Tag Archives: sainsburys

Another Planning Application from Sainsbury’s

6 Replies

Sainsbury’s of Redding Way, Knaphill has submitted a planning application (PLAN/2014/1017 ) to build a single-storey, standalone, dry-cleaning pod to front (south-east) elevation of superstore.

This further extension if granted, would be operated by Timpson’s and would offer dry-cleaning, shoe repairs, watch repairs, key cutting, engraving and photo processing. There would also be illuminated signage which may be particularly relevant to the residents opposite the store that have already mentioned night time lighting.

Agents for Sainsbury’s in a statement attached to the planning application state that they do not see this new business having an impact on current businesses in Knaphill.

 

View and comment via WBC website – http://www.woking.gov.uk/planning/publicaccess

Should you choose to make a comment on the WBC planning portal, it is useful to back it up with reference to the Core Strategy document – http://www.woking2027.info/corestrategy/adoptedcorestrategy.pdf

Sainsbury’s get their way again

Leave a reply

As many people will know the extended Sainsbury’s in Redding Way reopened on 6 November. Anyone who has been following the debate with regards the planning applications for this extension will know that the Residents’ Association has been assisting residents who live in close proximity to the store to get an improvement in their life style by both the store and Woking Borough Council recognising that there is an issue over noise pollution and that planning conditions on noise are complied with.

At the Planning Committee held on 5 November the last application in connection with the extension was on the agenda for consideration. This application was of a technical nature to meet planning conditions that were part of the original planning decision. The condition was basically a requirement for the developer to provide to WBC, prior to any new plant becoming operable, a detailed noise report and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These conditions were initially dealt with earlier in the year but Sainsbury’s were required to resubmit plans has they had made significant changes to the plans to those agreed to earlier.

To say that notification by Sainsbury’s is very late given that the new store was to become operative from 6 November is an understatement and as those who have followed this stores history will know that Sainsbury’s has a history of breaching planning conditions connected to noise pollution at the store in Redding Way.

Cllr Richard Sharp put forward the argument on behalf of the residents and sought a deferment on a decision until all the data connected with the new plant was available in a format understood by the layperson. The Council brought their environmental consultants to the meeting to answer any technical question. On behalf of the residents the KRA would like to thank Cllr. Sharp for the time he has taken to take on board the complex technical issues and present them to the Planning Committee in a way that was easily understood.

The final stages of this process has been rushed and the consultants acting for WBC admitted that they had yet to receive all the data from the measurement of noise produced from the new plant.

In seeking a deferment Cllr Sharp stated that this would give the developer and the Council’s consultant’s additional time to carry out more monitoring and monitor the equipment once the store was fully operative. Head of Planning argued against a deferment stating that they could not really monitor the condition until the condition had been approved. Cllr Sharp put his motion to the vote and the result was split 5 votes for and 5 votes. Although Cllr Smith, the Planning Committee chairman, had voted against a deferment he had the casting vote and therefore the motion was lost and the conditions were approved.

Outside the debate at the Planning Committee a planning application from Sainsbury’s to include dentistry within the store had been fast tracked by WBC and approved by delegated authority.
We are given to understand that there will be on-going monitoring of the noise generated by the store but at this point in time we do not have any details of how this monitoring will be carried out and over what period of time. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Sainsbury’s name change

Leave a reply

This is a bug bear of mine so apologies for the verbiage. A massive superstore on the outskirts of a village and complete disregard for actual location, preferring to be called ‘Brookwood’ over Knaphill. All other Sainsbury’s stores throughout the country, as far as I can determine, are correctly named after their location. Not so for Knaphill who has had numerous problems with the way this business approaches local communities (this is a small reference to planning and conduct of the store on recent years in case you were wondering!)

Your views

This bothered me so much I created a poll to see YOUR views and a hefty final 76% wanted it changed to be named after Knaphill. Curiously, before I sent a letter to Sainsbury’s Plc head office the figure was 85%, it dipped shortly after. No, I am not saying they had anything to do with it, merely pointing it out.

