Letter: Superstores have passed their sell-by date
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Bill Robinson (letter, 26 June) claims that superstores' competitors cannot match their prices. It is important to distinguish the economies of scale arising from the size of a retail chain from those arising from the size of the individual outlets. A large chain can buy in bulk more cheaply than a small one, but whether the goods are sold through (say) 200 conventional supermarkets or 40 superstores makes only a s1ight difference. One-stop shopping is also possible with shops much smaller than superstores.
Mr Robinson sees superstores as a response to "the basic needs of a car- borne society". But it is now widely agreed that a fundamental aim of transport policy should be to enable people to satisfy basic needs such as grocery shopping without having to use cars.
We need a long-term strategy to phase out superstores. The first step is to stop building more of them. In the article which sparked off this correspondence (27 May), Peter Popham said that a further 400 superstores might be built in the next three years. The Department of the Environment does not want this development, but unfortunately its guidelines are worded in a way that permits it, and officials claim that to revoke the planning permissions now would involve "astronomical" payments in compensation. We need to know the actual amounts; it might well be better to pay than to continue on this mistaken path. For existing shops, the strategy should be to discourage long-distance car travel while facilitating access on foot or by bus. The Government should legislate to ensure that parking is properly priced and that all shops over a certain size provide a local delivery service.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Plowden
London, NW1
26 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments