New Sainsburys in Stoke Newington? Emily Webber 13 June 2011 Planning & development, Stoke Newington Just saw this on twitter RT @Rosa_Lingerie: About 2200 sq metres slightly larger than stamford hill << proposed Sainsburys behind Yum Yum Does anyone know any more? 66 Comments jamieb 13 June 2011, 3:48 pm That would explain the crude sign strung up on the railings of the building beside Yum Yum’s last week saying something along the lines of “SAINSBURYS + HACKNEY COUNCIL = CORRUPT” God knows we don’t need yet another supermarket on the high street. Clone Town Stoke Newington here we come. And just to think that nef found Stokey to be one of the least Clone Town parts of the country just last year. Vote with your wallet and support local shops.” ewebber 13 June 2011, 4:05 pm I can’t find the right search term to find this on the planning website – if you choose a ward the search takes too long and the webiste breaks…. jamieb 13 June 2011, 4:37 pm Maybe a rehash of this one?” benjamin 13 June 2011, 5:25 pm @jamieb Yes I think you’re right. It was previously refused because it required the demolition of 193-197 Stoke Newington High St. There’s now a new application asking for this to be overturned (The application is calling it \Screening Opinion” – whatever that means). Here’s the app (2011/1247);http://idox.hackney.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?action=show&appType=Planning&appNumber=2011/1247“ benjamin 13 June 2011, 5:31 pm The original application for the development itself – which I guess will remain the same – is 2009/1268 dogwonder 13 June 2011, 5:34 pm seems as though planning application won’t happen until after the consultancy phase in July benjamin 13 June 2011, 5:37 pm I surprised that the earlier application passed me by. I can’t remember hearing anything about it. jamieb 13 June 2011, 6:14 pm According to Newmark it’s A substantial development site in Stoke Newington London. And according to this website it cost £6m.” benjamin 13 June 2011, 6:52 pm I’ve just been up there for a look. 193-197 are in a pretty crappy state anyway, so I don’t see them as a significant loss. jamieb 13 June 2011, 7:21 pm These ones?“ benjamin 13 June 2011, 7:33 pm They’re the ones. benjamin 14 June 2011, 7:36 am This has confused me. The original 2009 application is just for residential and the only reason it was refused was because of the required demolition of 193-197. So if that is overturned I can’t see the financial logic in a supermarket. Surely the serious money will always be in residential? I guess we’ll have to wait for the consultancy. @dogwonder How did you find out that the consultancy is in July? benjamin 14 June 2011, 7:58 am Sorry, I hope I’m not confusing anyone other than myself. The original app is for a mix including supermarket. jamieb 14 June 2011, 8:12 am 61 homes and 1,238m2 of retail. See: 1 WILMER PLACE REPORT SD 270509 – FINAL ISSUED benjamin 14 June 2011, 8:30 am I wonder where the figure \About 2200 sq metres slightly larger than stamford hill” that Rosa cites on @ewebber post comes from?” alexpink 14 June 2011, 8:33 am Just what we need, another supermarket. Goodbye high streets it was nice knowing you. dogwonder 14 June 2011, 9:06 am @benjamin via https://twitter.com/#!/Rosa_Lingerie/status/80251991959408640I was looking last night and felt the only wy they could manage the traffic would be to demolish those buildings, although it would still come out onto a bus lane, would require new traffic measures benjamin 14 June 2011, 3:35 pm @dogwonder Good point. I guess they must have done some kind of traffic survey to go with the application but I’m afraid I haven’t got the patience at the moment to plough through all the documents. I’m generally in favour of developments, especially if they provide housing and I like the modern appearance of this. But you’re right about the traffic – it’s a bit of a bottle-neck there as is. GavinRedknap 14 June 2011, 3:58 pm Damn straight; its a nightmare as it is – this would make it pure chaos. Which ties this into the bigger issue of the gyratory consultation. There was supposed to be a report on that by the council by now. Anyone have any ideas what’s happened there? goodlegs 19 June 2011, 4:49 pm Is 2011/1247 the application id to quote when submitting comments? ewebber 19 June 2011, 4:53 pm No applications at the moment, there is some more info on their (basic) website here: http://www.wilmerplace.com/ As I understand it this info is going out to local residents:Two exhibitions to gather public views will take place at Abney PublicHall in Church Street onFriday 1 July, 3 – 6:30 pmSaturday 2 July, 9 am – 1 pm Responses are also welcome to email@example.com or toNicholas Vose on 020 3023 9081 goodlegs 19 June 2011, 4:54 pm @ewebber ah right, thanks jamieb 19 June 2011, 5:48 pm Thanks for that. ewebber 19 June 2011, 5:58 pm They also have a twitter account http://twitter.com/#!