Sainsbury's are applying for planning permission for unrestricted trading at Bell Green. The application on the Lewisham website can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/5au7vt
The accompanying noise survey concludes that the levels of noise in surrounding residential streets will be 'good' if people keep their windows closed! The deadline for objections is Wednesday May 7. As time is short, they can be emailed to planning@lewisham.gov.uk. The Sydenham Society's objection, which focuses on the environmental arguments, is below:
Dear Planning Dept
Bell Green Sydenham, London SE26: Planning Application Reference: DC 08/68493, Change to Condition 2 of Outline Planning Consent, 1993: Supermarket Opening Hours
The Sydenham Society objects strongly to the current proposals submitted by Sainsburys / Castlemore to extend trading hours at the Savacentre site in Bell Green, Sydenham through the night.
The reasons for objection are as follows:
1. The applicant’s noise impact analysis report by White Young Green of March concludes that internal noise levels at the sites monitored would be within good limits set under BS 8233 “with windows closed”. This implies that summertime levels, when householders may wish to have their windows open, may not be within these “good” limits. The only alternative to night-time ventilation through open windows in warm weather would be for a householder affected by traffic noise to buy portable mechanical cooling units to put in bedrooms. In the USA and other developed countries, the power consumption and consequent greenhouse gas emission arising from the resort to air conditioning in hot weather is greater than from the provision of space heating in winter.
2. Since the outline consent was granted, there has been a great increase in the concern about the adverse effects on human health of traffic pollution, particularly with regard to the increase in the incidence of childhood asthma which is thought to be related to constituents in the exhaust gases of cars and lorries. Concern about these health effects was not evident in 1993 because relevant documents, such as the QUARG Report, had not been published, yet the Council saw fit to impose this condition to protect the health and home environments of residents in neighbouring homes. In the Society’s view, it would be reprehensible to diminish environmental standards set in 1993 fifteen years later in 2008 at a time when communities across Europe and within the UK are making strenuous efforts to improve them in belated recognition of the adverse effects on human health of heavy urban traffic.
3. The Society has argued from the start that the Bell Green development would be entirely dependent for its commercial viability on frequent vehicle movements by private cars carrying customers and delivery lorries servicing the store. In the Society’s opinion, this latest application proves its point beyond doubt. None of the visits to the store taking place during the proposed extended opening hours could be by public transport: trains would not be running and night buses would serve the store too infrequently to be a feasible mode of transport for someone undertaking a ‘spur of the moment’ night-time shopping trip. The proposed extension of opening hours is yet another creative way for the applicant in this case to intensify emission of greenhouse gases by promoting unnecessary and, for nearby residents, vexatious shopping trips reliant solely on use of private cars.
In the light of what the Society believes are weighty objections, which correctly reflect the pressing need to meet the target of 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 now enshrined as Government policy, it calls on Lewisham Council to refuse to remove its original Condition 2 in order not only to protect the physical and mental health of local residents, but also to implement national government policy in relation to preventing the worst effects of climate change.
The Sydenham Society
Sainsbury's application for 24 hour trading at Bell Green
-
annabel mclaren
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 19:55
- Location: thorpes
-
charlieandpip
- Posts: 80
- Joined: 22 Feb 2006 17:25
- Location: Cator Road, Sydenham
I think it would be great to have 24 hours at Savacentre. Bell Green is an industrial zone so please, Sydenham Society think of consulting Sydenham residents before you carry on trying to stop all development in the area. Bell Green remains an eyesore purely because of the opposition from yourselves for development. Development which the majority of residents would most likely approve of......
I know this is likely to be controversial to some, but all views are valid, not just those opposed to change.
I know this is likely to be controversial to some, but all views are valid, not just those opposed to change.
Annabel,
Thank you so much for posting this - I had no idea. I have copied and pasted your 'letter' and added my name.
charlieandpip,
I live very near to Sava Centre and the increased noise could affect me and my family. Please note that Bell Green is not just an industrial zone - it's also where people live. We do not NEED 24 hours at Sava Centre. I'd like to see if you'd like it, if it were on the corner of Cator Road. I do agree though, that perhaps Sydenham Society could 'ask' (run a poll?) what WE think before trying to stop developments. I also agree that Bell Green IS an eyesore at the moment, but I do not want 24 hour shops thank you very much - I'd rather the eyesore than that.
Sarah
Thank you so much for posting this - I had no idea. I have copied and pasted your 'letter' and added my name.
charlieandpip,
I live very near to Sava Centre and the increased noise could affect me and my family. Please note that Bell Green is not just an industrial zone - it's also where people live. We do not NEED 24 hours at Sava Centre. I'd like to see if you'd like it, if it were on the corner of Cator Road. I do agree though, that perhaps Sydenham Society could 'ask' (run a poll?) what WE think before trying to stop developments. I also agree that Bell Green IS an eyesore at the moment, but I do not want 24 hour shops thank you very much - I'd rather the eyesore than that.
Sarah
I have to say I find these objections very questionable.
In particular 3) 'global warming'. It seems extremely tenuous. Clearly no one will be arriving by public transport as they will have their own transport. So what diversion from public to private transport is there? Supposition or do you have facts? Also driving to savacentre when traffic is less will reduce fuel consumption. So 24 hour opening could as well as reduce C02 emmissions as increase it. Do you have a factual base to say otherwise?
And what percentage of the Sydenham Society, in possession of all the facts, concur with the objection made in their name?
I do take exception to people speaking for me without consultation "24 hours opening is not needed". If it wasn't the Sainsbury's wouldn't be opening to service a need. If they get it wrong they lose. If they are right the community suffers if these objections are accepted.
Savacente is surrounded by busy roads. Nobody lives very close to be disturbed by 24 hour trading. That could not be said for other 24/late night opening shops in the high street. Are you saying these should be closed too?
Please think again before making a final decision to object to this application on the grounds specified.
In particular 3) 'global warming'. It seems extremely tenuous. Clearly no one will be arriving by public transport as they will have their own transport. So what diversion from public to private transport is there? Supposition or do you have facts? Also driving to savacentre when traffic is less will reduce fuel consumption. So 24 hour opening could as well as reduce C02 emmissions as increase it. Do you have a factual base to say otherwise?
And what percentage of the Sydenham Society, in possession of all the facts, concur with the objection made in their name?
I do take exception to people speaking for me without consultation "24 hours opening is not needed". If it wasn't the Sainsbury's wouldn't be opening to service a need. If they get it wrong they lose. If they are right the community suffers if these objections are accepted.
Savacente is surrounded by busy roads. Nobody lives very close to be disturbed by 24 hour trading. That could not be said for other 24/late night opening shops in the high street. Are you saying these should be closed too?
Please think again before making a final decision to object to this application on the grounds specified.
We used to live 100 yards from the huge Tesco in Surrey Quays and we didn't notice any increase in traffic or pollution during 8pm-8am, when they started operating 24hrs.
I would prefer it if the staff could operate 24hrs to pack customer's internet shopping orders and to restack shelves, check out of date goods, etc., not to clog up the aisles during the day!
I would prefer it if the staff could operate 24hrs to pack customer's internet shopping orders and to restack shelves, check out of date goods, etc., not to clog up the aisles during the day!
Just to play devils advocate I"m going to ask some questions:
How much extra employment will the store opening 24 hours generate?
Are the people employed local?
Has a study been done to show how 24 hours opening affects local shops (are any local shops open 24 hours?)
Has a study been done to show how much extra traffic it will generate? Isn't it surrounded by busy roads anyway?
If someone needs nappies etc in the middle of the night, wont they drive further to somewhere that is open 24 hours anyway, generating even more greenhouse gas?
Is competition a good thing? Should local shops up their game and find out what people want from them, rather than complain that they are being driven out of business by a supermarket?
Are these the real question we should be asking?*
* I'm asking them, they may or may not be my view.
How much extra employment will the store opening 24 hours generate?
Are the people employed local?
Has a study been done to show how 24 hours opening affects local shops (are any local shops open 24 hours?)
Has a study been done to show how much extra traffic it will generate? Isn't it surrounded by busy roads anyway?
If someone needs nappies etc in the middle of the night, wont they drive further to somewhere that is open 24 hours anyway, generating even more greenhouse gas?
Is competition a good thing? Should local shops up their game and find out what people want from them, rather than complain that they are being driven out of business by a supermarket?
Are these the real question we should be asking?*
* I'm asking them, they may or may not be my view.
Quite the reverse in fact 'charlieandpip'. If the Sydenham Society's ideas had been put in place there'd probably be a load of housing being built there right now. Its not the Sydenham Society's fault that no businesses want to have their premises there. In fact the Sydenham Society argued that these types of shopping developments were out-of-date and now this is being proved by the lack of takers perhaps...charlieandpip wrote:... so please, Sydenham Society think of consulting Sydenham residents before you carry on trying to stop all development in the area. Bell Green remains an eyesore purely because of the opposition from yourselves for development. Development which the majority of residents would most likely approve of......
Also - I don't think the Sydenham Society assumes every member is against the 24 opening, I'm sure a lot of them would find it quite useful, as I myself would, but then again I don't live near Bell Green so the extra noise wouldn't affect me. Maybe the 24 hour opening might also affect what happens in terms of future development on the site?
I think its fair that people at least are aware of the application for 24 opening and that they have the option to object, and as can be seen from responses on this website, not everyone was aware of it.
Ah the whiff of hypocracy - the Sydenham Society object to the nusiance and noise of Sainsbury's extending their opening hours, although that might suit a number of other people in the area who work shifts etc. but object when others (see oyster card debate) object to things that worsen their quality of life. I ask again who do they repesent?
Pesonally I understand the objections to this and think that it should be opposed. But what do my views count?
Pesonally I understand the objections to this and think that it should be opposed. But what do my views count?
-
roundasapound
- Posts: 34
- Joined: 2 May 2008 05:46
- Location: The Thorpes, SE26
I'd like it to open 24 hours. Personally I'd find it quite useful, although we're quite lucky up here as there's a 24 hour Budgens on the high street (even if it is a rip-off!).
It's not in a densely populated residential area and I somehow don't see it being like a Sunday afternoon at 4am in the morning.
Those people working shifts would find it very handy and those that want to avoid the crowds, also the re-stocking of the shelves could be done when less people are about.
It's not in a densely populated residential area and I somehow don't see it being like a Sunday afternoon at 4am in the morning.
Those people working shifts would find it very handy and those that want to avoid the crowds, also the re-stocking of the shelves could be done when less people are about.
The letter by the Sydenham Society does not interpret the engineers report correctly and therefore stirs up potential unecessary concern.
On their first point, the British Standard which is used measures sound diference when a window is closed because if it were open it could not be deemed to be an accurate measure as the opening size is an unquantifiable amount. If there is an unquantifiable element then it can not be a British Standard. You have to measure against something constant.
If you actually take the time to read the report you will see that the impact is negligible. The trouble is that most people wont as they will rely on the Syd Soc analysis (by experts?)
As for traffic movements in the remainder of the letter, I dont think there will be a mad midnight rush and neither will it increase the traffic flow as the same people will use the store but over a longer opening time
Why do the Syd Soc have to object to everything?
I think it would be good for the area with very little impact - e.g. employment opportunity. If you are concerned then read the report before you jump on the band wagon.
On their first point, the British Standard which is used measures sound diference when a window is closed because if it were open it could not be deemed to be an accurate measure as the opening size is an unquantifiable amount. If there is an unquantifiable element then it can not be a British Standard. You have to measure against something constant.
