originally quoted. For the size of the extension it seems far too large a figure as it is less than the Homebase site they are clearing and they have between 35-45 staff there and these people do similar jobs to their Tesco counterparts.
11. The Homebase staff, if they want, will be interviewed by Tesco. Otherwise about 40 people will go from there.
12. It is a proven fact from academic studies in the US that for every 20 new starts in a supermarket 30 jobs go elsewhere in the area. A retail study, funded by the Supermarkets, showed that for every new supermarket there was a net job loss of 276 in the area. Depending how you look at it there will be a net loss of jobs as shops in the town centre cut back on staff or close and supporting businesses, accountants, book-keepers, window cleaners, cleaners lose staff or accounts. Even the banks will be hit.
13. The café building they wish to build but be run by another company could also have an effect on the town. Depending what it is it will take away trade from the town centre. If it is a fast food business then a number of smaller independent businesses, especially in Linslade, will be hit. Again that would be a net loss of jobs.
14. Transport links are an important part of this. The traffic surveys one Friday 5 pm to 6pm and a Saturday 12 -1pm are inadequate to make any sense of what traffic there is. Tesco backtracked on the road layout due to Council opposition; they wanted to change it. Tesco claim that with Homebase gone the traffic would be no different than now. They do not include any traffic for the café/kiosk which could have implications. Traffic and noise is a particular problem for the residents of Vimy Road and quite probably residents of nearby houses and the people who use the canal who moor up next to and near Tesco.
Argument for other retail in LB
1. 60% of all disposable income in LB-L goes out of the town. Most of that goes to MK.
2. Over 90% of all clothing and footwear disposable income goes out of town, again mainly to MK.
3. Top of the list of types of shops LB is lacking with the population is clothing shops, especially for men.
4. The main argument for redevelopment to the South Side of the High Street is this. To attract people who live in the area use the town centre more you need a draw. The type of shop that the town is lacking is clothing. A premier national brand would be ideal and several would be great. The clothing market potential of LB and area is quite large and the main reason people go out of town is because the choice of clothing stores is in quality mainly quite high, but in breadth and quantity it is not good. Get people into the town to these types of shops and every other shop benefits.
5. If there is retail development on the South Side it will create jobs for a start. The benefits of new retail that complements and improves the shopping offer of LB will bring in more people and keeps them in the town, which in turn could lead to a rise in employment if other shops, chain and independent do well they may need more staff. There will be a net gain of jobs and opportunities for local people.
6. Contrary to belief the addition of new stores, especially if they actual improve the breadth of offer, will not have a negative effect on the existing stores. The example for Leighton is the introduction of Costa Coffee. The feeling was that various cafes would go, which has not been the case at all. Subway coming in had the feeling that several sandwich bars would go. Not the case. They have had an effect for sure but the town has benefitted by it. One reason why they haven’t had a devastating effect is that they are in the town centre – people have a choice.
7. The new retail offer will give the town an opportunity to attract others from other towns, especially MK. LB has a lot to offer but we do not shout about it.
8. From an environmental point of view the improvement of the town centre will reduce down the journeys made to MK. MK is a regional shopping centre and we cannot compete against that, nor do we want to. However, for all people of this area it would be beneficial to have a better shopping offer as a short car journey and a couple of hours in LB will be better than a 25 mile round trip to MK, costing £’s in petrol, car parking charges and wear and tear on the vehicle. Or for those with no car a much wider choice of shops to go to.
9. A larger Waitrose and possible other stores would benefit the town centre shops as an improved larger Waitrose would bring in more revenue for other shops.
Colin Ashby
February 2011