As mentioned, I sent a request to Sainsbury’s asking for a name change to be considered as a part of their current enlargement of their Redding Way store. I got a quick ‘it’s been passed to our property team’ and nothing more for a month. So I chased it and got another quick response – NO.

The store is, according to the property team’s investigation, named after Brookwood Hospital and therefore has an historical link. This is despite having been convinced in previous years that reference to Brookwood be dropped (ergo the historical reference is not that important perhaps?), reference to the store in numerous communications being stated as ‘Knaphill’ and even having a current web site for the development headed as ‘Sainsbury’s Knaphill’ (http://sainsburys-knaphill.co.uk/contact-us/) which I fully expect to see changed soon. I was then passed to their PR company, GKA.

I would have been content with that if the store name had been ‘Sainsbury’s Brookwood Hospital’ which would indicate both location and historical reference; but it isn’t. It still just refers to nearby Brookwood to any visitor, despite it’s obvious address. So I replied and pointed this out to them, also that it was Knaphill Common prior to being Brookwood Hospital (so I am led to believe) and I got a quick reply – we’re not changing the name, speak to our PR company (although they ‘want to be a positive part of any community we are working in’. The level of engagement thus far is underwhelming.

Naming confusion?

I didn’t mention this before but I asked Sainsbury’s shortly after moving to Knaphill just why their store was named after a different village… They said it’s because of the railway station. Not to be a pedant (OK, partly to be a pedant) but that does not gel with their current line of reasoning.

I believe the real reason is that it costs cash to change a few details (new signage and name on receipts etc) and the people of Knaphill’s opinion is not worth the relative pittance it would take to achieve this. Personally I’d be quite content with either ‘Sainsbury’s Brookwood Hospital’ or ‘Sainsbury’s Knaphill’ but I am NOT happy with the current naming pedigree.

What next

What happens next? Well I forwarded on the conversation to Sam and Jodie at GKA and am awaiting a response. Just what they can do, even if they wanted to change the name is beyond me as it’s a separate company to Sainsbury’s. Still, I keenly await the ‘We’re sorry etc’ reply.

——————————————

UPDATE 9/7/2013

I’ve had several replies from various people with the same job title – Customer Manager – along the same lines. We’ll look into it, please contact GKA, no current plans to change the name, please contact GKA, despite references to Knaphill in documentation it is officially called Brookwood, please contact GKA, we’re awaiting a point of detail and finally:

I appreciate that the store’s name is a source of frustration for you given its location. As you have been advised Sainsbury’s is unable to change the name of their stores as the official name that was originally adopted is used throughout the organisation. It is important for each Sainsbury’s store to be clearly identified with one name so that it can be easily referred to within the company. To change the name could cause confusion from an operational perspective and may also lead to confusion amongst customers from the wider area who know the store as Brookwood.

The recent information mailings and website regarding the on-going construction project have referred to ‘Knaphill’ as this is how the store was referred to publicly throughout the planning stage. The information issued during planning and construction has been aimed specifically at the store’s close neighbours and does not affect the store’s corporate identity.

Sam Hinton (GKA)

For unable, read: unwilling. So there we have it – not going to happen. Sainsbury’s is apparently keen to be an active member of the Knaphill Community so if anyone has any evidence of them doing so please tell me as I can’t remember a single thing they’ve done apart from build a store and call it after a neighbouring village. I do genuinely want to know this!

 

Sainsbury’s extension update

Leave a reply

Sainsburys

A number of residents have commented about the trees and the netting. Let me quote from the plans for the landscaping of the grounds that is part of the expansion plans.

‘A high quality soft landscape scheme has been proposed to emphasis the entrance to the development, and the customer car park areas…………. Throughout the car parking areas within the site semi mature trees are proposed to provide initial height and interest. Tree species selection includes Acer, Betula and Quercus which are suitable to these positions.

Although some existing trees will be lost to allow the re-development of the site total of 56 replacement trees have been included in the new scheme particularly to the areas surrounding the proposed building and car park areas, to aid with the filtration of views of the store from surrounding properties’

Putting the trees on one side not everything has been agreed with regards to the extension. Sainsbury’s plans to fully enclose the service yard go before the Planning Committee on Tuesday and we will report on the result of that meeting later in the week.