If you actually take the time to read the report you will see that the impact is negligible. The trouble is that most people wont as they will rely on the Syd Soc analysis (by experts?)
As for traffic movements in the remainder of the letter, I dont think there will be a mad midnight rush and neither will it increase the traffic flow as the same people will use the store but over a longer opening time
Why do the Syd Soc have to object to everything?
I think it would be good for the area with very little impact - e.g. employment opportunity. If you are concerned then read the report before you jump on the band wagon.
The store is already open until midnight and opens again at 7am - I can't see it would make a great deal of difference to local residents for it to be open those extra few hours.
But maybe I'm being ignorant -I think if the locals residents have a valid reason to object, then the Syd Soc should be working on their behalf, not on the behalf of people who don't live near or those who don't have a need to use the store at odd hours of the night i.e. those people who just have an abstract objection to it.
I don't particularly agree with the concept of 24 hour opening but appreciate that there are others for whom it would be extremely useful.
But maybe I'm being ignorant -I think if the locals residents have a valid reason to object, then the Syd Soc should be working on their behalf, not on the behalf of people who don't live near or those who don't have a need to use the store at odd hours of the night i.e. those people who just have an abstract objection to it.
I don't particularly agree with the concept of 24 hour opening but appreciate that there are others for whom it would be extremely useful.
In response to T Boy's points on the noise report, if the standard cited can only be interpreted for conditions when windows are closed, it cannot be of any use in real-life because residents may want to open windows to import fresh air or to cool home interiors. Little weight could be attached to a purportedly expert report which cannot provide any useful data for times of year when people are likely to want to keep windows open. (For information, noise receptors were placed at Perry Rise, Perry Hill, Fambridge Close, Haseltine Close, Kangley Bridge Rd, Mormead Rd, Porthcawe Rd, Sydenham Rd and at 2 points on Bell Gn - the sections between Southend Lane and Sydenham Rd, and Southend Lane and Perry Rise).
The report does not say that the impact is negligible. It says that traffic noise projections made in accordance with a quoted British Standard are ‘good’. T Boy makes the point that the BS projections could only apply when windows are closed, which means that no accurate summertime projections are possible. As the White Young Green expert opinion could not apply, the Syd/Soc’s opinion that noise could be a nuisance in summer months has the same weight as any contrary opinion.
The WYG report is based on 100 vehicle movements per hour. This is not a negligible traffic flow and it will not take place without impact on local residents. (The 1993 restriction on trading hours was put in place to protect local residents.)
The claim that the Bell Geen development creates jobs has only ever been an untested assertion by the original developer. SydSoc provided good evidence to refute the claim at the last public inquiry (June 2006). Among other things, it showed jobs gained in the Savacentre had been lost as the result of the closure of shops elsewhere.
The report does not say that the impact is negligible. It says that traffic noise projections made in accordance with a quoted British Standard are ‘good’. T Boy makes the point that the BS projections could only apply when windows are closed, which means that no accurate summertime projections are possible. As the White Young Green expert opinion could not apply, the Syd/Soc’s opinion that noise could be a nuisance in summer months has the same weight as any contrary opinion.
The WYG report is based on 100 vehicle movements per hour. This is not a negligible traffic flow and it will not take place without impact on local residents. (The 1993 restriction on trading hours was put in place to protect local residents.)
The claim that the Bell Geen development creates jobs has only ever been an untested assertion by the original developer. SydSoc provided good evidence to refute the claim at the last public inquiry (June 2006). Among other things, it showed jobs gained in the Savacentre had been lost as the result of the closure of shops elsewhere.
