London SE1 community website

Queen Elizabeth St Tesco Express

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 8 of 18
Friday 21 November 2014 1.37pm
To clarify:

Any store i.e. I believe either Tesco, Sainsbury, Waitrose, Co-op or independent retailer would have signage, deliveries and associated litter that comes from increased pedestrian traffic outside. These aren't phenomena reserved solely for low cost retailers

By 'lifestyle choices' I am simply referring to preferred retailers, where you choose to spend your money etc.

When I mentioned what is achievable or ethical I am suggesting that though we as a community we should have the power to influence the use of space when it comes to licencing or the building of new premise. I don't believe we have the power to pick and choose the brands that work within them nor should we. It would be unethical to exert governmental powers to prevent a store from opening, based on a personal interest or preference of certain brands.

My personal opinion is I am neither pro nor anti tesco taking residence and the 'protection of shad thames' is not a good enough reason to deny its existence. Shad thames is already home to pizza express, starbucks, co-op etc, none of which are luxury, high end or independent.

Spacemaker: I don't want to appear argumentative at all, yet I feel your claim of your issues being based purely on 'fact' are a little hard to accept as you have often referred to certain brands as 'low end' (an opinion) and quite a bit of speculation (ie'What next? Poundland)
Friday 21 November 2014 2.40pm
Fair play barrierdickson and no offence taken at all. It's good to hear other opinions.

To be clear, this is not an anti Tesco campaign. It's primarily a campaign against another store of a type that will have a negative impact on a Conservation Area.

That said, if it is to be a low end brand to be added to the others I mentioned (not Co - op as it's outside of our neighbourhood) then this will exacerbate the 30 year decline in character as I've previously explained. It doesn't maintain or improve it.

It is right and proper - an obligation even (or ethical if you prefer), to maintain a Conservation Area. Already having low end brands isn't an argument for having more. Should we allow any brand anywhere and just ignore the conservation status? Pretend that there is no impact? I don't think so and neither does the rest of the 80% who are opposed.

Low end is not an opinion by the way - it's a fact. Simply ask these businesses yourself. Where does Wetherspoon position itself, or Starbucks or Pizza Express ?

It's perfectly legitimate to consider what may happen next or speculate as you put it. If this goes ahead then it's responsible to consider what may be next for the neighbourhood.
Friday 21 November 2014 4.59pm
Without taking this subject off-topic:

- the Starbucks target market is "white collared, sophisticated people", albeit it now markets itself as being "class friendly". The quoted words are from a Starbucks marketing plan. Putting aside for one moment the fact that their coffee is crap, I wouldn't consider it a "low end" brand.

- Pizza Express , although having something of a dynamic marketing strategy, again markets itself as being a "premium brand". Average-at-best pizza aside, I don't disagree that it aspires to be a premium brand and its client group consider themselves too posh for Pizza Hut!

As for conservation area I think your argument carries little weight. I'm with you, I think, that there shouldn't be yet another Tesco in Shad Thames, but that's only because there are already far too many in the "neighbourhood" - i.e. vicinity. There are many conservation areaswhere Tesco stores are situated. All it means is that the frontage/signage must be in keeping and obviously sympathetic to the surroundings.

Spacemaker wrote:
(not Co - op as it's outside of our neighbourhood)

Comments like this do your cause no favours. Unless the topography has changed massively since I moved from up there four months or so ago, my recollection is that Shad Thames junction with Tooley Street/Dockhead (as it was) is no more than a 10-second walk.

I'll conclude on the "80% point" - about which I'm very sceptical. On what basis have you arrived at this arbitrary figure?
Friday 21 November 2014 6.30pm
Hi Gavin
You're right - there's a risk here that we'll end up sweating over the minutiae when it seems that we agree on the main point, the only one that really matters, which is a lot of local people do not want another food store in this place - for whatever reason. That's good enough for me.

Just to be clear on a couple of other things though. I don't give a monkeys if Co-op is in or out of the Conservation Area, it has no bearing on this issue but it is in fact outside. There's a map on Southwark's website. I only mentioned the friggin' place because the previous poster did.

The 80% figure is not an invention of mine, it is the figure quoted by others as the result of our local councillors survey. So be as sceptical as you like.

In the hierarchy of coffee and pizza joints and boozers I'd put them all at the bottom end. They are commodity national/international operations. Who or what is lower, KFC , McDonalds, Dominoes, drinking meths on a park bench?
Friday 21 November 2014 6.55pm
I'd put KFC et al in the same kettle, but again a conservation area does not even preclude those types of fast food establishments from setting up shop in a conservation area. Indeed, they're even at liberty to set up shop in a listed building.

Whilst again semantics, on the 80% point I can't see the causal link between conservation area and objection to Tesco. It may well be true that 80% of residents are opposed - however, I'd suggest it is probably far from being a properly qualified "survey" in the sense that people who supported it or were indifferent didn't fill it in - but I'd suggest that isn't on the basis of it being a conservation area; just that they don't want any more convenience food stores from the big chains when we've got enough.

I think you should drop the conservation area argument - it's without merit - and instead just focus on the key point: there are more than enough of these Tesco Locals.

As I say, I'm with you on the fundamental point, just not on the logic of how each of us respectively arrives at it.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 10.44am
"I think you should drop the conservation area argument - it's without merit - and instead just focus on the key point: there are more than enough of these Tesco Locals."

I absolutely agree, but apparently it's difficult to formally object to the change of use application on this basis.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 11.00am
Yes, absolutely. "There are more than enough of these Tesco Locals" isn't a valid ground for objection under planning law. Anyone who focuses on that will simply be ignored.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 11.24am
I believe that whatever our real feelings are we need to concentrate on noise, deliveries, traffic congestion.
Wednesday 26 November 2014 11.35am
There is obviously a massive lacuna in the planning regulations then and it would seem not much can be done.

I think "noise, deliveries and traffic congestion" is a similarly futile argument. The horse has already bolted re that particular argument. One only has to drive round past the Circle store to see that their delivery lorries are forever blocking the left turn. It doesn't bother me in the slightest and I have no criticism (re their deliveries) but it is already the status quo. Ditto re the lorries using Shad Thames as access for the restaurants and shops up by river.
Tuesday 2 December 2014 2.17pm
One week left to get objections/comments in.

Objections can be made to:

[email protected]

Please make sure that you state the application number 14/AP/4094 and your postal address.
Current: 8 of 18

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions