Tesco at Little Lever - Dossier - Point No 4

Point No 4

The Applicant’s attempt to minimize the size of what is proposed.

As I have said in the previous Point:-

“National guidelines state that applications for developments over a certain Gross size require the accompaniment of certain Assessments. That size is consistently 2,500 sq metres.”

The Applicants (Ladson’s) in their Planning and retail Statement, persistently emphasize that the scale of the development should be viewed as a ‘mere uplift’ in Net Retail area from the existing Tesco Metro Store of 464 sq metres to the new store of 1,728 sq metres. (See Appendix)

ie:-  an ‘uplift’ of 1,264 sq metres.

This is flawed, misleading and disingenuous.

It would only be true if this Application was proposing to extend the existing Metro store on its current site.

If Tesco moved into the new development then temporarily the existing Metro Store would close and be empty. However, short of demolishing the Metro building, the retail convenience floorspace of the empty Metro store would not disappear. It would still be there and would still be 464 sq metres.

Tesco themselves state that they are confident that they can market the Metro as a Convenience or Comparison site. (See Appendix)

So if, for example, they sold it to Iceland (OK- an unlikely event), then Iceland would be operating the 464 sq metres of retail convenience floorspace and their argument falls.

Once again the new development isn’t merely an Uplift of 1,200 sq metres – it is a new 2,800 sq metre Gross development with a new 1,728 sq metre Net Retail Area.

The flaw in the Developers argument becomes completely transparent if you imagine that the final occupier of the Pennine Pets Site were to be, for example, Asda.

Then there could be no argument.

The development would be indisputably over 2,500 sq metres gross and would trigger the need for the aforementioned Assessments.

Conclusion:-

The Applicants own statements shown in the Appendix undermine their own ‘Uplift’ argument by stating that a new occupier of the Metro store could be trading in convenience or comparison goods.

The Committee, in my view, must see through and reject this ‘Uplift’ argument and insist that any Assessments required by virtue of the development being over 2,500 sq metres must be provided.