Big Ben, you miss my point. There is not a sound test in the world for measuring sound transfer through an open window when determining traffic impact so it has to be a closed window. It is a standard test which the professional engineers have used and it is in line with industry standards when determining traffic impact – If you know of a more appropriate test/ methodology then perhaps you could advise the qualified engineers? The council will be aware of the test used and its limitations and they have experts to properly interpret the data collected in the report and make a reasoned judgement (I hope) – Where as I doubt if the Syd Soc does. My view is leave it to the experts as the Syd Soc text achieves nothing but to stir up the band wagon based on a lack of knowledge. If they were being advised by a professional organisation then perhaps I would listen.
You also quote ‘The report does not say that the impact is negligible’. Well please look at the main conclusion on page 13 as it does.
So there we have it – a professional organisation with experts who know what they are talking about and they say that the impact is negligible.
I shall reiterate to all those who read this text – please read the report and make your own conclusion before you jump on the Syd Soc bandwagon and object to this application.
I am not a shareholder or representative of Sainsbury’s I am a Sydenham resident who is fed up of seeing objection after objection from the Syd Soc.
You also quote ‘The report does not say that the impact is negligible’. Well please look at the main conclusion on page 13 as it does.
So there we have it – a professional organisation with experts who know what they are talking about and they say that the impact is negligible.
I shall reiterate to all those who read this text – please read the report and make your own conclusion before you jump on the Syd Soc bandwagon and object to this application.
I am not a shareholder or representative of Sainsbury’s I am a Sydenham resident who is fed up of seeing objection after objection from the Syd Soc.
TBoy
I'm guessing the Sydenham Society decision to object about the 24hour opening had to be made quickly because the deadline for objections was wednesday, therefore canvassing the opinion of every member would have been impossible.
Personally I am in favour of the 24 hour opening, but I am not a conservation expert and there are people involved in the Sydenham Soc that definitely are and I believe they normally make the right decisions.
If you object so strongly to the decisions that the Sydenham Society makes then maybe you should get a bit more involved in it and then you can presumably help to make those decisions!
I'm guessing the Sydenham Society decision to object about the 24hour opening had to be made quickly because the deadline for objections was wednesday, therefore canvassing the opinion of every member would have been impossible.
Personally I am in favour of the 24 hour opening, but I am not a conservation expert and there are people involved in the Sydenham Soc that definitely are and I believe they normally make the right decisions.
If you object so strongly to the decisions that the Sydenham Society makes then maybe you should get a bit more involved in it and then you can presumably help to make those decisions!
-
richpickings
- Posts: 75
- Joined: 15 Oct 2006 17:05
- Location: Ex of Kirkdale
I would love a 24 hours Sainsbury. Lets face it people aren't suddnely going to change thier routines and start doing their weekly shops at 1am, so the impact of traffic surely won't be that much! It would be nice to be able to have somewhere decent open late on those rare occasions when you need something in a hurry or you are suffering from insomnia.
Well done Sainsbury for making a flagship branch in a relatively unheard of area of South East London.
Well done Sainsbury for making a flagship branch in a relatively unheard of area of South East London.
I cant imagine there would be a flood of traffic to the store. The simple thing to do is run it as a trial, monitor traffic levels for a week before it opens then a month after. If there's a significant increase then the council has a mandate to revoke the opening hours (or something like that). Local people might even want to use the store at odd hours, if their quality of life has got worse because of it then that's a very strong argument not to have it open.
Unless you try it how will you know?
Unless you try it how will you know?
I have to agree that I can't see it causing a major increase in the traffic in surrounding roads, and what increase there will be is most likely to be cars driven at sensible speeds - compared to stationery traffic during the day or the prevalent high-speed minicabs during the night, I can't see this posing much of a nuisance.
What I would like to see, though, is a better road layout to stop the daytime traffic backing up way past the bridge (maybe stop people turning right into SavaCentre and make that lane straight-on only?). But I'm sure that's an argument for another thread...
What I would like to see, though, is a better road layout to stop the daytime traffic backing up way past the bridge (maybe stop people turning right into SavaCentre and make that lane straight-on only?). But I'm sure that's an argument for another thread...