PLANNING APPLICATION FOR SIGNAGE AND TOTEM

So… it’s finally happening. Sainsburys are making plans for their arrival in Teddington.

As far as we know, Calligaris are still negotiating a leaving date, but Sainsburys are eager to get onto the site in around 6-8 weeks time.

They have submitted their applications for signage to Richmond Council. This is a direct link for you: http://bit.ly/sainsburysads

We have until the 20th APRIL to place an objections – Thank you to those that have done so already!

We are, once again, limited in what we can object to but here are some headline points…..

1.       The Polices repeat time and again that signage proposed must enhance and or preserve the conservation setting.

This means the Council must look first at the subject site’s setting ie opposite the Peg Woffington Grade II listed cottages, near the church and beside Udney Park Gardens, and within Teddington Lock CA – and then ask if the signage is in keeping and – “does it enhance or preserve the conservation aspects and local buildings”.

2.       We are in the Teddington Lock Conservation Area (area 27) not the High Street Conservation area (area 37) therefore preservation and enhancement is in the context of Teddington Lock, not a commercial High Street. They have to look at what suits the area 27 streetscene, not what is in area 37. We were put in a different area for a reason, because we are the heritage area of Teddington and not the commercial High Street.

3.       Sainsburys usual logo and colours etc mean nothing – you look at the area first and work back to what is suitable. The rules specifically say that usual logos etc don’t count for anything. 

4.       Road safety – the totem signs block visibility for cars from Langham Road – bad for traffic safety on the bend.

5.       Totems – these are wholly inappropriate anyway. Firstly for all the above reasons but also, even in area 37 we see no such open aggressive garish commerciality so definitely not suitable here. No local totems anywhere in Teddington.

6.       Illumination – There is none presently at Caligaris so they have to explain why adding it now enhances and preserves. There hasn’t been any explanation.

7.       In applying they MUST submit an analysis of the area, the streetscene and show what is there and thus how their designs are created to enhance and preserve. They haven’t done this so should be refused.   

So it is best to concentrate comments on the conservation area (listed buildings – our cottages, the church and Udney Park Gardens) and look at what would fit in with that level of heritage – Sainsbury’s should create a new fascia that fits rather than seeking to force a square peg into a round hole!

Thanks for your continued support.

Message of support from Mary Portas

It is just this sort of bully behaviour that makes us hate them.

Get all those people and more to boycott them. The only way they will make money is if you buy there.

We’ve lost in court…

We are very disappointed to tell you that we lost our challenge in court today. The Judge decided to uphold the Inspector’s decision.

Our specialist Barrister argued a long list of mistakes and inconsistencies made by the Inspector and argued how her decision failed to explain compliance with the relevant planning rules.

The Judge decided that despite the absence of reasoning by the Inspector in her written decision, this made no difference to him in his judgement.  And he inferred the missing reasoning. He deemed the several mistakes and inconsistencies not sufficiently important to support an overturning of her decision.

To those that attended, the vagueness of her reasoning in her decision made it easier for the Judge to rule against us.

The Inspector’s decision made a series of factual planning mistakes which the current legal process does not allow to be argued in appeal.

We obviously disagree with the outcome.

The reality of the consequences of this development were obviously lost on the appeal but we will continue to work closely with the Teddington Society and Teddington Business Community (TBC) to look after the Teddington community interests. Efforts continue with Vince Cable and the TBC petition.

We’d like to take this opportunity thank you all so much for your support, morally, vocally and financially in this campaign.  We are so grateful to be a part of such a special community – roll on Teddington Lights Up.

Off to court we go….

Vince get’s behind campaign in Richmond & Twickenham Times article

The Richmond and Twickenham Times published this article with Vince Cable today – FANTASTIC support of the campaign!

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/11587118.Vince_Cable_backs_Teddington_s_efforts_for_independence/?ref=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Plus, the 38 Degrees petition set up by the TBC has been gathering pace with over 1200 signatures! If you haven’t done so already, please sign it! If you pass it onto 10 people you know to sign too, then in no time the 2000 signature target will be met!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/say-no-to-2-new-sainsbury-s-stores-in-teddington

As ever – we are extremely grateful for your continued support and have our fingers firmly crossed for the next stage of the campaign.

Update on Court Date

The court date has been set to challenge the appeal decision in our fight against Sainsburys. It is scheduled for a day and a half on the 26th and 27th November, in London.

