No argument in favour of Sainsbury's

OVER the last few weeks I have been reading of the plans to build a new Sainsbury's supermarket in Southampton Road, Salisbury.

I am another resident of the area and regular user of Southampton Road who is vehemently against this proposal.

I'm not approaching this from the “nimby” angle, but more from a point of common sense and practicality: l Any further construction on the water meadows is wrong - floods or no floods.

* Another supermarket will cause further traffic problems which will dramatically increase pollution in the area.

Pollution that has already caused horrendous damage to our cathedral.

* Why on earth build another supermarket where there are already two?

* There are plenty of alternative areas around the city where a supermarket could be better placed.

* Southampton Road is already a traffic management failure area. Money would be better spent getting rid of the infrequently used cycle lanes, widening the road to two lanes each way to ease the traffic flow and providing a proper eastern exit for Tesco.

* The majority of people who I speak to think this supermarket proposal is ridiculous and not good for the city. I have not heard one argument in favour of it. If it goes ahead then it will be against the democratic view.

William Richards, Stoford

I AM objecting to the planning application (14/03690/FUL) to build another supermarket on Southampton Road for the following reasons: Traffic congestion: More supermarkets mean more cars, and more cars mean more traffic nightmares.

Southampton Road is already crippled with congestion, and cosmetic tweaks to the road layout will not outweigh the fundamental burden of more cars heading to destination shops.

The idea of adding a third supermarket in this location is preposterous.

Wildlife: In our village, despite close proximity to town we are home to heron, deer, otters, owls and a huge variety of other rare species who will disappear if we allow their habitat to be encroached by one of the biggest supermarket developments in the country.

Is Wiltshire Council really going to allow this? I can’t cut down a tree in my garden without permission from the council because this is a conservation area, and rightly so. But surely the same council should protect that same conservation area when it is threatened by over 7,000 sqm of supermarket on its doorstep?

I really object to the language of the proposal, this isn’t “Salisbury Gateway” this is just another industrial building on a grand scale. They won’t be “creating” a nature reserve; they will be destroying an existing one.

Flooding: Next time we suffer a winter like the last one, where will the water go if concrete, steel, pylons and brick have replaced natural, ancient wetlands?

I understand that the developers want to convince us that they will build the structure on pylons in order to dodge the flooding issue, but really, how wide and how deep are these pylons?

And if the sensitivity of the site means you need to resort to building a supermarket on stilts, shouldn’t you consider building it elsewhere?

If there is a genuine retail need for another supermarket in Salisbury then it should be built on an alternative site.

Local residents who share any of these concerns should object by writing to Mr S Llewellyn at developmentmanagementsouth@ wiltshire.gov.uk.

Lucy Jennings, Salisbury

I AM left speechless by the plan to build a Sainsbury’s supermarket in Southampton Road.

I cannot see any sense in locating such a store there. That area is already well served by supermarkets, whereas there is nothing to the east, west or north of the city despite the fact there is a clear need.

With the developments at Fugglestone Red and Hampton Park, even the proposed Asda store off London Road will not, alone, satisfy that need.

Southampton Road is already a nightmare, particularly at the times people are able, or need, to go there. The minor road improvements proposed will do nothing to reduce the current problem, let alone deal with the increased traffic trying to get to a new superstore.

And consider the added pollution that the additional slow moving and static traffic will cause.

Surely more gridlock will also be detrimental to those businesses already in the area?

When you see how long the water meadows are taking to recover after the flooding of last winter, more building on the flood plain, even with the proposed water management measures, is little short of lunacy. I urge everyone who has a concern over this proposal to write to Wiltshire Council to express their concerns. The planning application number is 14/03690/FUL.

Please also write to your city and county councillors to ask them to represent your views to their colleagues on the planning committee.

Alan White, Salisbury

A SITE could be found for Sainsbury’s on the Old Manor site if the two large decaying houses on the south side of Wilton Road were delisted and the site cleared.

These houses were of little architectural quality even when first built and have been much altered.

They were in institutional use as a mental hospital for much of the 20th century.

For the last 20 years they have been empty and decaying.

Inside they can have no original features capable of preservation but extensive rot of all sorts and contaminates such as asbestos.

Outside they are an eyesore.

No builder will take on these properties, which cannot be made suitable for modern use.

By removing the listing the site can be redeveloped and help complete the upgrade of the Wilton Road area.

Priscilla Mackay, Nunton

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:10pm Thu 8 May 14

karlmarx says...

I have written to The Highways Agency enquiring how this ridiculous proposal fits in with The Highways Agency core functions.

1. To manage traffic.
2. To tackle congestion.
3. To provide information to road users.
4. To improve safety and journey time reliability.
5. To respect and minimise our impact on the environment.

The proposal fails on points 1, 2, 4 and 5. I am waiting for the reply which must confirm this and, consequently the Highways Agency objection to this scheme under the aforementioned points.
I have written to The Highways Agency enquiring how this ridiculous proposal fits in with The Highways Agency core functions. 1. To manage traffic. 2. To tackle congestion. 3. To provide information to road users. 4. To improve safety and journey time reliability. 5. To respect and minimise our impact on the environment. The proposal fails on points 1, 2, 4 and 5. I am waiting for the reply which must confirm this and, consequently the Highways Agency objection to this scheme under the aforementioned points. karlmarx
  • Score: 9

6:35pm Fri 9 May 14

gingin says...

karlmarx wrote:
I have written to The Highways Agency enquiring how this ridiculous proposal fits in with The Highways Agency core functions.

1. To manage traffic.
2. To tackle congestion.
3. To provide information to road users.
4. To improve safety and journey time reliability.
5. To respect and minimise our impact on the environment.

The proposal fails on points 1, 2, 4 and 5. I am waiting for the reply which must confirm this and, consequently the Highways Agency objection to this scheme under the aforementioned points.
It will be interesting to read what answers they trot out!

The thing that bothers me is all this development and concreting over of every last piece of green space is bound to have an affect on the flooding. Although climate change has some bearing on things its mostly irresponsible planning which is devastating our countryside and it's habitat!
[quote][p][bold]karlmarx[/bold] wrote: I have written to The Highways Agency enquiring how this ridiculous proposal fits in with The Highways Agency core functions. 1. To manage traffic. 2. To tackle congestion. 3. To provide information to road users. 4. To improve safety and journey time reliability. 5. To respect and minimise our impact on the environment. The proposal fails on points 1, 2, 4 and 5. I am waiting for the reply which must confirm this and, consequently the Highways Agency objection to this scheme under the aforementioned points.[/p][/quote]It will be interesting to read what answers they trot out! The thing that bothers me is all this development and concreting over of every last piece of green space is bound to have an affect on the flooding. Although climate change has some bearing on things its mostly irresponsible planning which is devastating our countryside and it's habitat! gingin
  • Score: 4

7:54am Tue 13 May 14

simontalking says...

New housing development is on the north side of the city. New supermarket should be on the north side of the city. Is it really more difficult than that?
New housing development is on the north side of the city. New supermarket should be on the north side of the city. Is it really more difficult than that? simontalking
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree