The council had granted outline planning permission for 2,499m2 of floor space subject to a condition stipulating that no less than 80 per cent of the total sales area should be used for food and convenience goods. The appellants argued that this made the scheme unviable because there was little requirement for additional convenience goods retailing in the area.
They maintained that the sale of comparison goods was acceptable in the absence of suitable sites in the city centre. The reporter agreed, noting that an independent retail study had revealed significant demand among comparison goods retailers for space on the appeal site and the city centre. There was a quantitative need for additional space and the scheme would not create an undesirable precedent, he ruled.
DCS Number 100-050-849
Reporter Michael Cunliffe; Inquiry.