Skip to main content

To: Sainsbury's CEO

Stop Sainsbury's toxic legacy in Greenwich Peninsula: Lift 'restrictive clause'

Contact Campaign Creator
Campaign created by
Lucy Early
Stop Sainsbury's toxic legacy in Greenwich Peninsula: Lift 'restrictive clause'

Dear Sainsbury's
The current 'restrictive clause' in place while you move to a bigger store in Charlton means that no other food retailer can take up the award-winning eco-store on Greenwich Peninsula. This will create a food desert with no local supermarket in walking distance. Emergency services will have to get past traffic to IKEA at the top of peninsula to reach 10,000 new residences, a school and a tube station. Please lift this uncompetitive clause which has allowed the car-centric IKEA to opportunistically fill the gap and move into a growing neighbourhood in need of local amenities and access to emergency services. We want clean air, food and safety, not fumes and flat-packs.

Why is this important?

The clause which bars other food retailers leaves a toxic legacy by limiting the options: IKEA has now been granted permission for a full-size store and loading bay. IKEA aims to demolish the building and the eco-park which Sainsbury’s gave to the local community. The site is on the main commuter bus route to North Greenwich station. Locals will have to join the traffic mayhem or jostle for space on public transport through IKEA traffic to shop for food. If there is an emergency how will services reach the site on a peninsula surrounded by water on three sides with IKEA at its neck? Instead of 'village living in the city' this is an urban nightmare. Sainsbury's says it is committed to helping communities and sustainability: Lifting the clause will mean that a more suitable retailer than IKEA can move into the neighbourhood creating diverse shopping opportunities for locals without overburdening transport networks and ruining the environment.

London SE10 0SB

Maps © Stamen; Data © OSM and contributors, ODbL

Reasons for signing

  • Sainsbury's has been seen as a shining light when sustainability/ environmental solutions are considered. The abandonment, rather than upgrading, of this store - and restrictive clause - seems to reinforce the impression that Sainsbury's is becoming as dismissiveness of public opinion as its near competitors are on planning. This is a case of 'lost promise and broken brand promises'. SE10 doesn't have the infrastructure to support an IKEA – especially during sales events - or the spare oxygen!
  • To me it's totally unacceptable that Sainsbury's is allowed to have a say in what their old store is used for. Uncompetitive and immoral, shame on you Sainsbury's. I cannot see why this eco friendly store cannot be used by another retailer. Ii think it's design is a wonderfully store to shop in.
  • Your New Store development teams brought the only decent size food store/supermarket to the SE10, SE3 postcode and have now upset locals by taking our SE10 Food store away. These locals who have now become J Sainsbury’s shareholders who will see you at the next J Sainsbury’s Annual General Meeting. Thank you


2014-08-31 22:46:28 +0100

100 signatures reached

2014-07-17 15:24:02 +0100

50 signatures reached

2014-07-16 14:59:59 +0100

25 signatures reached

2014-07-16 00:37:12 +0100

10 signatures reached