Campaigners’ fury as Hackney Council approves Sainsbury’s plans
Protestors unite on a ‘Bug Parade’ against another Sainsbury’s store in Stoke Newington: Photograph: Eleonore de Bonneval
There were angry scenes in the Town Hall as councillors on the planning sub-committee gave the green light to a controversial supermarket scheme today.
Opponents of Newmark Properties’ revised plans for a Sainsbury’s store and new homes in Wilmer Place, Stoke Newington, hissed and heckled speakers in favour of the proposal and shouted “shame on you” at councillors after the application was approved.
The vote was four to one in favour of the application, with the sub-committee’s chair Councillor Vincent Stops among those who voted in favour.
Several councillors had exempted themselves from voting after declaring an interest, and of the five on the panel, only Councillor Barry Buitekant voted against the scheme.
Newmark Properties was already in the process of appealing against the Town Hall’s decision to reject its earlier plans, but the developer pledged not to pursue this if the council rubberstamped the new plans.
Objectors from campaign group Stokey Local said the new plans were little different from the old ones.
The council chamber was packed with hundreds of objectors, some wearing bee costumes left over from a ‘bug parade’ held last week to highlight what objectors say will be the negative impacts the scheme will have on ecology around Abney Park.
Lordship councillor Daniel Stephens and Stoke Newington Central councillor Louisa Thompson spoke against the scheme.
Cllr Thomson said feelings about the development ran extremely high in the area.
She told the sub-committee: “This is the single issue I have received the most correspondence about.”
Newmark Properties maintains the scheme, which also includes the creation of new homes, will bring benefits to Stoke Newington.
Sanity at last!
Sanity? Wearily, repeatedly, yielding to the bulldozer of corporate power – well, it’s a ‘sanity’ of sorts….
“..yielding to the bulldozer of corporate power “?! Sober up Stevie boy.
Or, building homes and shops, as some call it.
The two previous refusals were completely dodgy and based on non planning issues. The council would have lost the appeal and we’d all have to pay for that.
Come on people….ger some perspective on life.
great news all the yuppies moanin lol roll on sainsburys
funny u dont see them moanin about all the tea rooms and rip of shops in stokey yuppies out hahaha
irrespective of views on this it was disgraceful and shameful that developers consultant team were physically attacked outside the town hall and councillors verbally abused inside the chamber by thugs
Agree with Hay-z.
Stokey Local ran a good campaign but that won’t be remembered – the violence towards councillors and the applicants will be.
Shame on you.
“Stokey Local ran a good campaign”?
I don’t agree. Their arguments were often self-contradictory and self-defeating.
First they argued that a supermarket would be “unfair” as it would undercut existing independent grocers.
Then they did a survey to show the opposite – ie that independent grocers were cheaper than chain supermarkets.
They argued that the community didn’t want another supermarket and there was no need for one. Then in the next breath they argued that the supermarket would be so popular amongst locals that existing local shops would go bust.
Their argument is rooted in deceit, not reason.
Their latest objection was centred on the ecological impact on Abney, but since their defeat I’ve not noticed one Tweet or comment from them about Abney, just more anti-supermarket rhetoric.
I believe the main reason behind their objection is their desire to keep Church Street as the most exclusive, least diverse and least accessible high street in Hackney. Chain supermarkets are too popular/mainstream for them and it shatters their delusions of cultural superiority.
I didn’t see any violence directed against councillors. Once the decision was made some objectors were robust in their comments to councillors. But councillors can (and should) take that!
I was at the meeting. There were a lot of spectators. It was difficult to say how many, perhaps getting on for 200. There wasn’t actually very much heckling compared to some meetings I have been to. At one stage the applicants were drowned out but the meeting came to order on the Chair’s request. After the decision there were some shouts including “shame”. There were three or four people by the door who tried to make a row but “you’re all a load of masons” was the worst comment I heard. With respect, I cant see how a few shouts can be described as violence or the shouters as thugs. I cant say what happened outside the meeting.
There is an argument for allowing this development. I think it a poor one but the committee obviously accepted it. But there are also good planning grounds for rejecting it. Councillor Stevens put those very clearly in his contribution.
And perhaps most importantly, by allowing an application so close to the one previously rejected, the committee is showing inconsistency and bringing the planning procedure into disrepute. I understood this to be the point that Councillor Buitekant was making.
In my opinion the committee should have stuck by their previous decision and allowed that to be tested on appeal.
Tony that’s exactly the point I was making.
Isn’t it time they made Barry Buitekant chair of planning?
Thanks Andrew. With friends like you…
Just as a point. Church street is not an exclusive street . Stoke new ingrown high street is , where sainsburys already exists , no more than 3 minutes away from Wilmer place. Sainsburys are just trying to outdo telco who have more in the area. Residents are trying to maintain the village atmosphere , which some people don’t give a toss about . Those of you should be ashamed as should hackney council . High street chains aren’t wanted as they destroy everything else in there path .
You will also find this is nothing to do with yuppies this is about local people who have also lived here all there lives , some since the war , who want to maintain something which essentially hasn’t changed ,
as far as I can see the council approved something which contradicted a fair number of their own guidelines.
The only reason I could see for this – and planning chairman Cllr Stops seemed to admit this – is that the council were worried about the cos of an appeal.
Perhaps I misheard what he said, but it would be interesting toiknow whether there is an unofficial LBH policy to allow contentious developments, regardless of planning validity, if they are backed by organizations with deep pockets.
Supermarkets are an important, perhaps inevitable, feature of industrial societies. I use them regularly, alongside trips to Ridley Rd market and Fresh & Fruity wholesalers (Stamford Hill). However, it’s hard to see how the presence of yet another chain store – which have gradually colonised Kingsland Rd and Stoke Newington High Street since I moved to the borough in 2007 – represent a blow in favour of “diversity”, as suggested above by Benjamin.
From the perspective of commercial diversity, it’s clear that local (largely BME-run, and therefore economically and socially inclusive) mini-markets offer a far greater choice of products, serving the needs of Hackney’s rich ethnic mix. Nevertheless, the relentless marketing of large supermarkets – not least, their erroneous claims to be much ‘cheaper’ than the alternatives (a 2006 study by NEF found that Queen’s Market in Newham was 53% cheaper than the local ASDA, for example) – places them at a significant, I would argue unfair, advantage over local small businesses.
The evidence suggests that small businesses keep money in the local economy, since owners often live on site or otherwise live locally and spend their income in in other local shops/restaurants. By necessity, however, revenues generated by Sainsbury’s at Wilmer Place will to some degree be used to invest in new developments elsewhere, shareholder dividends, and to bolster the remuneration of board members. Other than through a small number of modestly-paid jobs, which are diminishing due to automation of tills, I’m yet to be convinced that the approved development will make as positive a contribution to the local economy as the potential alternatives – an independently run, locally-owned shop or, my ideal-world option, a fully-serviced covered market at the ground-floor level.
To illustrate just how superior a covered market would be to the new development, in 2008 the London Assembly’s Economic Development, Culture, Sport, and Tourism Committee noted that a study of Queen’s Market generated more than £13 million for the local economy per annum and provided 581 jobs. It was also found that the market delivered twice as many jobs per square metre as a supermarket; provided a significant amount of employment to people living in the immediate local area; offered more highly skilled and varied jobs; and provided greater opportunities to start a business and acquire business knowledge.
Fortunately, Hackney Council has an excellent record on markets, but it’s hard not to feel like Wilmer Place isn’t a real missed opportunity to do something socially transformative *and* commercially successful.
So, while supermarkets may be a fact of life, they do not need to be a fate. To allow for the existence of yet another giant food retailer adjacent to a road that, from Dalston Junction, already has four large supermarkets* and at least three medium-sized Tesco Metro/Sainsbury’s Local stores, is bad news for consumer choice, undermines the local economy, and robs Hackney of the uniqueness that has made it one of the most socially and culturally diverse parts of London.
I have no doubt that those who voted in favour of the application saw it as the lesser of two evils, on the basis that the original proposal may have passed at appeal, but I can’t help being disappointed.
* Sainsbury’s (Kingsland & Stamford Hill), ASDA Stamford Hill, and Morrisons (a short walk from Wilmer Place, opposite Stoke Newington train station)
hmm i have lived here 48 years born and breed here and most of the shops are well overpriced and that most of the normal hackney ppl cant afford to live here now cos the yuppies moved here in the last 15 years ago and cost to much money to rent here or buy a house like in my road rent on a house is like is 600 pound a week . funny i dont see them moanin and that about 8 estate agents in church st and the fat cafe ripo off places here like 1 egg on toast 3pound 80 lol rip off shops if u dont like sainsburys comein simply move to tottenham its lively there hahaha bloody yuppies
Cllr Stops thought that the grounds for refusing last nights application were not strong enough to withstand an appeal by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate. I disagreed with him.
Last night the applicant said that if this application was succesful they would withdraw their appeal concerning the earlier refused application. Assuming the applicant keeps to their word we will never know whether it was Cllr Stops or myself who was right.
more from jasainburys please!!!!
perfect illustration of the axiom that the internet has given a voice to millions who have nothing to say
If people in the area don’t want a Sainsbury’s there, then just don’t shop there! If it is that unwanted, they will go out of business and close…
Jon Burke – I said that SN Church Street was “the most exclusive, least diverse and least accessible high street in Hackney”. This is obvious to anyone who goes there regularly. It is also obvious that the presence of a large chain supermarket, that caters to a broad cross-section of society and has disabled access, would increase the likelihood that a more diverse range of shoppers would be attracted on to Church St.
I suggest that it is precisely the mainstream popularity of chain supermarkets that the campaigners object to.
You go on to recite the old chestnut that profits from independent shops necessarily stay in the locality. I suggest that we don’t live in a ’50s village and that once money enters a shop till it can end up anywhere. I know immigrant shopkeepers who plan to retire in their country of origin, and many others who send money to extended family overseas. Besides, in London shopkeepers rarely live above their shops.
You then go on to claim that supermarkets are not generally cheaper than independents by comparing fruit ‘n’ veg prices with a market. Whilst some items may be cheaper elsewhere, chain supermarkets generally have the economies of scale enabling them to sell cheaper. Otherwise, presumably you must think the average family doing their shop in a supermarket to be particularly stupid?
Regarding your covered market plan;
Firstly, it’s private land so the council couldn’t force the owners into such a venture.
Secondly, some other markets are struggling (Chatsworth Rd looks lame and even Spitalfields is desolate on some days of the week).
Thirdly where would all the vans go?
You also make no mention of the 50-odd much needed homes – the residents of which will be shopping locally.
Finally, I’m just wondering whether Stokey Local / Hackney Planning Watch will be apologising for claiming that “Stokey says no to Sainsburys” when more local shoppers will be freely passing through the checkouts of the new Sainsburys every single day than signed their petition?
well said benjamin out the whole of stokey only about 120 ppl turned up 4 the so called bug parade on sat and the ppl who signed the petiton some of them dont even live here lol some was from germany france etc .what about the less well off ppl who cant aford 2 shop in stokey like the yuppie butchers in church salein a chicken 4 15 pound hahah wat a rip off
Benjamin – Despite failing to engage with my arguments and/or ignoring the points made, I’ll address yours.
PARA 1 – some locals may, indeed, object to another chain shop, this time on their doorstep. That’s their prerogative. Of the people I’ve spoken to on the matter, most are deeply committed members of their community who object to the new Sainsbury’s for the quite legitimate reasons I listed in my previous post. Unless, you can prove that those who opposed the application did so out of an objection to the “mainstream popularity” of supermarkets, maybe you oughtn’t to presume what their motivations were.
If Church St is insufficiently commercially diverse, I’d suggest that’s the result of an economy that allows for the existence of yawning income and wealth gaps. The construction of new Sainsbury’s Local won’t ameliorate the effects of that; though, perhaps you could explain to me how, other than in Wilmer Place, the new store “would increase the likelihood that a more diverse range of shoppers would be attracted on to Church St”. Surely, you’re not labouring under the delusion that the new Sainsbury’s will a) pluralise the retail offer on Church St, or b) encourage people to shop there who currently choose/are unable to?
It’s clear that there was huge local opposition to the planning application. Do you think the voice of local people should be dismissed out of hand because you happen to disagree with them? Also, I’ve made clear how many large and medium-sized chain food retailers there already are in the vicinity of Church St, so do you think it’s credible to maintain that the local retail offer is insufficiently diverse?
PARA 2 – You state “I know immigrant shopkeepers who plan to retire in their country of origin, and many others who send money to extended family overseas. Besides, in London shopkeepers rarely live above their shops”. This isn’t a well-developed argument, it’s a series of anecdotes. Where’s the evidence for these claims?
PARA 3 – This is risible. In my original post, I provide *evidence* that street markets are considerably cheaper than supermarkets. The appeal of supermarkets lies in the way they minimise opportunity cost by reducing the amount of time required to conduct your shopping, their use of relentless and misleading advertising campaigns (please see below), and the use of ‘loss leaders’, such as beer and petrol sold at below cost in order to entice customers.
PARA 4 – There are also some (many in Hackney) immensely successful street markets. Ignoring them does your argument no good at all.
You’ll note that I also make a punt for a “covered market”, such as in Leeds or Birkenhead, which simulates the best aspect of supermarkets – convenience – whilst maintaining the diversity and price competitiveness of street markets. As for “all the vans”, I’m not quite sure what you mean. In an indoor market, the pitches are stationary, therefore a similar amount of vans would be required to unload goods as will be required by the new Sainsbury’s.
I am, of course, aware that Wilmer Place is “private land so the council couldn’t force the owners into such a venture”; hence why I referred to it as “my ideal-world option”. The purpose of it was to demonstrate that the choice between shops such as Whole Foods and Sainsbury’s Local is a false dichotomy. There are other ways of doing things, especially if a future Labour Government abolishes the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement, which would allow the council to borrow for the construction of housing developments.
PARA 5 – You’ll note that, in the original post, I made clear that my suggestion could be accommodated, as in the case of Sainsbury’s, “at the ground-floor level”, implying upper floors for housing. In particular, London needs a huge amount of new council housing at reasonable rent levels (350,000 families/1.2 million people on housing waiting lists in the capital). So, yes, I am supportive of new housing on the site; though, I’m not sure how having a Sainsbury’s Local at the ground floor level is necessary to deliver it?
PARA 6 – The people are sovereign and have a right to engage in political activism. This is sign of a healthy democracy. That some people – perhaps many – will shop at the new Sainsbury’s doesn’t invalidate the arguments of those who opposed the newly approved development.
FINALLY – Perhaps it was lost you first time around but, in the opening paragraph of my original post, I made it clear that I see a place for supermarkets in an industrial society and, indeed, shop at them myself. That place, however, shouldn’t and crucially doesn’t need to be *everywhere*.
As promised re. erroneous claims…
“Watchdog rules Sainsbury’s ‘feed your family for £50′ adverts are misleading” (03.04.13)
http://metro.co.uk/2012/04/03/watchdog-rules-sainsburys-feed-your-family-for-50-adverts-are-misleading-375424/
“Sainsbury’s and Asda accused of ‘illegally misleading’ customers on price” (29.09.10)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8030125/Sainsbury-and-Asda-accused-of-illegally-misleading-customers-on-price.html
“Supermarkets’ pricing sting at small branches where customers charged up to 40% more for shopping…Sample basket at Sainsbury’s Local costs 10.2 per cent at larger store” (16.05.13)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323663/Supermarkets-pricing-sting-small-branches-customers-charged-40-shopping.html
“Diverse”? Perhaps not, then.
‘Victory’ for big business with the input or should that be lack of input from local councillors/councils, inadvertently or otherwise.
As a small business-owner I see this worrying trend being replicated once again ultimately to the detriment of business-owners like myself and the community
at large, but not to the big business of this world like Sainsbury, Tesco etc, who have the most to gain
Those who have been involved in making this nightmare a reality should hang their heads in shame
The Prince
Hamdys News Ltd
Jon Burke quotes the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Metro. Right wing rags all.
Jon Burke – Contrary to your claims, I did address your arguments. I suggest a re-read.
“..some locals may, indeed, object to another chain shop, this time on their doorstep. That’s their prerogative.”
Of course it’s their prerogative to object to a development proposal if they wish. Nowhere do I, or anyone else that I’m aware of, suggest otherwise. It is also my prerogative to point out in local forums such as this that their arguments are weak(at best) and often self-contradictory and suggest other motivations which I believe make more sense. As it is your prerogative to challenge my views. No one is attempting to suppress freedom of speech here (except perhaps you), so I don’t understand your “point”.
“If Church St is insufficiently commercially diverse, I’d suggest that’s the result of an economy that allows for the existence of yawning income and wealth gaps.”
This explanation isn’t adequate because wealth gaps exist within communities all over Hackney and beyond and you don’t typically see lone exclusive high streets such as Church Street, which suggests that there may be an engineering factor at play;
Perhaps you haven’t been in Hackney long enough to remember the anti-Nandos campaign (Nandos being another chain with broad appeal across socio-economic and ethnic groups)? There’s also been immediate hostile reaction from some upon hearing rumours of a Tesco Express and Starbucks (again both with broad spectrum appeal). On the other hand I’ve heard numerous times people stating that they’d like a Waitrose (a chain store with a more exclusive clientele). I’ve never heard anyone calling for a boycott of the multi-billion dollar chain Wholefoods. And I very much doubt these people would be up in arms about branch of, say, Carluccios opening in Stoke Newington Church Street (or “our little enclave” as one prominent campaigner describes it). Spot the theme Jon?
“Do you think the voice of local people should be dismissed out of hand because you happen to disagree with them?”
Of course not Jon! Why would you suggest something so stupid? Is your position so weak that you have to resort to misrepresenting me?
You go on “..I’ve made clear how many large and medium-sized chain food retailers there already are in the vicinity of Church St, so do you think it’s credible to maintain that the local retail offer is insufficiently diverse?”
You say “in the vicinity of Church St”. Where you find Tescos, Sainsburys etc you’ll see a diverse group of shoppers. But it is specifically Church Street which they are “protecting” and it is on Church Street where you see a lack of diversity amongst shoppers.
You ask me to produce evidence that I know shopkeepers who plan to retire to their country of origin/send money to family overseas. This is silly. I’m not about to give you names and addresses of individuals. Suffice to say that from casual observation it is clear that most London shopkeepers do not live above their premises and probably – like the rest of us – spend their money with corporations anyway. As I’ve already pointed out, we do not live in some introverted mythical village but a huge multi-cultural city and once money enters a shop till it could end up anywhere.
You claim that you “provide evidence that street markets are considerably cheaper than supermarkets”. No. You provided some evidence that fruit’n’veg can be cheaper in some markets, but since no-one is disputing this I can’t see your point. What is being discussed isn’t specifically fruit’n’veg, but a family’s entire shop. Chain supermarkets are – on the whole – cheaper which is why most consumers shop in them (also because they’re generally cleaner, air-conditioned and don’t sell produce passed the sell-by date). Why not let consumers decide whether they want to shop at a new Sainsburys or not? Don’t you trust them? Do you think the silent majority of locals are too stupid to decide for themselves?
You then point out that some chain supermarket advertising has been deemed misleading. Well, I’m sure that’s true of all sorts of advertising from all sectors of retail. It now appears that your principal gripe with chain supermarkets could be dealt with via the Advertising Standards Authority. This is not a planning consideration. I’m sure all retail sectors breach trading standards often – perhaps most notably small independents on hygiene and sell-by-date matters. But these incidences can be dealt with by the authorities. You may be surprised to learn that the ‘Special Offer’ to entice customers predates corporate food retail and can be found in all sectors. Some less well-off and canny shoppers depend on them.
I’m reluctant to spend too much time discussing your fantasy – and self-admittedly unfeasible – covered market idea, but you state that “…a similar amount of vans would be required to unload goods as will be required by the new Sainsbury’s.” Surely each of your pitches would require a transit van or similar to service them whereas a Sainsburys would be serviced via a small number of large lorries that would deliver then disappear? Where would your mythical traders keep their multitude of vans for the day?
I’m not “ignoring” successful markets. Of course some exist. I’m just pointing out that they aren’t without considerable risk. Besides, as you’ve already conceded, this isn’t feasible on this site.
I’m pleased to learn that your support the housing provision. Sadly that puts you at odds with the campaigners whose “expert” deems the modest five storey residences a “tower” on a site that is unsuitable because it is adjacent to a nature reserve.
You then wrap up by yet again implying that I am somehow trying to limit people’s right to express themselves or engage in democratic process. Again, this is ludicrous. You state that;
“The people are sovereign and have a right to engage in political activism. This is sign of a healthy democracy. That some people – perhaps many – will shop at the new Sainsbury’s doesn’t invalidate the arguments of those who opposed the newly approved development.”
Open debate is also part of a healthy democracy. I get the impression you don’t like it which is why you keep trying to imply that I am somehow impinging on campaigner’s democratic rights. Of course large numbers of shoppers at the new Sainsburys doesn’t “invalidate the arguments” of the opposers – I never claimed it did. It did however suggest that the campaigner’s claim that “Stokey says no to Sainsburys” is somewhat wide of the mark.
I don’t think chain supermarkets plan on putting stores “everywhere”, as that wouldn’t make commercial sense. It only makes commercial sense to place them where they know shoppers will freely spend in them i.e, where there is demand. I just find it more than a little odd that your – and the campaigner’s – benchmark for “everywhere” appears to rest at the threshold of Hackney’s most exclusive, least diverse and least accessible high street.
I can see there’s a kind of Cold War emerging here; though, sadly one in which additional paragraphs suffer decreasing marginal returns. I’m not going to play that game indefinitely, but I will answer a couple of points as my final words.
Your original premise was that the newly approved Sainsbury’s would be a force for ‘diversification’. My contention was that a food retailer with a 17% share of the U.K market would do precisely the opposite. I have demonstrated,with supporting evidence, that supermarkets are not, in fact, cheaper – though, are often more convenient – than the alternatives; that supermarkets provide less employment (and therefore tax revenues) than the alternatives; and that the area in the vicinity of Wilmer Place is already well served by supermarkets – 4 large, 3 local/metro. I feel this is a sufficiently comprehensive rebuttal.
In respect of your claim that “wealth gaps exist within communities all over Hackney and beyond and you don’t typically see lone exclusive high streets such as Church Street”, I suggest you visit Victoria Park ‘village’ or Shoreditch High St, which would demonstrate that this is patently untrue.
Your claim re. Waitrose may be correct, but it’s informed by anecdote, note evidence. What I will say, however, is that people would be well justified in preferring any business that offers decent terms and conditions to its employees while paying a full share of tax to tax-dodging/union-busting Starbucks or ‘workfare’-using Sainsbury’s. Again, however, the issue of choice (or the inability to exercise it lies, in my view, with the fact that the U.K is gradually becoming a low-pay economy, not due to the existence of “Carluccios”.
You state “Is your position so weak that you have to resort to misrepresenting me?” This, from a man who, in an earlier post, suggested I thought people who used supermarkets were “stupid”. Pull the other one.
You state “it is on Church Street where you see a lack of diversity amongst shoppers.” That’s correct but, I’d suggest the clientèle reflects the surrounding residential areas and the fact that people from BME communities are disproportionately represented amongst the low paid. The answer is to address demand-side issues (low pay), not supply-side issues, such gradually turning yet another area in to another chain store identikit. You’ve identified the problem, but your ‘solution’ is driven by your opposition to Church Streeters, not your desire to those excluded engage with pre-existing businesses.
You state “you provided some evidence that fruit’n’veg can be cheaper in some markets”. This dishonestly incorrect. I never wrote that the study was based on ‘fruit and veg’. It was actually based on a basket of uniform goods, including toiletries and meat. You can read the report here: “Markets create twice as many jobs as supermarkets and food is half the price”
http://www.neweconomics.org/press/entry/markets-create-twice-as-many-jobs-as-supermarkets-and-food-is-half-the-pric
You state that “chain supermarkets are – on the whole – cheaper which is why most consumers shop in them”. I’ve proven this is not the case and provided, I’d suggest, a plausible explanation as to why people shop at them. If you’d like to provide some – ANY – evidence in support of your claim, I’d be only to happy to recant.
You state that I “point out that some chain supermarket advertising has been deemed misleading.” You’re quite correct that such facts are not for consideration as part of the planning process. Nevertheless, they help make a mockery of your baseless suggestion that ‘supermarkets are cheaper’.
As I made clear in my previous post, the purpose of the ‘covered market’ was as an abstract designed to demonstrate that there’s an alternative to prohibitively expensive shops like Whole Foods *and* the more ‘mainstream’ Sainsbury’s. It is not, however, an unfeasible idea by any means.
I do indeed support the provision of housing at the site. Tell me, what proportion of Sainsbury’s’ development will be social-rented and affordable?
You state that you “don’t think chain supermarkets plan on putting stores “everywhere”, as that wouldn’t make commercial sense.” Yet again, your conventional wisdom is wrong. Starbucks, for example, have for years pursued a ‘cannibalisation’ campaign in which they open several shops in an area in order to drive independent retailers out of business, only to the close their loss-making branches down once the earth has been scorched of competitors in order to achieve a concentrated monopoly. No Logo, by Naomi Klein documents this kind of activity extensively.
Right, then, I think that’s all your points comprehensively covered. I’ve already dedicated an unnecessarily long time to this and I’m content that my argument is internally consistent, reasonable, and proportionate. Feel free to have a bash, but I think that’s all I have to say on the matter.
Jon, your constant referencing to Queens Market in Newham doesn’t help your case. One couldn’t possibly do an average weekly shop in Queens Market. A market can differ wildly from anything like Queens Market to exorbitant markets like Broadway or Borough. And since Queens Market is nowhere near here, I don’t know why you keep banging on about it.
What we are discussing here is Newmark’s proposal and the campaigners opposition to it. Not your views on the atypical Queens Market many miles away. What comparison is relevant here is the prices of existing local independent grocers to those of Sainsburys.
Besides, you appear to be unwittingly shooting Stokey Local in the foot since it was their central claim that Sainsburys would undercut existing independents. Keeping prices down is explicitly NOT what these campaigners seek. (If the customers who frequent Queens Market arrived in SNChurch Street, the campaigners would have a heart attack).
Similarly, Stokey Local’s opposition to Sainsburys had absolutely nothing to do with their business practices, so again you appear to be on more of a personal rant than engaging in the matter of this opposition group’s campaign.
If you are to address this debate in a productive manner you need to stop fantasising about your personal preferences for the site and address the stated reasons why Stokey Local opposed a Sainsburys at this location – and none of the other new chain supermarkets that appeared in recent years further away from Church Street.
You need to ask yourself why would residents near an exclusive high street – which, atypical for Hackney, lacks customer diversity – vehemently oppose businesses such as Sainsburys and Nandos – which are demonstrably popular to a broad spectrum of people – from coming on to “their” street? If it’s corporations they oppose, why would they not oppose – or call for a boycott as they did with Nandos – the exorbitant and exclusive Wholefoods?
Why would you/they prefer to see less affluent residents either schlep up the hill to Morrisons or down to the overcrowded Sainsburys in Dalston in order to do a weekly family shop, when they could have a decent-sized supermarket closer to home?
And Victoria Park “village” is not an exclusive high street immediately surrounded by other high streets of much poorer clientele – that is what is so unusual about SN Church St. And Shoreditch High Street isn’t really a conventional high street at all – besides the shop with the most diverse clientele in Shoreditch High Street is probably Tescos.
next there be tellin the council to knock down the council estates to build more fresh and wild shops and tea rooms hahaha and the person sayin but ppl livein here since the war dont think there would have been like untold tearooms and estates agents here in the 1940s u just talkin rubbish as i said b4 you just a bunch of snobs just coz all u snobs have money to waste in rip off shops in stokey doesnt mean everbody has and its not a village haha maybe it was like 350 years ago
with sainsbury’s now confirmed as coming if people dont like it they should move or not use it. as for all the estate agents on church st, rumours are foxtons are coming into the now closed mercado on the corner of wilmer place / opposite william patten school
#notofoxtons
@j asainsburys – only 8 estate agents from the corner of church st to kersley rd? maybe make that 9!
funny now stokey local mugs have lost i aint seen no1 say anythink about abney park its all bout me and my shop and that the park was just a smoke screen bug parade was just a lot of waffle cos the couldnt think of ne think else to bring in2 it UP THE SAINSBURYS YUPPIES OUT LOL
how depressing to see labour party candidate jon burke and other labour politicians jumping to the defence of the exclusivist nimbyism.
Hi ex-labour voter,
I’ve been a socialist all my adult life. It’s clear, should people take the time to read my comments, that what I’m “defending” is the small and medium sized businesses that are the lifeblood of our community. I also lament the fact that planning law fails to give sufficient weight to local public opinion, which provided it isn’t used as an excuse for mobocracy, should be one of the principle means by which decisions are made about the future of communities.
I might also add, I live in Stamford Hill and rarely shop in Stoke Newington, nor am I associated with any campaign related to this planning application. I’ve therefore attempted to construct a position on the matter that is consistent with my political values. Disagree with my view, by all means, but your nimbyism accusation couldn’t be wider of the mark.
Dalston to Stamford Hill is already very well served by supermarkets; it’s far from clear that another will serve the interests of local residents more than Sainsbury’s shareholders. As I wrote in a previous post, it’s my view that yet another chain retailer “is bad news for consumer choice, undermines the local economy, and robs Hackney of the uniqueness that has made it one of the most socially and culturally diverse parts of London”.
“ex-labour voter”,
One only has to read the above comments to see that Jon Burke’s claims don’t hold water.
He claims he is “defending small and medium sized businesses” which is a tacit acceptance that a significant proportion of Stoke Newington’s residents would rather shop in the new Sainsburys given the choice – a choice some local politicians attempted to deny them. Furthermore, I don’t know which businesses he thinks he is defending as this news outlet reported the leader of the local traders representative group as saying; “The Stoke Newington Business Association represents some 80 diverse businesses within N16. These businesses hold a range of views concerning the proposed development at 195-201 Stoke Newington High Street and the land behind, some pro and some anti”.
Why is he not supporting the businesses who were pro the development?
What he is in effect arguing is that the less well-off residents should effectively be subsidizing inefficient local businesses.
Most shopkeepers don’t live above their shops and could live anywhere, and probably spend their money with corporations anyway.
He also states that he “lament[s] the fact that planning law fails to give sufficient weight to local public opinion”.
This appears to reveal his unfounded belief that most locals opposed the development. There is nothing to suggest this is true. As I have pointed out before; more local people will willingly pass through the checkouts at the new Sainsburys every single day than signed Stokey Local’s well-publicised petition. Hackney Planning Watch and Stokey Local had absolutely no right to claim as they did that “Stokey says no to Sainsburys”. It is a self-serving delusion.
He goes on; “it’s far from clear that another [supermarket] will serve the interests of local residents more than Sainsbury’s shareholders”. Again, what gives him the right to determine what is in local residents’ interests if those same residents are quite happy to freely shop there? Again, he’s treating local residents like idiots incapable of deciding what’s in their own interests.
If he or Stokey Local were in the slightest bit interested about the balance of power between local residents and corporations, why do they only complain when corporations reach the threshold of Church Street and not when others have opened further down the High Road? Why do they not complain about corporations that cater to affluent clientele such as Wholefoods? Answer – because their opposition is not concerned with corporate power, but about maintaining Church Street’s exclusivity.
The facts are that Hackney Labour Party is supine and sycophantic when it comes to N16’s affluent and media-savvy campaigners. They must think they’re the only ones who vote. One only has to look at the way money is spent here compared with other areas of Hackney;
Which park has had many more millions spent on it than any other in Hackney?
Which main shopping street’s paving and road surface is best maintained?
Which main road – and nowhere else – had a 20mph limit introduced without any traffic calming measures (counter to guidelines)?
They are deliberately engineering an exclusive street at the behest of the few and to the exclusion of the many. Burke’s claim to be concerned with preserving “the uniqueness that has made it one of the most socially and culturally diverse parts of London” is nonsense. Indeed the opposite is true; He is maintaining the least diverse high street in Hackney.
HLP’s infatuation with this crowd has not only increased community tensions in Hackney but it has now brought the planning process into disrepute, with their refusal of the original proposal based on political considerations rather than planning criteria. Vincent Stops – a councilor I’ve usually got some respect for – knows full well that the first refusal was not legitimate and would have been over-ruled at appeal – that is why he knew the game was up and recommended approval for the latest.
To add insult to injury (or perhaps injury to insult) one of the Stokey Local supporters verbally and physically attacked the architect on council property on the evening of the committee decision.
As East London Lines reported;
“anger threatened to spill over into violence as one man approached the council bench to remonstrate with the sub-committee’s chair Councillor Vincent Stops, who voted in favour of the development; outside, Simon Allford of the scheme’s architect AHMM was pushed and had his tie pulled by another irate objector.”
To my knowledge not a single councilor has condemned this attack. No-one has called on Stokey Local to offer up the attacker’s name. No-one at the Town Hall seems in the slightest bit interested that an architect doing business at the council was attacked.
We all know what would have happened if a black youth did the same in some misguided notion of “protecting their postcode”. But it appears the N16 posse can mete out violence with impunity.
What does this tell us about HLP’s relationship with these campaigners?
wel said benjamin … funny the park cost millons of lotto money but the normal ppl cant afford to buy nethink from the cafe bar like 3 pound for a cup of coffee rip off stokey . still on stokey local rag site no 1 has even spoke about abney park i see its all me me me and my rip of shop i own lol and the ppl who say the shops in church st are cheaper then sainsburys must be livein in a dream world . shops in chuch st are wel over priced
Benjamin,
If you don’t work in Public Affairs for a large food retailer, I fear your vocation in life may have been missed.
For those who won’t have read my comments – due to your exercise in rubbishing everyone else’s legitimate views with lengthy essays dedicated to mudslinging and misinformation – I’ve shown (with supporting evidence) that:
1) There are alternatives to oligopolistic, identikit food retailers, which not only provide more jobs, but are cheaper for consumers:
http://www.neweconomics.org/press/entry/markets-create-twice-as-many-jobs-as-supermarkets-and-food-is-half-the-pric
2) Chain supermarkets are often far more expensive than people think:
“Supermarkets’ pricing sting at small branches where customers charged up to 40% more for shopping…Sample basket at Sainsbury’s Local costs 10.2 per cent at larger store” (16.05.13)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323663/Supermarkets-pricing-sting-small-branches-customers-charged-40-shopping.html
3) Chain food retailers are bad for competition and reduce consumer choice:
“Watchdog rules Sainsbury’s ‘feed your family for £50′ adverts are misleading” (03.04.13)
http://metro.co.uk/2012/04/03/watchdog-rules-sainsburys-feed-your-family-for-50-adverts-are-misleading-375424/
“Sainsbury’s and Asda accused of ‘illegally misleading’ customers on price” (29.09.10)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8030125/Sainsbury-and-Asda-accused-of-illegally-misleading-customers-on-price.html
Now, to address some of your points/questions:
You state “Most shopkeepers don’t live above their shops and could live anywhere, and probably spend their money with corporations anyway.” I’ve already asked you to evidence this. You’ve either failed to research the issue or you know your claim to be incorrect; which is it?
You write “Why is he not supporting the businesses who were pro the development?” I’m not aligned to any group in this debate, I’m defending the existence of small and medium-sized businesses in general, which add colour and variety to local food retail and often stock goods unavailable elsewhere. These businesses, which provide for thousands of families and employ people who would often otherwise be locked out of the conventional labour market, will be threatened by yet another food giant with a multi-million pound marketing budget. Oligopoly is bad for any market; even neoclassical economists concede that, so it’s perfectly legitimate for me to make the case against it.
You write “What he is in effect arguing is that the less well-off residents should effectively be subsidizing inefficient local businesses.” That’s not what I’m saying at all. In fact, I’ve demonstrated that were people to shop at Ridley Road market, for example, they would be considerably better off than shopping for comparable goods at one ‘the big four’ supermarkets.
You write “what gives him the right to determine what is in local residents’ interests if those same residents are quite happy to freely shop there?” There’s a flaw in your logic here. You’re conflating free will with ‘what’s good for you’. They are not the same thing. People do lots of things of their own volition but, particularly if there are asymmetries of information (fostered by marketing campaigns, for example), those things are not necessarily good for them.
People shop in Sainsbury’s Locals that cost 10.2% more than large supermarkets because they don’t have an alternative or they’re not aware that they’re paying more; is that necessarily ‘good for them’? Frankly, this is the logic of a right wing libertarian. To answer your question, however, the evidence I’ve provided is an attempt to demonstrate that many of the crude assumptions you make about the efficiency of supermarkets is nonsense. My position is a combination of opinion (which I’m entitled to express) and well-researched facts, which you consistently fail to address. My ‘right’ is the right to engage in robust debate.
You write “he’s treating local residents like idiots incapable of deciding what’s in their own interests.” You maintain that people shop at chain food retailers because they’re cheaper, but I’ve demonstrated that’s not correct, so people clearly shop at supermarkets for other reasons. I’ve suggested this is because they offer convenience, familiarity, and often claim to be cheaper (but aren’t); you’ve suggested that the only metric for assessing the accuracy of that hypothesis is consumer choice – if people shop somewhere, it must be cheaper than the alternative. Only an exceptionally lazy thought process or rigid commitment to neoclassical economics could result in such a conclusion. The only problem with it is that when subjected to even the most superficial examination, it’s appears risibly simplistic.
You write that my disappointment at planning law failing to give enough weight to public opinion (a *fact*, should you care to research the issue) “reveal[s] his unfounded belief that most locals opposed the development”. At no point did I argue that ‘most locals oppose the development’. Perhaps you’d like to point out where I did? Nevertheless, most planning applications are pretty routine, with few if any people attending. I’d hazard a guess that Wilmer Place decision meeting was one of the best attended in living memory. To suggest that that fact isn’t a powerful indicator of the strength of local public opinion is simply not credible; not least because it completely undermines your argument *for* the development. On the one hand, you want to be able to maintain that if lots of people shop at the new Sainsbury’s, it must be popular (see below), while at the same time arguing that if lots of people oppose the development (by tuning up in their hundreds to planning meetings) they’re not representative of their community. In any case, appealing to ‘the silent majority’ without providing any evidence of its existence may be worthy of despots and disgraced presidents everywhere, but it’s not the basis of a decent argument.