 

Planning Committee defer plans submitted by Sainsbury’s to meet planning conditions that formed part of the planning decision that permits Sainsbury’s to build their extension.

In December 2011 Woking BC Planning Committee agreed to the plans to extend the Sainsbury’s store in Redding Way. As part of the permission to develop the Planning Committee imposed a number of planning conditions. One of those conditions was that Sainsbury’s had to submit, to the full Planning Committee, details of how they planned to fully enclose the service yard. The requirement to come back to the Planning Committee with a planning condition is unusual in that planning conditions compliance is usually left to Head of Planning under delegated powers.

The report on how the developer planned to meet the planning conditions was presented to the Planning Committee on 19 March 2013 and after a full debate a majority of Councillor’s voted to defer a decision on the above condition. Cllr Richard Sharp, supported by Cllr Melanie Whitehand and Cllr Saj Hussain put forward the argument that a number of papers referred to in the Planning Officers report had not been freely available on the WBC web site and therefore Councillors and acoustic experts had been unable to fully digest and question some of the facts and figures submitted by the developer. In the limited time available to study the papers it was felt that there was conflicting information and the Ward Councillors sought more time for these issues to be resolved.

The issues are around noise and air pollution. There has been an on-going battle between residents who live in close proximity to the service yard and Sainsbury’s. A breach of condition notice is in placein connection to the level of noise monitored close to local houses. In the decision notice issued by WBC in August 2012 it states that the Local Planning Authority will not pursue further action within the next 9 months as it was felt that by enclosing the service yard this would overcome any future breaches of the restrictive noise conditions. What local residents and Ward Councillors are seeking is that once the service yard is enclosed then local residents will have no grounds to complain of excessive noise from the service yard.

Sainsbury’s (Even more!)

Leave a reply

We felt it necessary to update residents on the article we published on 26 October. Following our representation to Woking Borough Council the Council have published a number of the plans submitted by Sainsbury’s and their agents to meet the planning conditions imposed on them as part of the agreement for Sainsbury’s to build their extension. The plans can be found on the Council’s Planning web site under the original planning application reference number, PLAN/2011/0160. If you have difficulty in finding the plans please feel free to contact our secretary at secretary@knaphill.org.

In this article we will deal with only one of the planning conditions, the enclosing of the service yard. There are others covering landscaping, air quality monitoring and the barrier at the entrance of the proposed car park extension.

Service yard enclosure

As reported in October Sainsbury’s have submitted a plan for an enclosure that will be fitted around the whole of the service yard but the plan is not for a fully enclosed service yard as required in the planning decision notice. Although Sainsbury’s have stated that they will review their plans no new information has been received and therefore we can only go with the plans that have been submitted to Woking Borough Council.

A public consultation launched by WBC on 9th November closes on 30th November and therefore anyone planning to comment on the plans as they currently stand will have to submit their comments as soon as possible.

The KRA have asked Woking Borough Council to reopen the public consultation period if Sainsbury’s submit amended plans.

Sainsburys Redding Way (more!)

Leave a reply

Although Woking’s Planning Committee approved the latest application from Sainsbury’s to extend their store in December 2011 the legal paperwork was only completed in August this year. With any major planning agreement there are a number of planning conditions that the developer has to meet either before the developer starts to build or before the shop owner starts to trade in the extension.

As residents will know, the determination of this application has always raised concerns on a number of grounds. Even now, such concerns continue and there are a number of procedural matters that the KRA consider still need challenging, even the general legality of the Decision that has been taken. The KRA has therefore made a formal complaint to Woking Borough Council.

One of the principle benefits for local residents that was to have been secured by the grant of this planning permission was the “full” enclosure of the service yard to address noise impact concerns. Such work was imposed as a planning condition which needed to be discharged prior to other works.

The Planning Committee (presumably even at that time sceptical of Sainsbury’s intent to deliver their promises), insisted that the design of the conditioned enclosure has to be returned to the full Planning Committee for approval and that the enclosure of the service yard had to be given priority in carrying out any building work.

One of our colleagues and Cllr. Melanie Whitehand met with Sainsbury’s team last week to discuss their plans for the enclosure of the service yard. The first disappointment was that even before that meeting had had an opportunity to take place, Sainsbury’s had already submitted their plans for approval to Woking Borough Council. The second disappointment was that it was quite clear from those plans that the current enclosure design does not deliver the “promises” made to residents and the Planning Committee.

On a slightly more positive note, Sainsbury’s team have advised that they will “re-visit” their designs. The KRA will continue to challenge robustly any proposals that do not deliver what was promised to residents (and the Council) last year. We will update you, once Sainsbury’s had advised further.

We also now wait to see what action will be taken by Woking Borough Council in response to our complaint.

P.S. Just in case any residents are wondering why they are not actually aware that the Council’s decision has been issued – there is a very simple explanation. WBC have not yet sought fit to advise you! That is despite such formal notification being a requirement of their own Statement of Community involvement and Charter for Development Enabling.

 

Sainsbury’s win planning appeal

Leave a reply

Some background information

In2010 Cliftons submitted a planning application to redevelop the site of their old shop at 15 High Street, Knaphill and the bungalow at 6 Fosters Lane. The application was to replace the current shop and workshops with a three storey building containing 12 flats on 1st and 2ND floors and a large shop on the ground floor. This application was agreed with a number of conditions one of which was to limit the hours the shop could be open to customers, under the original planning decision the shop could open from 08.00am until 8.00pm and Sunday trading hours. It was at this points that Sainsbury’s publically stated that they were to take on the lease of the shop but wanted to open from 07.00am until 10.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive. This request for extended opening hours was recommend to be accepted by Woking’s Planning Authority. The Planning Committee were concerned with the traffic and the impact on residents who live in the centre of Knaphill and agreed to Sainsbury’s being allowed to have the extended opening hours for a trial period of 12 months. Sainsbury’s rejected the offer of a trial and went to appeal.

Planning Officers Decision

The Planning Inspector has found in favour of Sainsbury’s, sorry I should report in favour of Commercial Development Projects Ltd, Sainsbury’s did not want the publicity. The Inspector has given permission for the new shop to be open to customers from 07.00am to 10.00pm (07.00-22.00) Mondays to Saturdays and 08.00am to 09.00pm (08.00 – 21.00). In reaching this decision the Inspector refers to the opening hours of the Co-op and the petrol station. The Inspector also points out that the appeal was only to examine the question of the shops opening hours as the Council had already approved the design and build of the new development. On the request for the extension the Inspector also points out in the report that the Planning Authority fully supported the request for extended opening hours.

Road Safety

One other change is in connection with car parking at the rear of the new store. The majority of parking bays are for the residents of the flats but on the original application 5 parking bays were for staff and customers. The Highways Authority initially stated that they had no objections to the plan and it was passed as originally outlined, 5 parking bays for staff and customers. The Highways Authority then changed their position and by the time the application for extended hours came before the Planning Committee the Highways Authority stated that it would be unsafe for the car park to be open to customers, on grounds of the amount of vehicles entering and leaving the car park. The decision of the Planning Inspector is to revert to the original plan and therefore the 5 parking bays reserved for staff will also be available to customers. The Inspectors argument is that if customers cannot park behind the shop they will park in the High Street and that could result in congestion and highway safety problems.

 

So 5 parking bays for staff and customers, if say 3 members of staff drive to work that leaves only 2 customer parking bays, people will finish up parking on the road especially early morning and late at night. The passing of this plan will give rise to highway safety issues.

Impact on the village

The basic question is; does Knaphill require two Sainsbury’s stores within 800 metres of each other? This new store will have a detrimental effect on the current choice of shopping in the village; more premises will probably become available for more take-aways. The next question is what will happen to the HSBC bank when the Knaphill branch closes next month, one thing we can be sure of whoever puts in a planning application Woking Borough Council will not take into considerations the views of local resident’s.

Sainsbury’s of Redding Way play the planning game

Leave a reply

At the end of November beginning of December all the efforts of the KRA committee members and Ward Councillors were directed to trying to get strong conditions imposed on Sainsbury’s as they pushed forward with the their plans for an extension to their store in Redding Way. Representatives for Sainsbury’s were making all the right noises about wanting to build good relations with the residents who live close to the store.

