Lidl to submit new Bath supermarket plan
Budget chain Lidl is preparing to submit a new planning application for a supermarket at a derelict furniture factory in Bath.
Last week Bath and North East Somerset Council turned down the firm’s first application to transform the former Herman Miller site in Lower Bristol Road.
-
The Herman Miller factory
Council officers supported the idea of a Lidl store at the site but opposed the concept of three further shops - selling what are classed as non-food bulky goods - which planners claimed could undermine the viability of the city's new £360 million SouthGate centre.
Lidl development executive James Mitchell today confirmed the firm would be submitting a revised application in the next four weeks.
Mr Mitchell said Lidl was disappointed that officers had refused its initial application but felt there were a significant number of positives to be taken from the local authority’s response.
He said: “There was support from the officers for the food store element of the proposals.
“The area that we have a problem in is the non-food retail units.
“We are pleased that the principle of the food store is accepted.”
Lidl’s original planning application was acceptable to B&NES Council highways officers and although the Environment Agency said there was a flood risk, Mr Mitchell said these issues could be easily resolved with a flood management system.
He said they would just be “scaling back” their plans.
“We will apply for the same principles with the food store.”
Lidl, which operates 500 stores across the country, had hoped to complete its original design for the Herman Miller factory and open for business by Christmas.
Its own store would create 35 jobs in a food store and there would be a car park for 110 vehicles.
The local authority turned down the firm's application on the grounds that the chain's proposals would see 'overdevelopment' of the site and could affect the SouthGate centre taking shape in the city centre.
A report by B&NES planning officer Kay Mann said: "In terms of quantitative and qualitative need the Lidl store is considered acceptable and is supported.
"The non-food retail elements are however considered contrary to Policy S4 and it is considered will undermine SouthGate before it has had a chance to get established and the city a chance to adjust to any potential decanting from existing shops to new provision.
"In this respect the application if allowed would undermine the proper planning for retail which remains the (theme) through the Local Development Framework process."
Twerton councillor Tim Ball (Lib Dem) said the Herman Miller site badly needed redevelopment.
He said: "We are deeply disappointed.
"Our residents wanted it and I haven't spoken to any one person locally who didn't want it."
Cllr Ball said the application ought to have been decided by councillors at committee level rather than by officers under delegated powers.
Lidl is attempting to set up shop in Bath as Tesco has been linked to the old Bath Press site nearby and Sainsbury’s has considered a second major store at Odd Down and will be taking a unit at SouthGate.
104 Comments
View all
by paul, bath
Thursday, April 23 2009, 10:22AM
“Sainsburies - has shops next door.
Waitrose - has shops next door.
Somerfield - had shops next door.
Iceland - has shops next door.
Scala - has shops next door.
Proposed odd down tesco/sainsburies - will have shops next door.
Why then are Lidl being prevented from having shops next door? The only supermarker in Bath currently without other shops is morrisons.
I cant undrstand why BANES rejected the plans an the basis that other shops will damage future of southgate, what a load of old cods wollop!”
by JC, Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 7:26PM
“Rogerh - We will wait and see with the next Lidl application - You have more faith in B&NES planners than most of us.
Please don't try and label 75 of us as illiterate idiots - We read the article, and commented as we saw fit. I still think that this plan has merits, and just don't agree with your opinion, but respect your right to disagree. Neither of us is superior and 'right', we just have differing views. It was the B&NES spokesperson who mentioned the Southgate connection, and I think that was inappropriate, bearing in mind Tescos application on Bathwick Hill that affected an existing business. I (And I think many others) also wanted to make clear our support for Lidl, so that when the 'right' application is submitted, it is not rejected on some spurious reason. I also wished to point out that the reasons why this were turned down should apply to any Tesco application, to highlight any potential double standards.”
by rogerh, Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 2:08PM
“ "and theat genralization is open to different interpretations"
How many ways can you interpret "the Lidl store is considered acceptable and is supported"?
" I can only hope along with the other 79 people that have commented on this article so far that this plan gets put through upon its resubmission...
Yes but to be fair about 75 of them were based on the mistaken belief that the Council was opposed to Lidl opening on this site, which is what most of mine were trying to point out, ad nauseum.
And, of course, this plan won't be re-submitted; a better one will be offered instead. Which is why planners were right to reject this one.”
by paul, student inbath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 1:23PM
“...by the way, i just looked at the Lidl plan and the pedestrain access seems fine to me,what a great lookign plan! i cant realy see what your complaint is about roger.
It is clearly labelled that there will be a pathway clearly marked in luminous paint etc that is for pedestrian use only. In my humble opinion i think that his is great additional feature!
I have lost count of the amount of times i have come across cars and vans and lorries parked up onto pedestrian footpaths, including in sainsburies car parks etc,
I can only Hope along with the other 79 peopel that have commented on this article so far that this plan gets put through upon its resubmission...”
by paul, student in Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 1:09PM
“Rogerh...
As a student i have always been taught that research does not PROVE anything, it can only GENERALIZE on any given group of statistics, and theat genralization is open to different interpretations.
For example my post is the 100th on this article, 21 posts were made by yourself against the planning application,
most of the other 79 posts seem to be in favour of the Lidl planning application. As a reseacrhcher i would call this statictically significnat, but at the same time it does not really prove or disprove anything, except maybe that you are wrong and the other 79 people are right?”
by rogerh, Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 12:20PM
“"Most supermarkets and retail parks don't provide footpaths for pedestrians!"
Seriously? I can't think of one in Bath or Bristol where the only route between shops involves walking out in the road, behind the parking spaces.”
by Sam, Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 11:48AM
“Most supermarkets and retail parks don't provide footpaths for pedestrians!
Nice plan by the way. When's it going to open?
Argos used to be in the old Southgate shopping centre and is now on Upper Bristol Road. Surely this will "undermine the viability of the city's new £360 million SouthGate centre." ;)”
by Jenna, Oldfield Park
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 10:35AM
“"Do you think Lidl should not be required to provide a footpath even?"
The council doesn't provide anything better to get into the Midland Road recycling depot on foot.”
by rogerh, Bath
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 9:29AM
“To the entrances of the four retail units. The plan is that you walk along a painted path in the roadway, between two rows of parked cars.”
by Dave Larkhall, Larkhall
Wednesday, April 22 2009, 9:12AM
“A footpath to where rogerh?”