Lidl vs Aldi, what store has the greater backing?

lidl vs aldi what store has the greater backing 1 - Lidl vs Aldi, what store has the greater backing?

Planners have recommended proposals for an Aldi superstore in Malmesbury to be approved whilst rejecting proposals for a Lidl superstore in the town.

Reports of both planning applications have now been made available on the Wiltshire Council website.

In the reports, planners believed that the proposal for the Lidl superstore ‘could be achieved in another location that would result in a lesser degree of harm’.

Wiltshire Council’s Northern Area Planning Committee will decide on the applications put forward by Lidl and Aldi at a on Wednesday, March 6, in the council chamber at Monkton Park, Chippenham.

The committee have the power to reject both applications, permit just one of the applications, or permit both.

Budget supermarket chain Aldi submitted plans to build a branch in Crudwell Road on the site of Malmesbury Garden Centre.

The proposal includes building a store with 121 parking spaces and a replacement garden centre.

It is thought that should the proposal go ahead, it would create at least 40 new jobs, with further employment opportunities on the wider site.

Rival supermarket Lidl have also submitted a planning application to build a store in the town.

The supermarket would be located off the A429 bypass near Waitrose creating up to 35 jobs.

An in-store bakery, a customer toilet and baby changing facilities, and ample parking for both cars and bicycles are included in the plans.

But what new details were revealed in the reports?

What they said on the Aldi application

– Officers have recommended that the application be approved subject to the completion of a S106 agreement within 6 months of the meeting next week.

The S106 agreement is required to market the land for employment uses in business, general industrial and storage or distribution.

If they fail to complete an agreement, they recommend refusing permission.

-St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish council does not formally object the application.

They do however raise significant concerns and seek revisions in respect of the proposed highways and access measures.

-Malmesbury Town Council does not formally object neither support the proposals but makes comments for consideration regarding highways and access

measures, use of the remainder of the site, retail impact and S106 contributions, and Neighbourhood Plan compliance.

-Wiltshire Council received 15 representations of objection and 14 general comments from interested parties and residents.

-Wiltshire Council did receive 241 representations of support

Issues raised –

-Principle of development.

-Impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality including trees.

-Impact on heritage assets including archaeology.

-Highways impact and parking.

-Drainage and flood risk.

-Impact on ecology.

-Noise and residential amenity.

-Section 106 matters.

Objections from the public consultation included –

-Harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

-Harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality.

-Harm to Highways and traffic flows.

-Inadequate and unsafe pedestrian access.

-No change in circumstances since the Sainsbury proposals was refused at this location.

-Site poorly related to the town centre.

-Lidl proposal is in a better more accessible location in accord with national and local policies.

-Proposed bus stops poorly located and likely to conflict with peak hour traffic movements.

-Loss of employment land.

-Harm to residential amenities for neighbours from light intrusion and noise.

-Loss of trees.

-Inadequate supporting information and detail particularly outline elements of the submission.

-Further retail stores unnecessary and object to loss of the garden centre.

-Inappropriate parking layout.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the report said: “Overall, it is considered that the benefits do outweigh the relatively limited harm that has been identified and that subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and the

recommended conditions consent should be granted.”

What they said on the Lidl application

-Officers have recommended that the application be refused.

-St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish and Malmesbury Town Councils both objected to the application.

-Wiltshire Council received 189 letters of objection from interested parties and residents.

Wiltshire Council received 359 representations of support from members of the public.

(It should be noted that a proportion of these representations support the development of a Lidl but raise concerns or objection in respect of the proposed location).

-Wiltshire Council received 99 representations from members of the public and interested parties making comments in respect of the proposed development and location.

Issues raised –

-Principle of development.

-Impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality including trees.

-Impact on heritage assets including archaeology.

-Highways impact and parking.

-Drainage and flood risk.

-Impact on ecology.

-Noise and residential amenity.

-Section 106 matters.

Objections from the public consultation included –

– Some people supported the principle of a discount superstore in the town to address out commuting and improve choice and affordability but object to this proposed location as harmful to the character and appearance of the locality (landscape and conservation area/character of the town), poor accessibility and setting a precedent for development beyond the A429 and outside the town.

– Object to the principle of the development proposal as unnecessary and harmful to the town centre.

– Object to both the principle of the development as unnecessary and harmful to the town centre and to this location being harmful to the character and appearance of the locality (landscape and conservation area/character of the town), poor accessibility and setting a precedent for development beyond the A429 and outside the town.

Conclusion –

In conclusion, the report said: “It is not considered that the benefits outweigh the harm that would be caused by the development proposed.

“The conflict with the development plan is a harm that should not be set aside lightly given statutory provisions in this respect, similarly in relation to designated heritage assets.

“Much of the benefit that arises from development is of limited scale and extent e.g. economic benefits from construction are temporary, whilst the numbers of jobs generated are limited in scale.

“Additionally, it is considered that the benefits of the development of a discount food store could be achieved in another location that would result in a lesser degree of harm.”

For the full report on the Aldi application click here

For the full report on the Lidl application click here

Back to: Home Gloucestershire News

Help us share

You may also like...

HAVE A QUICK QUESTION?

Simply fill our short form and we will contact you back asap.

[contact-form-7 id="758" title=""]
X
CONTACT US