/wilmerplace – if you want to keep an eye on it ewebber 19 June 2011, 7:28 pm A map of the site is over on East London Lines“ ewebber 13 July 2011, 4:48 pm There is a meeting about the opposition of this tonight at the church hall on Defoe Rd if anyone is interested in going along. If you do can you report back? jamieb 14 July 2011, 7:11 am Apologies for not for posting in advance here but it’s been a wee bit busy lately. The meeting went really well, with maybe 150 people in attendance. The room was buzzing with energy and enthusiasm. It started with some brief talks about Hackney Unites and the Stokey Local campaign and then someone from Friends of the Earth spoke about a similar campaign against a Tesco in Cambridge. Towards the end it broke into groups covering different themes and these groups are going to be taking projects forwards to research different areas of the proposal (traffic, environment, noise, safety, economy etc) to keep the campaign’s momentum going and maintain a buzz. Good work from Hackney Unites in putting it on.” ewebber 22 August 2011, 1:02 pm Hackney politicians write open letter raising concerns over Sainsbury’s Wilmer Place on The Hackney Citizenhttp://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/08/22/open-letter-newmark-properties-sainburys-wilmer-place/ euan 23 August 2011, 9:25 am I’m finding this case fascinating! I like the fact that the hiring of a PR firm has backfired. But it’s likely that using PR firms will become common practice as the localism agenda kicks in and public opinion becomes more important. Developers should learn from the humble and sensitive approach that Antix used. Then there is the growing counter arguments to ‘economic development’ such as studies showing a net reduction in employment caused by supermarkets, and a fall in property values. It’s a pity there aren’t any Hackney Planners here to talk off the record about this. 😉 benjamin 23 August 2011, 9:40 am @euan I agree with you about PR firms – especially since many of them seem so clumsy at what they do. I think that the effects on employment levels depends on where and what type of supermarket we’re studying, eg, it wouldn’t surprise me if that were true with a large out-of-town built near a struggling market town, but I would be amazed if it were true somewhere like inner-city London. Similarly with property values. But what surprises me is that, with housing in London now so expensive that we run the risk of a brain-drain, you think falling property prices would be a bad thing.The problem with this anti-supermarket mentality is that it hits the poor twice – denying them access to cheap goods and – if your study is to be taken at face value – keeping property prices unaffordably high. jamieb 23 August 2011, 9:57 am Sainsbury’s is not a cheap supermarket, especially compared against the existing Morrisons just up the hill. There’s a very real worry that one of the main aims of Sainsbury’s going in at this location is to take out the Morrison’s.But then I suspect we’ve already had this conversation in other venues eh Ben? benjamin 23 August 2011, 10:01 am We certainly have Jamie. So is that now the \very real worry”; that Morrisons will be effected? I thought you were worried about small independents. Why not simply let consumers decide for themselves? Don’t you trust them to shop where they want?” euan 23 August 2011, 10:12 am Yes, I’ll wholeheartedly admit that I am against the conventional ‘large’ supermarket for a whole range of reasons, all of which are all well backed up. But i do agree with the brain-drain issue. Unfortunately the housing market is too complex to respond to a purely Keynsian intervention on increasing supply. No increase in housing supply in Hackney will reduce housing prices in Hackney. jamieb 23 August 2011, 10:13 am My primary concern is the independents but it’s not my only concern. The situation where a price war takes out Morrison’s and local shops would be devastating both for the local economy and for the price of food in the area. I’m not comfortable with that. benjamin 23 August 2011, 10:20 am @euan Given the size of London and the huge shortage of housing (IPPR predict a shortfall of 325,000 homes by 2025!) you’re right to say that building in Hackney would not \reduce prices”. But mass building would a) house people and b) lessen the inflationary tendency.But given that you recognise the risk of brain-drain why not support supermarkets afterall you seem to think they lead to a “fall in property values”?” benjamin 23 August 2011, 10:22 am @jamieb why not just close all the shops you don’t like? Let people decide! alexpink 23 August 2011, 10:52 am I can’t help thinking that @benjamin works for either a large supermarket, a housing developer or something similar.. euan 23 August 2011, 11:15 am @benjamin the UK has always had a massive shortage of housing – but relaxing the planning rules is not the solution for this as quality is just as important as quantity. I don’t want to get into the ‘why supermarkets are bad’ argument, as far as i’m concerned the issues are well documented. But how do large supermarkets impact on smart people moving out of London? benjamin 23 August 2011, 11:21 am Why is that @alexpink ? Do you have such little regard for your neighbours that you think it beyond their capacity to compose arguments for a sustainable world capital without receiving some money for it? Who is this mysterious employer who speaks for developments (small & large), campaigns for social-housing (even if that is to the detriment of my own house’s value) gets trees planted in streets, campaigns for reduction in speed limits, gets the planning office to implement procedures to make sure developers don’t use faux-brick cladding etc? Whoever this mysterious employer is, please tell me – I might well apply for a (much needed) job. But I doubt one actually exists, in fact I think @alexpink simply couldn’t think of anything better to say. benjamin 23 August 2011, 11:31 am @euan \quality is just as important as quantity”. That depends on who’s defining the subjective term “quality”. I would argue that since low-rise plaaning regs have delivered London the smallest and most expensive room-sizes to be found anywhere in the western world that the “quality” aspiration has been well and truly abandoned. It is precisely because developers can’t build up that flats are so ridiculously small and expensive. Taller buildings have the potential to deliver larger room-sizes at more affordable prices n a manner that addresses climate change.I don’t think that supermarkets have any impact on smart people moving out of London I was merely pointing out that you seem to think supermarkets would bring down home prices and therefore might prevent such an exodus.And London has not always had a massive shortage of housing.” euan 23 August 2011, 11:52 am I do not agree than quality of housing is subjective. I believe standards like this provide a good baseline: http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/uploads/media/Interim_London_Housing_Design_Guide.pdf benjamin 23 August 2011, 11:58 am @euan you’re not addressing the fact that current planning policy has delivered us a)the smallest room sizes b) the most expensive prices c)a chronic and dire housing shortage that might well lead to brain-drain d)encouraged urban sprawl which all environmentalists agree is detrimental to climate change benjamin 23 August 2011, 12:01 pm @euan I’m all for standards. The trouble is when development is stunted by low-rise housing policy, those standards cannot be met. yeahhackney 23 August 2011, 12:04 pm @Benjamin @alexpink personal comments break the rules of the website, please don’t make any more or they will be removed. euan 23 August 2011, 12:20 pm Yes, the planning system has not been working. I think it tries to control too much of some aspects and not enough of others. But without it market forces would have a free reign on the built environment which i’m sure you’d agree would not be a good thing.I don’t believe high rise is a good solution for housing for many reasons, but I do strongly believe in high density. Also most planing policies in London already promote high density development. benjamin 23 August 2011, 12:34 pm @euan as you say; \most planing policies in London already promote high density development” but high-density without high-rise means tiny room sizes and ridiculously expensive prices and urban sprawl which we have already mentioned.The extent to which I think market forces should have free reign depends on what type of urban environment we’re talking about. Clearly in a world-capital with a housing crisis of existential proportion I think it should be allowed a far greater role in addressing that demand. I think the trouble with many town planners in large cities is they try to impose policies more suited to provincial heritage towns; as if evoking the past is more important than actually addressing contemporary housing needs. Surely any design should address a design brief and I suggest that that brief should put more emphasis on housing human beings rather than catering to romantic nostalgia.” benjamin 23 August 2011, 12:39 pm @euan back to supermarkets; \I don’t want to get into the ‘why supermarkets are bad’ argument as far as i’m concerned the issues are well documented”.Like