Letters: Big names are crushing competition in high streets

Peckham's on Brunstfield Place

Peckham's on Brunstfield Place

8
Have your say

In response to the campaign to stop Sainsbury’s moving into Bruntsfield (Traders unite against arrival of Sainsbury’s, Evening News, February 7), a spokesman for the supermarket chain loftily asserted that “as we saw in Stockbridge, once the store opens it doesn’t have any adverse impact on local trade”.

Really? Since Sainsbury’s arrived in Deanhaugh Street, one small independent off- licence has gone out of business, and an independent general store nearby is about to do the same.

Nothing to do with the “adverse impact” of a powerful national chain moving in just a few doors along?

Possibly not – but it seems unlikely, and more closures may well be in the offing.

Meanwhile yet another Sainsbury’s “Local” opens next month in Howe Street, just five minutes’ walk from the first one.

In a patronising letter to neighbourhood residents, the company justifies its aggressive expansion on the grounds that “there is still demand for additional convenience shopping” in the area.

If there is such a demand, perhaps it’s because the genuinely local corner shops are fast disappearing under the spreading rash of big-name invaders.

David Jackson Young, India Street, Edinburgh

Time for a rethink on emissions

THE Association for Conservation of Energy recently called for people who fail to insulate their homes to have their council tax increased.

Not having designed my house, I am not responsible for its initial energy efficiency, so any improvements at my expense would also be at my discretion.

That might actually increase my council tax by raising the house’s nominal value.

Britain has no need to conserve energy, with vast new gas supplies, oil, coal and forests of windmills, all of which will assuredly become increasingly efficient and cost-effective in years to come.

A future government might also overturn the SNP opposition to nuclear power.

Many of us save energy by means of the most effective insulation process of all – the scandalous costs that are involved.

Power charges are artificially high because of massively subsidised renewable sources introduced to counter supposed global warming.

It bears pointing out that in the past 20 years of climate change campaigning there has been no proof of human cause, no global warming and no reduction in global carbon emissions.

Time for a rethink?

Robert Dow, Ormiston Road, Tranent

Any excuse to halt tram progress

WHAT wonderful logic. Because Professor Lewis Lesley’s (sole) experimental tram suffered a fire five years ago, some official has decided not to consider his tram track (“Thanks for the offer, but . . ” News, February 6)!

Could it be that that somebody doesn’t want trams to go to Leith?

N Mackenzie, Grange Loan, Edinburgh

Helpful reminder for SNP councillor

COUNCILLOR Tymkewycz (Letters, February 2) must be suffering from memory loss.

He, along with his SNP colleagues, voted to endorse the business case for the tram project in 2008, despite posturing their ”opposition”.

Last year they also voted to heap nearly a quarter of a billion pounds’ worth of debt on the city, just to advance the tramline to St Andrew Square.

If he and the rest of the SNP had taken a mature role in managing the tram project from the outset this could have been avoided.

Remember Councillor Tymkewycz, the SNP haS been in coalition with the Liberal Democrats for nearly five years in running the council!

Cllr Lesley Hinds, Transport Spokesperson for Labour

A dirty attitude that really stinks

WHY do some people carefully bag up their dog’s poo then leave the bag lying in the street?

They have done the nasty work, why can’t they take it home for their outside bin if they cannot find a bin on their walk?

K Byron, Parker Avenue, Edinburgh