|
Focus Autumn 2001 - Menu - Index -
Previous - Next
Sainsbury Superstore In Selsdon Environment Statement
The Society Position
THE BUILDING
The main pedestrian entrance to the Supermarket is planned
to be at the Addington end of the building so that people feel
that it is part of Selsdon's shopping centre.
The design of the building appears to comply with the requirements
of the planning brief.
B. ALTERNATIVE SITES
1. It is agreed that there is no suitable alternative site
in Selsdon district centre.
2. It is noted that there has been no serious consideration
of alternative sites elsewhere. Given the Waitrose proposal for
Sanderstead, the very high proportion of expenditure in the "Main"
shopping survey spent in unidentified "other" foodstores
by people living in Zones 3 and 9 (Warlingham, Farleigh and New
Addington) indicates that an alternative site outside Selsdon
district centre could reduce the risk of aggravating traffic
congestion. However, there is no obvious alternative site that
would satisfy all parties.
C. TRANSPORT
1. As customers at superstores are expected to buy in quantity,
it would be sensible to retain (rather than increase) the survey
proportions of trips to supermarkets of 12.5% walk and cycle
and 7.2% by public transport as the volume of purchases is frequently
going to be more than most people are prepared to carry home.
2. There is no evidence to show that Friday 26th January and
Saturday 17th March 2001 were representative days. Obtaining
similar data from surveys on other days would validate the data
obtained.
3. On Saturdays, the peak hour for traffic congestion in a
suburban centre such as Selsdon is normally before 1300 hours.
We would suggest 1115 hours to 1215 hours is much more realistic
than 1400 hours to 1500 hours.
4. A new superstore in Selsdon will probably aggravate traffic
congestion more on a Friday evening peak than at any other time.
However, to come to the conclusion that a superstore is a practical
proposition on the basis of a single hour's survey is not statistically
reasonable. Congestion radiates from Selsdon cross roads throughout
the evening rush hour -- demonstrating that it will not increase
significantly requires surveys to be carried out from 1500 hours
to 1930 hours covering both the peak hours of people movement
and of traffic movement through the junction.
5. Calculating the weekly and daily profiles for traffic attraction
and parking accumulation on the basis of that found at stores
at Bromley, Cromwell Road and Ladbroke Grove is likely to be
less realistic than calculating on the basis of Locksbottom.
6. Motorist shoppers choice of supermarket is determined by
brand loyalty, door-to-door journey time and the cost of parking
rather than journey length. The suggested journey length reductions
may not arise if shoppers find the journey to Selsdon Superstore
more congested than that to alternative superstores. The proposed
parking charge will act as a further deterrent.
7. Use of the car park is expected to increase by some 150%
with the largest element of new motor traffic originating from
the Addington direction. The details of the revised road layout
shown in the assessment are not adequate to demonstrate that
congestion will not increase. The addition of a new traffic light
controlled junction immediately south-west of Selsdon cross roads
and the concentration of movement at the cross roads on the Addington
Road alignment is bound to excerbate the tendency for traffic
queues to block back from Selsdon to Sanderstead roundabout.
8. At present, the bus stand in the slip road is used for
all trips on Routes 359 and 654 and for occasional curtailments
on Route 412. As Croydon Council have withdrawn the subsidy for
Route 359, the use of this stand is likely to become very limited.
From a practical point of view, a bus stand is needed near the
centre of Selsdon for Routes 412 and 654 but it does not need
to be in a prime location. The proposed road layout should be
revised to acknowledge this change.
9. Converting the slip road to a two-way street and controlling
access to the car park by traffic lights is going to create a
very complex junction. It would seem impractical to have a formal
pedestrian crossing in the middle of the slip road and to leave
the Upper Selsdon Road (and, possibly, the slip road) out of
traffic light control. There also seems to be a very serious
risk of traffic queues extending across the adjacent light controlled
junctions. (The diagram in the assessment study illustrating
junction layout shows the slip road as a one-way street).
D. SHOPPING SURVEY
1. It is clear that the shopping survey was conducted by people
who do not know the neighbourhood. There are a number of stores
which are entered under two names (e.g Tesco, Thornton Heath
and Tesco, Churnton Heath). There seems to have been confusion
between the names, "Wallington", "Warlingham"
and "Warrington". A little more care should have enabled
the proportion of expenditure to "other" stores to
be reduced. The proportion of "main" shopping expenditure
by residents in Zone 3 (Warlingham and Farleigh) at Wallington,
Sainsbury's does not appear credible.
2. It appears that it is expected that Sainsbury's, Selsdon
will abstract sales mainly from Tesco at Purley, Sainsbury at
Warlingham and stores outside the survey area. It appears that
the distribution of expenditure between stores has been estimated
on a distance basis rather than on door-to-door journey time
and has not considered the impact of parking charges. There is,
however, likely to be some abstraction from smaller foodstores
which could result in their closure. It could result in some
shopping parades losing their last foodstore. Loss of a foodstore
in Central Parade, New Addington would have political consequences.
E. SUSTAINABILITY
1. The building itself would appear to be designed for reasonable
sustainability.
2. National transport policy cannot be regarded as sustainable
-- provided parking charges are avoided, the incremental cost
to the motorist of using his car is generally less than the cost
of using public transport. Even in Greater London, where cash
fares are substantially below those in the Home Counties, motorists
who would pay a cash fare on the bus to Selsdon are liable to
find it is cheaper, quicker and more convenient to use their
car. Until such time as national transport policy changes and
the cost of movement by car (as opposed to parking and ownership)
increases substantially, trips to supermarkets on foot, by bicycle
and by public transport will tend to divert to the private car.
(Travel by bus in the Home Counties is generally more expensive
than the full average cost of running a small car provided the
level of car usage is near average and means that traffic congestion
is bound to increase).
3. Abstracting custom from stores further from people's homes
is likely to reduce energy consumption for transport provided
that traffic congestion in Selsdon is reduced. However, should
traffic congestion be reduced, the volume of traffic is likely
to increase to fill available roadspace.
4. Abstracting custom from local shops is liable to result
in some shop closures. This is likely to mean their customers
need to travel further -- for many people, this would involve
substituting a journey by car for a walk so reducing sustainability.
If it results in more than one or two additional car owners,
the benefit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions from shorter
journey lengths would be wiped out.
F. CONCLUSIONS
1. The frequency of car-borne trips to the proposed supermarket
has been understated at times when congestion is likely to be
heavy while the abstraction from other superstores has probably
been overstated.
2. It has not been demonstrated that the revisions to the
highway network will avoid increased traffic congestion.
3. Abstraction of trade from other foodstores is liable to
result in the last foodstore in some local shopping parades closing.
There is no "Sustainability" in the transport aspects
of the proposal.
|