many anti-supermarket campaigners you don’t seem to address the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country’s population appear to like them.” euan 23 August 2011, 12:48 pm People like convenience, cheap goods, fast travel, etc etc. It does not mean that these things are sustainable and don’t have a long term negative impact. Behavioural economics shows that what we do does not always reflect what we value. benjamin 23 August 2011, 12:55 pm It sounds like you’ve got an agenda way outside the remit of an urban planning office. euan 23 August 2011, 12:59 pm the agenda is ‘sustainable development’ benjamin 23 August 2011, 2:11 pm How can low-rise development be sustainable when it encourages urban sprawl with huge consequences for climate change? Or when it forces prices so high that it results in brain-drain? Or results in room-sizes so small that it has social ramifications?Have you ever read Edward Glaeser’s ‘Triumph Of The City – how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier and happier’? I don’t agree with all of it but well worth a read. benjamin 23 August 2011, 2:15 pm \Behavioural economics shows that what we do does not always reflect what we value.”Like Nimby groups blocking development that in the long-term threatens the city that they claim to love?” yeahhackney 23 August 2011, 7:13 pm It’s clear that not everyone shares the same view on this matter, healthy debate is good, but please remember to respect each others views. There is certainly a lot of interest in these plans, so if anyone finds out any more about the development please do share it here. goodlegs 25 August 2011, 10:01 pm Article in the Ecologist that mentions the Sainsburys interest in stokey, and the Localism bill in general:http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1026353/tesco_and_starbucks_feel_the_heat_in_battle_against_clone_town_britain.html dogwonder 30 August 2011, 10:32 am Hey,So myself and my girlfriend Nell Greenhill decided to get together a website and facebook page to consider if not a Sainsbury’s what the space could be used for. Seeing as much of the debate is around yes or no, there has been very little discussion around alternatives. We wanted to explore ideas people might have for the space, leave it as it is, community market, whatever.http://ilovestokey.com/sntc/http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stoke-Newington-Town-Centre/261821927176395We have templates you can download to try your hand as imagining a new space or just add ideas to the facebook page.” nick 30 August 2011, 10:43 am Good stuff Mr Wonder (can I call you Dog?) and Nell.We’ve been discussing the alternatives a bit at the various meetings and over at the Stokey Local campaign we have some very talented types (of which I can’t count myself) working on some plans with a view to perhaps doing an alternative consultation.It’s great to have some diversity on this. It shows it isn’t just one small group that has a problem with the development and that other have some positive ideas too. So do keep it up but if you want to feed in some ideas to our little working group do join us in the Planning & Design forum on the site.Nick” jamieb 30 August 2011, 11:15 am Good work @dogwonder Coming up with a constructive alternative proposal for the site is very important.Lovely photos too. TristanSpill 28 September 2011, 1:17 pm This Saturday (1 October) is going to be an early highlight in our campaign to protect the unique character of Stoke Newington from an inappropriate supermarket development. In protest at the impact the proposed Sainsbury development will have we will be holding a mock funeral for the local economy. The funeral parade will include a ‘zombie-a-thon’ as in Stoke Newington even the dead are rising up against this proposal. WHEN? Saturday 1 October 12pmWHERE? Assemble at Wilmer Place Stoke Newington High Street We will be making a very serious point but we will be making it in a fun way. You can help us increase the profile for our campaign by: Coming along on Saturday and joining in as a ‘zombie’ (paint your face white and splatter some red food colouring around. Promoting this event to your friends Downloading leaflets and campaign materials from our website: http://stokeylocal.org.uk/2011/09/zombies-rise-up-in-stoke-newington-on-saturday-1st-october/ Signing up on our facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=245447122167366 And then invite all your facebook friends to join us. Forward this onto friends in the area (if they want to join our mailing list they should visit: http://eepurl.com/eOEgg) The event is really catching the imagination with over 300 zombies already signed up: lets see if we can make it 500 by Saturday. Local beat combo Diego Brown and the Good Fairy have written and recorded a campaign song about the Wilmer Place development to hear it visit http://www.myspace.com/diegobrownandthegoodfairy/music (click on the stokey pokey). We have now heard that the band want to film the zombie parade on Saturday for a music video. On the facebook page there is talk of ‘practicing the zombie dance’. Saturday is going to be fun fun fun and it will help publicise our concerns. There is of course a serious side to our campaign and supporters are out diligently collecting petitions and preparing for the formal planning application to be submitted. In the meantime Saturday is an opportunity to publicise our concerns. We are also considering a comprehensive door-to-door leafleting of the area to ensure everyone in Stoke Newington knows about our concerns and about our campaign. Please come down on Saturday and show your support (made up as a zombie if you can). “ benjamin 7 October 2011, 12:07 pm Yesterday’s Evening Standard on the debate;http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23995099-protest-over-sainsburys-stirs-up-local-class-war.do“ claptonpondlife 7 October 2011, 12:27 pm I’m not saying I’m for the new Sainsburys but when Tesco opened on Lower Clapton Rd everyone said it would kill off Palm2 – looks to me thats its more busy than ever… also, with another Sainsburys, a Tesco and a Morrisons already nearby, won’t they just be taking business from each other rather than the local shops? shirkhardplayhard 12 October 2012, 10:30 am There is a new application for this massive development. It is for a 6 storey building i9ncluding a Sainsburys of 4142 square metres. Even apart from the cloning of Stoke Newington argument, it will have a huge impact on Abney Park Cemetary, which it loom over. The application can be viewed on the Hackney website by searching under the application reference no. 2012/2228. There are over 400 objections to this so it will eventually have to be heard by the Council’s Planning Committee rather than just decided by the planning dept. nick 12 October 2012, 10:44 am There are, in fact just over 300 objections. And one (possibly two) formal letters of support. The local MP and Councillors hav had residents saying they would naturally quite like the jobs the Sainsburys will offer, but they haven’t materialised to the planners. Which is a shame. Those of us who think this is an inappropriate scheme for the area very much hope it won’t go to committee but will be refused under delegated powers. There certainly are concerns over the net employment change and the effect on the nature reserve. The Council have met with the developers this week and will probably do so again next week. There is a Planning Performance Agreement and pre-application advice, so it is likely to be dealt with conclusively within the next couple of weeks or so. Of course, if refused, I’d expect the developer to return with a (hopefully) reduced scale scheme that preserved more of the character of the employment and retail on site (i.e. was smaller scale), and more affordable housing. Nick jamieb 4 April 2013, 7:12 am Hackney’s Planning Committee rejected the application by 4 votes to 2 last night: http://stokeylocal.org.uk/2013/04/wilmer-place-application-rejected-by-planning-committee/“ benjamin 15 May 2013, 4:37 pm They’ve just resubmitted revised plans (2013/1583). The application note states;\(Note for consultation: The main difference between this current application and the previously refused application on this site ref: 2012/2228 is that the ground and upper floors of the western elevation have been resited further from Abney Park Cemetery than previously proposed. Residential unit numbers and mix of unit sizes have also changed).”” benjamin 31 July 2013, 7:59 pm Looks like the committee granted permission this time;http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2013/07/31/hackney-council-approves-stoke-newington-sainsburys/ “ benjamin 27 September 2013, 5:17 pm Stokey Local have gambled on a Judicial Review.But in the meantime this application has just been made;http://apps.hackney.gov.uk/servapps/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=203540&XSLT=/servapps/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Hackney/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/servapps/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Hackney/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNINGThe proposal states that “(note for consultation: This application is identical to a previous application which was subject to public consultation ref: 2013/1583)” which is the one that was recently granted permission!I’m confused. Anybody with any ideas? “ Comments are now closed for this post.