The proposed Sainsbury’s development. Pic: Newmark Properties LLP
Stoke Newington residents and business owners have expressed outrage at an image of the proposed Sainsbury’s development on Church Street.
This view of the development, as it would appear from across the high street, was not displayed at the exhibition for residents of the area. It was un-earthed by local resident Bernard Bourdillon on page 84 of the application’s “Design and Access statement” where few casual readers would have come across it.
The already hotly contested apartment block, is shown in the drawing as it would look from Cazenove Road. It appears to loom over Abney Park Cemetery’s Grade II listed gates. It was described variously as “destructive”, “a travesty” and “a stinker.”
Bourdillon lives on nearby Bouverie Road and has visited the cemetery frequently over a period of 33 years. He made an earlier objection to plans for the Wilmer Place development.
He described the problems that the building would cause for cemetery users, calling it an intrusion on the cemetery. He said: “Abney is one of only two statutorily designated nature reserves in Hackney.
“It is government recommended that we have one hectare of nature reserve per 1000 residents. In Hackney, we have 0.12 hectares per 1000 residents. There is a massive underprivilege of natural spaces and this development is a travesty.”
Bourdillon listed further reasons for his objection. He said: “Shadows [created by the building] will block the sun from the cemetery, and that will affect people, animals and plants.
“Policy requires that new developments must be kept as far as possible from the walls of the cemetery. It says in the report that where visible, the new building will make a positive visual contribution.
“Yet it does dominate, it competes with the lodges and gates, and is in competition with them in a very real sense.
“Several recent new developments have been too large. Four of these have gone ahead, and one is pending a decision. At present, when you stand in the park, you can see the sky.
“It is crucial that this development, and the steady accumulation of harm, is halted here, and that the park is not turned from an open space into a closed one.”
Cazenove Road business owners were also outraged. Kev Freel, 40, co-owner of Volt BMX questioned the application, calling it a: “big stinking horrible lump.”
He said: “Locals are constantly being turned down for planning permission. People apply for extensions on their home; small things, but they’re rejected. How can something like that suddenly be given consideration?
“These big wigs… they’re so dirty, they’re clean, aren’t they?”
He looked at the picture again and said: “It really is a stinker. My home will overlook this crap.”
Juliette Rodrigues, 35, is a shop assistant at Food for All, which has been on Cazenove Road for 37 years and is one of London’s oldest health food shops. She was concerned about the effect of the development on the neighbouring cemetery and said: “It destroys the aura and magic of a place that is so full of charm.
“At present, (the cemetery) is a unique oasis in the middle of the city, an entirely secluded and calming area. That looks like it will be very destructive.”
The council planning committee are due to discuss the plans in December or early in the New Year.
I work in Stoke Newington and have been aware of this proposed development for some months. To see the render (and renders ALWAYS look better than the real thing) now, it looks really nasty: cheap design and build – get the tenants in and see the money rolling in. It’s a legacy of the 1980s that we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I just hope the council does not consider this an acceptable development. The shear bulk of the supermarket and housing on top completely overlooks Abney Park and is a real eye soar. It will destroy the peace and tranquility of the cemetery.
I just hope the council does not consider this an acceptable development. The shear bulk of the supermarket and housing on top completely overlooks Abney Park and is a real eye sore. It will destroy the peace and tranquility of the cemetery.
Your piece above on the proposals for new homes and a Sainsbury’s store at Wilmer Place, Stoke Newington High Street (‘Outrage at buried image of Stokey Sainsbury’s plan 23.11.12) contains some inaccuracies and omissions which I think it is important that your readers understand including the fact that the development is not located on Church Street, it is on the High Street.
Firstly the image you used was cropped in a way that fails to show the plans in the proper context of the local streetscape as the image from the ‘Design and Access statement’ itself clearly does. The consultation process over the past 2 years has been fully open and transparent and used many images from all angles clearly showing to residents the relationship between the development and the surrounding area including Abney Park. Your article suggests the image was buried however the image appears twice in the ‘Design and Access statement’ and has been available on LB Hackney’s website to view for over 4 months with unrestricted access to anyone interested in the proposed mixed use development.
Secondly you neglected to mention that the plans not only provide 70 new homes with 31% high quality affordable dwellings for local people but will also inject significant new ecology benefits in Abney Park itself including new tree and shrub planting and a boundary wall treatment which enhances the remarkable biodiversity of the park.
Finally contrary to the impression given, there is considerable support amongst local businesses in and around Stoke Newington High Street for the increased footfall and new investment which the development brings to this part of the high street. A recent survey showed more the 50% of a sample of nearby businesses back the plans. In addition, the design of the scheme by Stirling Prize winning architects AHMM has been widely supported by Planning and Urban design officers.
We understand there are some residents who may have their own reasons not to support the major improvements to this end of Stoke Newington High Street which the proposals will bring but we hope you will do your best to keep the debate balanced as the council moves towards its decision.
Greg Cohen
Newmark Property Investments Ltd
Your opening sentence states that; “Stoke Newington residents and business owners have expressed outrage at an image of the proposed Sainsbury’s development on Church Street.”
Surely what you man is “SOME Stoke Newington residents and business owners”. Despite having a huge amount of media coverage and having petitions in loads of local shops and online, the opposition group has only managed to muster a tiny percentage of the local population to sign.
This article reads like an extension of that opposition group and I’m surprised that standards of journalism on a site run by Goldsmiths journalism students aren’t higher.
We are not aware of any petitions or organisations set up in favour of development. We would be happy to publicise them if you can point them out.
Angela Phillips – Your comment demonstrates your misunderstanding of the planning process. This is not a popularity contest between two camps. A developer – usually with a planning consultant – will present plans and a large amount of evidence in support of the proposed development. People who take an opposing view can present their case, but it is not incumbent on the supporters to present themselves since they are simply duplicating the arguments made by the developer. It is then the job of the planners to weigh-up the pros and cons of the development.
If we assumed, like you do, that any opposition group immediately became representative of the community, then nothing would ever be built.
We are running a news site – we cover news. We write about what people do and say.
The converse of your argument, Benjamin, is that the developers are in some way the champions of the people. I don’t think there are many who would go along with that in this case, but sadly we individuals or groups who use the local facilities don’t have the money or clout of the likes of Sainsbury’s – we have to resort to petitions and hope our local councillors will listen to those who live and work here. And we sometimes go to the press for support – it’s often a good way of getting views aired.
On the specifics of this case: we need housing, of course, but supermarkets are already plentiful in this area and another large one is not likely to provide more employment than it destroys, as many of the small local shops which give the area its interesting and attractive atmosphere go out of business in its wake.
It would be interesting to know which local ‘group’ or interest you belong to as you’re clearly not in opposition?
Lolo49 – “The converse of your argument, Benjamin, is that the developers are in some way the champions of the people.”
Nowhere do I state or even imply that. If you’re argument is totally reliant on misquoting people then maybe it’s time you had a rethink?
I don’t have any problem with Nimby groups going to the media – but I do have a problem when that media don’t make any attempt at balancing the story, as in this case.
Small local shops will only go bust if local residents freely choose to swap to a new Sainsburys (more likely Morrisons will take a loss in customers)- a choice you would obviously like to deny the local population, including the vast majority who have chosen not to sign your petition.
I don’t belong to any group and my only interest in terms of this article is that it is unfair and unbalanced.
Benjamin, if you are going to jump down the throats of other people on this forum on the basis of them getting things wrong then you have to be very careful that you do it with total accuracy.
“If your argument is totally reliant on misquoting people then maybe its time you had a rethink”. Lolo49’s argument was not totally reliant on the ‘misquote’ you bring up. You make, therefore, a silly point.
I understand your point about the need for a balanced press, absolutely. I’m less certain of your claim that your “only interest in terms of this article is that it is unfair and unbalanced”: you clearly do have some strong conviction about this
, beyond imbalance. You know an awful lot about the development and its associated petitions and processes to be simply a campaigner for good journalism.
I would also suggest that your assumption that all those opposed to another supermarket are ‘nymbys’ is wrong. I live in Stamford Hill, where there is a Sainsburys, and it serves the community well because there has been a shortage of mainstream outlets in the area for as long as I can remember. It’s welcome on my back yard, even though I try not to use it.
On the flip side, Stoke Newington has many independents that will suffer from a supermarket so close. And we are not just talking about a nice, middle class utopia of boutiques and organic fishmongers that will be harmed here – we are talking about people’s livelihoods, people’s way of surviving, and people’s community. It’s very hard to run a small business (I know from experience) and there is a lot to lose from this development. Business owners are frightened – there is already a recession underway, they don’t need another kick in the mouth.
However, on the same grounds that you reject ‘lolo40’s’ comment on the grounds of inaccuracy and you object to the article on the grounds of misrepresentation, the main point of this post it to accuse you of the same: maybe it’s time you had a rethink?
I’m a Stoke Newington resident. Although I’m not jumping for joy that the site is being developed by Sainsburys, I tend to to agree with with Benjamin that the article is biased and not wholly correct. An access and design statement is produced by the applicant’s architect and does not have to contain CGIs from every angle. Rather than “bury” the picture the developer could if they had chosen left the picture out altogether. Benjamin does not purport to be a champion of the people. I wish objectors would stick to material considerations rather than pointless ranting. Perhaps the writer should be asking the council why it did not allow the previous application consent. This delivered exactly what local residents wanted a lot more residential with small retail units designed by a number of different architects to create a mixed development that was smaller in scale and massing. We have arrived at the Sainsburys proposal because the owner was unable to get the council to accept a smaller development and is now bringing in the big boys to get the consent he deserved first time round.
We have edited your comment. We tried to contact you to explain but unfortunately you did not leave a working email address.