You then go on to write, “more local people will willingly pass through the checkouts at the new Sainsbury’s every single day than signed Stokey Local’s well-publicised petition”. This highlights, yet again, the strong vein of neoliberal fundamentalism in your contradictory arguments. For you, the only test of the appropriateness of a development is consumer demand. By that rationale, perhaps we shouldn’t have planning law at all? This will be cold comfort to those who end up with a school being set up in the house next door or a night-club opened beneath their flat; but, hey, there’s demand for them so anything goes, eh?
In yet another contradictory argument, you maintain “The facts are that Hackney Labour Party is supine and sycophantic when it comes to N16…”. Notwithstanding the that you again use the word ‘facts’ without actually providing any *facts*, it’s laughable to point to some Labour Party conspiracy when a majority of Labour Cllrs on the planning committee have just passed the application you support!?!
I’m a great believer in transparency, which is why I use my *real* name and provide a link so people know I am. That way, I ensure that my arguments are respectful, evidence-based, and traceable. It’s unfortunate that these forums often provide anonymity to people whose true motives are hidden by baseless accusation and deliberate misinformation. Another classic example of this is your insinuation that I’ve made no reference to Whole Foods, when in fact the main thrust of my argument has been that your support for yet another chain store food retailer in Hackney is as absurd believing that farmers’ markets and the “prohibitively expensive”(my words) Whole Foods offer a viable alternative.
This takes us to the crux of my argument, which you noticeably fail to address. As stated previously, Dalston to Stamford Hill is already very well served by supermarkets, with four large supermarkets and three ‘Locals’/’Metros’, illustrating their increasing dominance of food retail. The Times noted only last year that, for example, that “nearly nine tenths of the population now live within a five-minute drive of one of the Big Four supermarkets” (10.12.12). There is every reason to oppose the anti-competitive practices of these supermarkets and their seemingly relentless march; not least because they provide fewer jobs, are not cheaper than the alternatives, take money out rather than keeping money within the local economy, and reduce consumer choice. So, why do you fail to do so?
I would argue that it’s not possible to have a reasonable debate on the matter because your legitimate concerns about people on low incomes being locked out of commercial activity in Stoke Newington are obscured by what you oppose, rather than what you advocate. Rather than discuss how we improve the material living standards of those on modest incomes through cheaper housing and better pay, you’ve used the platform offered by Hackney Citizen to liable community groups and spread misinformation, whilst advocating the increased presence on our high streets of chain retailers whose business models are predicated on mass-marketing and exploitative labour practices. Your evident dislike of what you describe as the “affluent…crowd” of Stoke Newington residents who opposed the application and your politically motivated desire to attack Hackney Labour Party has forced you to advance weak, contradictory, and inconsistent arguments in favour of a development that will bring questionable benefits to the community.
Not only does this lead to debate conducted in bad faith, but one that is ultimately self-defeating. As much as you maintain that Sainsbury’s will ‘diversify’ Church St, I can assure you that its clientele will vary little from the very demographic you appear to loathe. I hate to break this to you, Benjamin, but in this instance big business isn’t part of the solution, it’s part of the problem.
Finally, if anybody was physically attacked after the planning decision meeting, they or an onlooker should have reported it to the police. There can be no excuse for such behaviour and I condemn it utterly; though, I suspect this is unsatisfactory since I’m not a councillor.
*libel*
does anyone here have an insight on how planning actually works?
it seems clear that councilors voted for the scheme because they thought they would lose an appeal. The planning department supported the scheme too.
In the private sector if you have a doubt on a major legal issue you take counsel’s opinion – that is you commission an opinion from a top lawyer in the area because your own in house lawyers won’t be expert enough.
If LBH did that – and the opinion was that we would lose, then the Councillors cannot be faulted (although the planning system clearly can).
But if they didn’t…..??????
Jon Burke –
Apologies for the slowness of my reply to your latest offering, only I’ve been busy overseas for a while and more recently been unable to access this site for technical reasons.
I fear it will be a lengthier reply than you’d like, but it does take some wordage to untangle your web of inaccuracy, non sequiturs and cod economics.
Firstly it was always my impression that the onus of proof was on the one presenting the thesis (yours being that keeping chains out of an area is good for the local economy). You don’t believe me that most local independent shopkeepers don’t live above their properties and insist that I need to prove this to you. Proving a negative is always a tricky business, but I would have thought it fairly obvious to most people living in and observing their local community, talking to shopkeepers, neighbours etc that most shopkeepers in London live away from their business premises. This might not be true in other parts of the country which perhaps you are from. I’m sure this explanation won’t be adequate for you so all I can suggest is you have a look at a London-based commercial estate agents and see how many shops you can find with attached accommodation; Shaw & Co., Pearl & Coutts, to name but two (I won’t supply links as they will result in this comment “awaiting moderation” for some time).
The other fatal flaw in your theory is that it assumes local residents are incapable of transportation. If the popular chain stores that most people seek are not available locally, it does not follow that they will simply stick to local shops that they see as inferior. It is more likely that they will jump in a bus/train/car and travel to somewhere that supplies the popular chain stores that they seek. Labour-run Hackney council are fully aware of this which is why it is their policy to pro-actively encourage popular chain stores into the borough (although apparently not SN Church Street). If you strongly disagree with this policy I can only suggest you leave the Party. But I hope it is clear to any honest non-partisan reader that your thesis is fundamentally flawed, although, again, it may hold more water somewhere else like a small isolated town where a large out-of-town chain supermarket is being planned, but not on an inner-London high street. Indeed the opposite might well be true and excluding a popular chain (especially when it employs locals) damages the local economy – including local independent traders. This is probably why the Stoke Newington Business Association representing some 80 diverse businesses stated their “businesses hold a range of views concerning the proposed development…. some pro and some anti” and urged people not to dismiss it “just because it’s a chain”.
Unfortunately, for you, it seems the representative body for the shops you are pretending to “defend” don’t agree with you. Your thesis is based on a demonstrable romanticism of independent business and a quasi-religious faith in the NEF lobby group.
You then go on to claim that these local independent shops “employ people who would often otherwise be locked out of the conventional labour market”! How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Are you suggesting they’re illegal immigrants? Are you suggesting that they are of such low-caliber that only their families would employ them?
You then attempt to take apart my earlier assertion, but only succeed in confusing yourself;
“You write “what gives him the right to determine what is in local residents’ interests if those same residents are quite happy to freely shop there?” There’s a flaw in your logic here. You’re conflating free will with ‘what’s good for you’. They are not the same thing. People do lots of things of their own volition but, particularly if there are asymmetries of information (fostered by marketing campaigns, for example), those things are not necessarily good for them. People shop in Sainsbury’s Locals that cost 10.2% more than large supermarkets because they don’t have an alternative or they’re not aware that they’re paying more; is that necessarily ‘good for them’?”
Firstly, what I said is “what gives [you] the right to determine what is in local residents’ interests if those same residents are quite happy to freely shop there?”. “Interests” aren’t necessarily financial. They can be convenience, accessibility, environment, trust in produce, hygiene etc.
Secondly, if “people shop in Sainsbury’s Locals that cost 10.2% more than large supermarkets because they don’t have an alternative”, then this is a good case for a local large supermarket to be built. But you perversely present an argument against it and would rather see people being forced to travel either up to Stamford Hill or down to Dalston in order to do their weekly supermarket shop. This is neither in the interests of those having to travel, nor in the interests of the local Stoke Newington economy.
But there is something more troubling about your arguments than them being merely incoherent;
On the one hand you claim that people aren’t capable of going food shopping in their own interests so their options should be limited, then you state that you “lament the fact that planning law fails to give sufficient weight to local public opinion”.
So a large number of residents should be denied the option of shopping in a local large supermarket because some locals oppose it?! Even when it is probable that more local residents would willingly pass through its checkouts every single day than signed the opposition petition?! So some people are incapable of knowing what’s in their own interests, but others are more than capable of deciding what is in their’s – and everyone else’s?! I understand that you perceive yourself as a socialist, but I confess that your two-tier vision is not a version of socialism that I recognise. “All people are equal, but some are more equal than others”?
Furthermore, how you will decide how representative this “local public opinion” is, you don’t make clear, but you do say that because the Stokey Local crowd managed to fill the public area of the council chamber that they are at least significant and presumably you think this opinion should have been given more influence. But if all it takes is a couple of hundred [?] people to fill a council chamber (which happens more often than you think) then this looks very much like the “mobocracy” that just a few comments ago you were pretending to oppose.
On what grounds could people block developments? “Er…we don’t like it”? People already have influence on planning process, but they have to present arguments that are rooted in sound planning logic – something Stokey Local failed to do.
You say “At no point did I argue that ‘most locals oppose the development’.”. If you are now accepting that most locals did not oppose the development, how can you “lament the fact that planning law fails to give sufficient weight to local public opinion”?
Which “local opinion” are you referring to? Are you seriously suggesting that a local opinion should carry more weight even if it is a minority view?!
Contrary to your assertions, I’m not arguing against your right to argue anything you want. You keep returning to this dishonest theme, that I am somehow stifling debate/free-speech or even democracy. Again, nonsense.
“…appealing to ‘the silent majority’ without providing any evidence of its existence may be worthy of despots and disgraced presidents everywhere, but it’s not the basis of a decent argument.”
It has obviously bypassed your comprehension that I am not the one claiming what the silent majority think, it is Stokey Local (ie the group you’re defending) with their unfounded claim that “Stoke Newington says no to Sainsburys”. Interesting to note that you are now comparing them (albeit unwittingly) to despots.
“You then go on to write, “more local people will willingly pass through the checkouts at the new Sainsbury’s every single day than signed Stokey Local’s well-publicised petition”. This highlights, yet again, the strong vein of neoliberal fundamentalism in your contradictory arguments.”
Er, no Jon. Comparing the numbers of people who signed a petition against a shop with the number of people who use it with a view to assessing its popularity does not make me a “neoliberal fundamentalist”. The only thing you’ve really achieved here is to clearly demonstrate your economic and political illiteracy. As does your cunning plan to pay everyone enough so we can all afford to shop in exclusive high streets. (That’s sheer economic genius – I’m surprised no-one’s thought of it before!)
“For you, the only test of the appropriateness of a development is consumer demand. By that rationale, perhaps we shouldn’t have planning law at all?”
Again Jon, you’re confusing yourself. A development is appropriate because there are no planning criteria to oppose it – not simply because it is popular. My principal point regarding popularity is to counter Stokey Local’s claim that “Stoke Newington says no to Sainsburys”, which is a different issue to appropriateness. In reality it is you and Stokey Local who conflate the issues of appropriateness and popularity with your insistence that the development is IN-appropriate because it will be so popular.
Contrary to your implication, I am a very big advocate of strong planning law. I’m surprised you can’t see that it is you and Stokey Local who are undermining planning law by arguing that an unspecified number of people turning up at a planning meeting should be able to overrule sound planning criteria. It was precisely the threat of sound planning law being tested at appeal that forced the committee to back down from their politically-driven desire to block it.
You go on; “..it’s laughable to point to some Labour Party conspiracy when a majority of Labour Cllrs on the planning committee have just passed the application you support!?!”
Here you demonstrate that you haven’t the slightest inkling of what happened at the meetings. The proposal was reluctantly granted permission because of the threat of an appeal that the committee knew they’d lose. It was granted permission in spite of members wishes, not because of them as you are now trying to misleadingly portray.
Much of your ideological opposition to corporations and half-baked macro-economic plans are largely irrelevant to this debate so I won’t waste any more time and space on them, but your lengthy diatribe is so misrepresentative of my position that it’s worth a very brief reminder;
My position regarding the development is that it should be judged by the planning office on planning criteria as laid out in planning regulations, not by political considerations. Nothing controversial there.
My position regarding the opposition campaign is that its arguments don’t make much sense, are sometimes contradictory, and seem to only apply when at the threshold of Church Street, which, to my mind, suggests other motivations.
I note that throughout this dialogue you’ve failed to address the questions about what this debate chiefly concerns, namely Stokey Local’s campaign and Stoke Newington Church Street exceptionalism. For example;
If it’s corporations they object to, why only on Church St? Why only in “our little enclave”?
Why have they not called for a boycott of Wholefoods in the same way that they did for Nando’s? (Merely pointing out that Wholefoods is “expensive” is simply a truism. The real question is why the double standard?)
Finally, you started off your diatribe with a banal attempt at a slur by implying that I am in the employ of a chain food retailer. It is worth pointing out that, apart from being untrue, it is not me who has any agenda on where or with whom, people shop. That is the agenda of you and Stokey Local.
Snobbery masquerading as social concern.