The case is to determine if the Inspector was at fault in her decision making. Any quash of her decision will mean a complete reconsideration by another Inspector. The hearing will not decide whether Sainsburys application should be accepted or not.

We have been advised to have a presence but to limit it to around 10-15 as the Court will already know of the level of objection submitted to the Inspector against the scheme.

I will be attending, so if you would like to join me, please let me know by messaging through this page and I will send you more information.

To Donate to the campaigns ongoing legal costs please visit: bit.ly/saynotosainsburys 

Article on teddingtonpeople.co.uk

http://www.teddingtonpeople.co.uk/Say-Sainsbury-s-campaign-gathers-support/story-22882517-detail/story.html

The campaign is promoted at the Teddington Dog Olympics.

Please help by signing the petition to say NO!

Click through here: tinyurl.com/q9op72d 

Interview with Vici King on the campaign, in TW11 magazine.

Totally Locally continue their support

Once again Totally Locally get behind the campaign, with an article on their site:

http://totallylocallyteddington.co.uk/news/sainsburys-the-fight-goes-on/

Mary Portas Supports Teddington

Mary Portas has issued the following article voicing her concerns for the future of our high streets in respect to the big name supermarkets. She uses Teddington as a case in point.

Why don’t we like multiple grocers anymore? Ask Teddington.

I can remember a time, not so long ago, when Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and the rest of the middle ground of British grocers were fairly popular. They provided choice, quality (sort of) and reasonable prices. Lots of people were happy to do a weekly shop – almost as a family outing.

But as the saying goes, if you stay in the middle of the road for long enough, chances are you’ll get run over.

Today, the “Big Four” are matched (or beaten) on quality and price by competitors and new arrivals. It’s increasingly apparent that nobody really loves them, nor can they think of a reason to keep shopping with them anymore.

Of course this realisation didn’t happen overnight and the multiples aren’t daft.

They’ve more data on their customers’ shopping habits than just about any other retailers in the world.

They know that the sheer number of outlets they have between them, plus people’s well established shopping habits, will prop up the figures for a while, but their stores – particularly the “big boxes” – are increasingly unpopular and out of step with new shopping habits such as “en route” shopping and top-up convenience buying.

So they’re racing back to the High Street – to where people increasingly favour shopping – and opening more and more smaller format outlets.

This is what really worries me.

Historically, our big grocers have shown little regard for other businesses around them. (And their behaviour towards suppliers – whether the stories are true or not – is the stuff of consumer legend.)

So when people hear that ‘one of the big four’ is coming to town there’s an outburst of fear rather than rejoicing.

Will they ‘behave’ and be good neighbours? Or will they displace local businesses, increase traffic and be a blemish on our High Streets? Should they pay a “Tesco Tax” to support the local community?

Teddington – a case in point.

Up and down the country I hear about multiples taking over old petrol stations, pubs and High Street property at a frightening rate, opening ‘C’ versions of their larger format offerings, irrespective of whether communities want them there or not.

They claim in planning applications that they will create greater footfall, serve local needs, provide parking and so on and so on.

So why is it that virtually every time there’s news of a multiple opening, the locals rise against them? (I say virtually because I do know of a few towns that’d jump at the chance of a chain grocer on their High Street.)

The Teddington Society along with a strong groundswell of local independent businesses and residents are opposing a new J Sainsbury store because of traffic and parking issues but mainly because of the effect it is bound to have on other local retailers in overlap of the goods they sell.

Don’t get me wrong – I love competition. It’s what makes business healthy. But Fair competition only please. When you have a cost base like Sainsbury – way below that of a local independent – you have a natural advantage in price and service.

And don’t get me wrong – item two. I can see this move back to High Streets they once abandoned is inevitable because it’s where we all prefer to shop.

What I’m arguing for is that they should behave as responsible and good neighbours.

The people of Teddington don’t dislike Sainsbury’s any more than most of their competitors. But they do love the variety of the ‘indy’s’ who have managed to keep their doors open and make their High Street special.

My appeal is this – and it’s to all grocery multiples. 

Please be good neighbours. Stock local produce including from other local retailers – the bakers bread, the butchers meat if they are prepared to collaborate with you. Help local producers find a place in your stores and don’t bully them on price. Generally, be reasonable about price competition and don’t hammer the other businesses into the ground. Use your resources to help other shopkeepers with training and education programmes for them and their staff. Get involved in local issues and do good things – help with litter, keep up the pressure on the Town Hall on issues like parking and so on.

Be positive and good citizens and who knows, people might start to trust you again.

I don’t know how Teddington will turn out. My friends down there tell me the opposition to Sainsbury’s is total and they will keep on fighting as long as they can.

Will the Teddington community give Sainsbury’s new management a pause for thought and a moment’s reflection? Why is it that the 80’s and 90’s cuddly Sainsbury’s with its popular advertising and broad appeal now getting the good people of an influential London suburb on the barricades?

Is it possible you’ve got it a bit wrong? Well, Teddington is as good a place as any to start getting it right.

Mary Portas

13th August 2014

http://www.portasagency.com│@portasagency│newsletter

Community Meeting Notes 11th August 2014

Local residents and representatives of the local business community gathered Monday evening to show their support to the ‘Say NO to Sainsbury’s Teddington campaign’ – relating to the current Calligaris shop site at 196 High Street.  Many of those who came voiced the opinion that it was generally believed that the campaign had already been successful. The reality is that Sainsbury’s have successfully appealed the unanimous refusal of Sainsbury’s application by Richmond Council last summer, and objectors have now had to take their fight to the high court.

Those gathered came from the general Hampton Wick, Twickenham and Teddington area to voice support for the campaign and offer active help to find ways of raising the necessary funds to cover the legal costs of the campaign. To date the legal costs have been covered by residents of The Peg Woffington Cottages (opposite the proposed site) who have been receiving donations from residents and businesses. Also in attendance was Hampton wick ward councillor, Tania Mathias, and representatives from the Teddington Society and Teddington Business Community.  The campaign also has the support of Dr Vince Cable MP along with Richmond Council.

The meeting was appalled and upset at the decision by the planning Inspector which they felt was inconsistent and self contradictory and who blatantly opposed the wishes of the Richmond Council and indeed those of the overwhelming majority of local businesses and the community – who all wish to protect local businesses, and oppose the over commercialisation of that end of the High Street and the traffic and road safety chaos that it would bring.  The site is within a conservation area and Richmond Council and the objectors believe the development by Sainsbury’s is totally in appropriate and damages local amenity and road safety.

However the Inspectorate’s decision could only be challenged on points of planning law and so argued on very specific legal grounds, 5 of which have been identified and put forward by our highly experienced Legal team. But the major frustration is that the broader picture has been lost and cannot be argued in court. We are urging councillors, whose unanimous decision was overturned, to express both their disappointment at the decision and support for the case, especially in the light that the Inspectorate overturned the A1 restriction the council had out in place on the property specifically to avoid the traffic and road safety consequences of such a development as proposed here. It is this restriction on the sale of food and drink which gives the campaign it’s unique position to challenge the application and we are astonished that is allowed to be removed without consultation or explanation.

The meeting closed with agreement to support local fundraising initiatives to support the on-going campaign. News and updates will appear here on the website  and fundraising donations site bit.ly/saynotosainsburys. Donations can also be made via Tony and Betty’s old tea rooms at 167 High Street.

We are looking for volunteers to be part of our fundraising task force – please contact us if you can help.

Letter to residents

Peg Woffington Cottages
163 – 167 High Street
Teddington
12 July 2014

Dear Teddington Residents,
Say NO to Sainsburys

Thank you for your kind support so far in the campaign to halt Sainsbury’s from taking up space on the Calligaris site.

Background
The Calligaris site had an A1 restriction on it preventing it from selling food and drink which is why we, unlike many other towns, were able to make representation at the original Richmond Council planning hearing. The council voted unanimously last Summer against the application, but at the end of last year the decision was taken to appeal and 5 weeks ago the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol over turned the decision, granting permission.

Appeal to Secretary of State
We took legal advice on the current turn of events and have issued an appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision in the Inspectorate’s report. There are 5 grounds we have taken issue with and the report seems to ignore some of key independent report issues raised in the original objection documentation.

Disappointingly Richmond Council, despite support from our local MP, Dr Vince Cable, have decided not to pursue this, hence why we have taken it upon ourselves to continue the fight.

Unfortunately, we believe the legal route is the only way forward. The council confirmed that there is no other way to challenge the decision.  The issues have been whittled down to extremely narrow grounds and the judgement of one person which goes against the findings of the council and the extensive reports we commissioned last Summer. It no longer looks at the bigger picture of protecting our independent high street and conservation area.

Fighting fund update
We have developed an excellent relationship with our Barrister whom we have been working with for over a year now and trust that he would not be putting us through a further legal battle if there wasn’t a case.  Especially as he knows this is being funded primarily by us, the residents of 163 and 165 High Street.  So far we have contributed £15,000 to the campaign – and have had generous residents’ support of £2,410 –  for the first wave.

We are extremely fortunate to have such good will amongst the community for which we thank you.

However, this final stage will cost a further £15,000.  We are taking on this extra financial burden as we are worried that we will look back in a few years and kick ourselves for not taking it to the wire – and that the risk of not trying is not a road we want to go down and therefore appeal to you to consider some form of contribution to the fighting fund – however small.  Just last week we very gratefully received an extremely generous personal donation pledge of £5,000 and this weekend £500 from Quality Grocers.

For more information on how to donate please visit:

youcaring.com/sainsburysteddington

The Campaign
We are continuing to liaise with the shops and have support from the Teddington Society, who along with us are continuing to write letters opposing the application to national, local press and key influential figures.

We are also looking for other ideas in which to publicise the campaign. Some kind of event/protest…Would this be something you would support?  Something we could invite the press to?  All ideas welcomed.

We believe that we’re not alone, far from it, it is happening in towns all over the UK and if you don’t have the money to right, it appears you don’t have a voice.

The arguments
The crucial issues of parking, traffic and general disturbance are being addressed by us and are listed on our wordpress site for your reference. These are on the advice of our barrister (and the only legal grounds we appear to have). However, the Teddington Society will be raising the treatment – or rather, non-treatment – of the Conservation Area aspects by the inspectorate.

Quoting from their letter to the Inspectorate they say: ‘My understanding is that it is incumbent on an inspector to take cognizance of all substantive arguments made by any party, which may or may not be limited to the ‘main issues’ identified by that inspector. This you have signally failed to do. In your Decision Statement you make a passing reference to the fact that ‘as the site lies within a conservation area (sic) I have considered whether the development  would cause harm to the character and appearance of that area’. But there is no consideration of the historic nature of that particular area, and to suggest that the existence of a shop receiving perhaps 200 visitors a week is equivalent to one with up to 7,000 customers is absurd. In addition, you pass in total silence over the entire local planning framework (the legally Adopted Local Development Framework), which lays down very specific requirements for developments in Conservation Areas. You do not refute these, which include the statement that: ‘It is particularly important that any scheme not only preserves but also positively enhances the Conservation Area’; you simply ignore them. The same is true of the other stipulations of the LDF set out in my letter of 16 November.

‘Given that by their own admission Sainsbury’s would expect anything up to 7,000 visitors a week to their store (they have been studiously silent on the matter of footfall, but I gave you in my letter the grounds for believing the above to be an accurate figure) these visitors, be they on foot or in cars, will bring about a sea change in the nature of the area, which will transform the present ‘historic core’ of Teddington into a major shopping centre. This cannot conceivably  ‘preserve’  its character, let alone  ‘enhance’  it as required.’

If you would like more information or have any suggestions, please don’t hesitate to contact us directly.

Yours, best wishes,
Emma & Richard Twyman, and Vici & Leo King

Legal arguments against the Inspectorate’s decision

Our Barrister has identified the following arguments which form the basis of our challenge to the appeal decision.

From: Juan Lopez (Barrister)
Sent: 13 June 2014 13:55
To: Richard Twyman

Dear Richard,

I have further considered the Inspector’s Decision Letter following our discussion and, on balance, mindful of the way in which the Court often approaches determining a section 288 TCPA claim of this nature, I consider that an appeal against the decision to approve the Proposal should concentrate on each and all of the following:

1. Rejection of the Twickenham site analogy and adoption of the Tooting Bec site analogy/assessing the Proposal on this basis: Whilst the Inspector was entitled in principle to prefer the Appellant’s Tooting Bec site (noting that on this basis specifically, the Inspector has gone onto assess that the Proposal accords with the Development Plan/paragraph 32 of the NPPF), given the strongly apparent factual discrepancies between the appeal site and Tooting Bec (including distance evidence – NB. reference Interested Party’s transport assessment in likening the appeal site with the Twickenham site), it was for the Inspector to satisfactorily reason her approach. This is especially so given obvious factual similarities – plainly relevant to the holistic traffic/transport assessment – between the appeal site and the Twickenham site. In this context, reasons were to be given both for the rejection of Tooting Bec and also separately, for comparing the Twickenham site – given that the Inspector could in theory have rejected both sites in her assessment, with reasons.

2. Treatment/ouster of the Interested Party’s transport assessment: The Inspector states in the decision letter having received the Transport Assessment, but whilst not dismissing this as irrelevant to her assessment, nevertheless fails to address any element of it. That report went to addressing many rebuttal issues (including issues 1, 3, 4 and 5). The omission is the ore significant as regards those areas where the Inspector has not reported an expressing finding that contradicts the Transport Assessment.

3. Highway safety: The Inspector has omitted to make any meaningful reference to highway safety as part of her holistic transport assessment (apart from that set out at DL, paragraph 20). This factor was a relevant one, as the Inspector has apparently found given the paragraph 20 reference. This complaint is linked to that concerning the Inspector’s preference of the Tooting Bec site over the Twickenham site.

4. Impact on traffic and local roads: There is virtually no assessment apparent from the decision letter.

5. Construction/Application of paragraph 32 of the NPPF: The decision letter shows that the decision in fact turns on this question. Arguably (I say arguably, because the construction of this paragraph is yet to feature in any judicial challenge, to the best of my knowledge/research), there has been error in the construction/application of the NPPF advice. The development is one that generates “significant amounts of movement” for the purposes of paragraph 32. Insofar as relevant, paragraph 32 includes the phrase: “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe“. Two points arise: (1) what are (relevant) residual cumulative impacts, specifically in the context of the Proposal, and how has the Inspector approached this question. There is no commentary on this aspect in the decision letter; (2) ‘severity’ (relative to comparator) is not assessed, more generally and as part of any cumulative assessment. Rather, it appears that the Inspector has narrowly found simply (without obvious assessment – see above) that the impact on local road traffic and parking would not be severe.

Inspectorate overturns decision on appeal – BUT ITS NOT OVER YET!

We have received notification that the Inspectorate have granted permission to Sainsburys. This goes against everyone’s hard work last Summer and the unanimous decision by Richmond Council to reject their application.

We have consulted our Barrister who has found 5 key points on which to challenge the decision and on the 13th June we presented these to Vince Cable. He was extremely supportive and surprised that the application has been driven down to such narrow grounds. He has sent a letter to the Head of Planning at the council which you can find below.

Unfortunately we received word today that Richmond Council will not be pursuing this any further despite the strength of feeling in the community and their decision last year.

We are looking for donations towards funding the next steps on the campaign. If you can help or have any suggestions/advice please contact us.

Our challenge must be submitted by the 11th July.

Objecting to Sainsburys appeal.

If you wish to object in light of Sainsburys appeal this is how to do it:

ONLINE – www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs

Direct link to this case- http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2206391&coid=73878

Go to Appeal Service, Comment on appeal
Click ‘Search for a Case’
Ref: APP/L5810/A/13/2206391
You can upload documents here but they need to be no more than 5MB in size

BY POST – Send 3 copies of your objection to:
Planning Inspectorate,
Room 3/09, Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Temple Quay,
Bristol,
BS1 6PN
Please ensure you quote the reference number Ref: APP/L5810/A/13/2206391

DEADLINE: 21st NOVEMBER 2013
For your reference, here are the council’s reasons for refusal in July.

The use as a convenience store would attract significantly more visitors both on foot and, more significantly, in vehicles and this would be prejudicial to highway safety particularly in relation to the otherwise residential Langham Road and a nuisance to local amenity by reason of increased noise and general nuisance. This would be exacerbated by increased demand for on street parking as the parking provided off street will not be able to cater for the anticipated number of visitors in cars. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies DM TP 1, TP 2 and TP 8 of the Richmond upon Thames Development Management Plan 2011 and policy CP 5 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

Article in the Richmond & Twickenham Times 1st Nov 2013

Sainsburys appeal the unanimous decision.

Sainsburys are appealing the councils unanimous decision to reject their application for the site on 196 High Street, Teddington. We are holding a community meeting to discuss our ongoing strategy and what can be done. Please join us:

Thursday 7th November, 8pm, The Royal Oak.

Please tell friends and neighbours- The more the merrier!

Appeal Letter from Richmond Council