 

In the meantime the store management erected a large marquee in the service yard. This came to our attention because local residents were again disturbed at night due to the increased activity in the service yard. Residents complained to WBC hoping and believing that an enforcement officer would instruct Sainsbury’s to remove the marquee as it breached the conditions under which the store received their initial planning permission.

 

The marquee remained and Sainsbury’s had the audacity to apply for retrospective planning consent. Agents for Sainsbury’s wrote to WBC on 9 December with this request and according to the WBC web site it was logged on 13 December, the day when the Planning Committee resumed their consideration of the extension plans but the Planning Officer failed to notify the Committee of this request for retrospective consent.

 

We hope that the application for retrospective consent is put to the Planning Committee and that the Councillors ask the questions we would like answers too.

 

Why didn’t WBC have Sainsbury’s remove the marquee after residents complained about the disturbance?

 

If, like we believe, the marquee is in breach of the conditions for the operation of the store why was it allowed to stand for the whole of the Christmas period?

 

If what we have reported proves to be correct then the Council should impose sanctions on the store for their reckless behaviour.

 

 

Phillip Stubbs (Secretary)

Sainsburys Redding Way update

1 Reply

Woking Borough Council’s Planning Committee met on the 15th November to determine Sainsbury’s latest proposals for the expansion of their Redding Way store.

Prior to the meeting, the KRA had written to Members setting out its concerns that the Officers Report upon which they were being asked to determine the application was wholly inadequate. The KRA considered that there was a fundamental lack of evidence to support the Officer’s recommendation (for approval) set out in that report and that the Council’s Officers had mis-directed Members on a number of matters. The KRA also considered that concerns raised in residents’ objections to the scheme had not been adequately recorded or assessed.

Following the Planning Officer’s presentation of the application, the Committee was addressed on our behalf by Mr Paul Gray (a local resident and qualified noise expert) who eloquently amplified on a number of the KRA’s concerns. The meeting was also addressed by Mr David Lazenby of Sainsburys, who extolled the “virtues” an expanded store would bring to our Village, alleging there would be no unacceptable impacts.

Following these presentations, there was significant, and at times heated, debate between Members, many of whom expressed their concern that the impacts of the store had not been tested robustly.

Our Ward Councillors spoke against the scheme – Cllr Sharp highlighting his concerns with the retail impact assessment being relied on by Officers, and Cllr Whitehand expressing her concerns about the impact of additional traffic on the A322.

Cllr Preshaw expressed her extreme displeasure that air quality impacts had not been addressed – noting that this was contrary to the clear direction recorded in the minutes of the Planning Meeting at which earlier expansion plans were rejected.

Cllr McCrum professed to being “genuinely confused”, but that the evidence given to him by the KRA certainly appeared to demonstrate there had been a lack of scrutiny by Officers.

Following a suggestion by Cllr Sharp, a motion for the application to be “deferred” was proposed by Cllr Preshaw and seconded by Cllr McCrum. The grounds for the deferral included the KRA’s assertions that:

  1. Background information for this application is not available on the Council’s Website?

 

  1. There has been inadequate community consultation.

 

  1. The Procedural Probity of this application and associated Public Inquiry needs to be questioned.

 

  1. Residents concerns regarding the loss of trees have not been addressed?

 

  1. Residents concerns regarding air quality have not been addressed?

 

  1. Residents concerns regarding the inappropriate use of the access road to the store had not been taken into account?

 

  1. The amended plans do not adequately deal with congestion within the service yard?

 

  1. The retail impact of the store has not been adequately considered.

 

  1. The traffic impact of the store has not been adequately considered.

 

  1. The noise impact of the store has not been adequately considered.

 

So, for the time being, we have no decision on whether this development will proceed or not.

Today, the KRA will be making a Freedom of Information request seeking a number of background documents in relation to this application and will also be seeking a meeting with the Borough Planning Officer to ensure that when this application comes back before Committee, all matters we have raised will have been thoroughly tested.