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.
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 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.
The Richmond and Twickenham Times published this article with Vince Cable today – FANTASTIC support of the campaign!
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!
As ever – we are extremely grateful for your continued support and have our fingers firmly crossed for the next stage of the campaign.
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