Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sam Kemp and Terry Knowles.

It was noted that, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, notice had been given that Councillor Ru Yarsley had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Terry Taylor for this Meeting only.

At this point in the Meeting, Members were invited to disclose any relevant interests.  The following interests were disclosed:

-        Councillor Watson asked it be noted that he was a partner of a High Street business but there was little overlap with either applicant and he was not prejudiced in considering the item.

-        All Members of the Committee asked it be noted that they had been lobbied on both applications.

-        Councillors Dick Edginton, Stephen Eyre, Neil Jones and Daniel McNally asked it be noted that they were Members of the local Internal Drainage Boards.

N.B. The Chairman requested a break to allow Members to read the

Supplementary Agenda.  The Meeting adjourned at 10.35am and reconvened

at 10.55am.

Upon reconvening, the Chairman explained the process by which the Committee would assess the two supermarket applications.  Members were advised that officers had concluded there was retail capacity within the town for only one additional supermarket without causing unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre.  The Chairman outlined that each application would first be considered on its own merits and, should both be deemed acceptable, a separate comparative assessment report would then be considered.

A Member queried what weight could be placed upon the advice of the independent retail consultants that there was capacity for only one store.  In response, the Legal Adviser stated that the weight to be attached to the evidence was a matter for Members’ planning judgement although the consultants’ advice was that permitting both developments would result in an adverse impact on the town centre’s vitality and viability.

S/086/00391/22: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Aldi Stores Ltd

Location:                           Land off Spilsby Road, Horncastle

Recommendation:            

Caveated recommendation for approval subject to conditions

OR

Refusal of planning permission if considered to be less favorable comparative

to the Lidl proposal

Officer:                             Sam Dewar / Andy Booth

Application Type:    Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Hybrid application comprising Full permission for demolition of existingstructures anderection ofretail unit(Use ClassE) and associated parking, landscaping and ancillary works and constructionof newvehicular andpedestrian access,& Outline permission (means of access only) for the redevelopment of servicestation withshop (suigeneris) withassociated parking, landscaping and ancillary works.

Location:                 Land off Spilsby Road, Horncastle

Applicant:                Aldi Stores Ltd

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Hybrid

application comprising Full permission for demolition of existingstructures and

erectionof retailunit (UseClass E)and associated parking, landscaping and

ancillary works and constructionof newvehicular andpedestrian access,&

Outline permission (means of access only) for the redevelopment of service

stationwith shop(sui generis)with associatedparking, landscaping and

ancillary works at land off Spilsby Road, Horncastle.

Theproposal wasa majordevelopment thathad attractedsignificant local interest. The application was originally considered by the Planning Committee on 3^rd November 2022, Minute No. 50 refers where resolution to grant planning permission was made in line with officer recommendation and changes to a small number of the draft conditions.

However, the permission as issued was then subject to legal challenge brought by Lidl Great Britain Ltd and subsequently quashed in July 2024. In essence, the claim succeeded on the basis that it was unlawful to grant planning permission for the Aldi scheme in the specific circumstances without comparing it to a rival Lidl proposal. The judgment further advised that ‘it would plainly be easier to undertake such an assessment if the applications were considered together at the same meeting’ and that the ‘key point is the need to undertake a comparison where the evidence is so clear that they are alternate propositions for addressing the finite retail capacity to trade in an out of centre format without causing significant harm to the vitality and viability of Horncastle town centre’.

It was relevant to note that the Court however, expressed no view (and made no assumption) on the comparative merits of the two schemes noting that ‘The fact that the Lidl scheme is smaller and draws less away from the town centre may or may not be an advantage. That depends on a holistic retail impact assessment which is a matter for the local planning authority. There are other differences between the proposals which will need to be weighed in the planning balance. These are matters of planning judgment for the Defendant (the Council).’

The essential complaint which succeeded in the claim was that the Council failed to undertake such an exercise.

The application was therefore now brought back before Planning Committee for determination, but at the same time as application S/086/00776/22 for a proposed new Lidl store on Boston Road in Horncastle. The reason for that was in part, to enable comparative assessment of the two proposals as deemed appropriate through the judgement issued. Such assessment was considered a relevant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

S/086/00776/22: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Lidl Great Britain Limited

Location:                           Boston Road Service Station, Boston Road, Horncastle

Recommendation:            

Caveated recommendation for approval subject to conditions

OR

Refusal of planning permission if considered to be less favorable comparative

to the Aldi proposal

Officer:                             Sam Dewar / Andy Booth

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Erection of adiscount foodstore, withparking, landscapingand other associated works and construction of a vehicular and a pedestrian access, existing accesses to be closed up, existing buildings on site to be demolished

Location:                 Boston Road Service Station, Boston Road, Horncastle

Applicant:                Lidl Great Britain Limited

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Erectionof a

discountfood store,with parking,landscaping and other associated works and

construction of a vehicular and a pedestrian access, existing accesses to be

closed up, existing buildings on site to be demolished at Boston Road Service

Station, Boston Road, Horncastle.

The proposal was a major development that had attracted significant local interest. Furthermore, following the Judicial Review of application reference: S/086/00391/22, for a similar type of food store elsewhere in Horncastle, there was need to consider the two proposals at a similar time and in the context of each other.

That application (for an Aldi store on land off Spilsby Road) had originally been considered by this Council’s Planning Committee on 3^rd November 2022, Minute No. 50 refers where resolution to grant planning permission was made in line with officer recommendation.

However, the permission as issued was then subject to legal challenge brought by Lidl Great Britain Ltd and subsequently quashed in July 2024. In essence, the claim succeeded on the basis that it was unlawful to grant planning permission for the Aldi scheme in the specific circumstances without comparing it to a rival Lidl proposal (this application proposal). The judgment further advised that ‘it would plainly be easier to undertake such an assessment if the applications were considered together at the same meeting’ and that the ‘key point is the need to undertake a comparison where the evidence is so clear that they are alternate propositions for addressing the finite retail capacity to trade in an out of centre format without causing significant harm to the vitality and viability of Horncastle town centre’.

It was relevant to note that the Court however, expressed no view (and made no assumption) on the comparative merits of the two schemes noting that ‘The fact that the Lidl scheme is smaller and draws less away from the town centre may or may not be an advantage. That depends on a holistic retail impact assessment which is a matter for the local planning authority. There are other differences between the proposals which will need to be weighed in the planning balance. These are matters of planning judgment for the Defendant (the Council).’

The essential complaint which succeeded in the claim was that the Council failed to undertake such an exercise.

Both applications therefore require careful consideration with regards to their potential retail impacts individually and cumulatively, broader planning considerationsand with need for comparison between the two proposals to be undertaken.

This report therefore provided an overview and assessment of the planning merits of this particular proposal. A similar report was also presented on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Comparative report for consideration in context of items 3 and 4.

The Committee subsequently moved to the next stage of the agenda, namely the requirement to prioritise one application over the other and provide reasons for doing so.  A Member proposed that the Aldi application be given priority, citing its superior public transport links and accessibility.  The proposal was seconded.

During discussion, a Member suggested that both applications should be approved on their individual merits.  It was argued that both schemes had been assessed positively by officers, that travel patterns meant transport considerations were of limited significance, and that both operators should be given the opportunity to trade if they believed the proposals were commercially viable.  It was noted however, that this proposal did not receive a seconder, and therefore fell.

A further contribution was made in support of the Aldi application.  The Member expressed the view that the proposal would provide greater benefits to the local tourism economy and suggested that the absence of certain retail facilities within the scheme could lessen any impact on existing town-centre businesses, including local bakeries.

As there were no further comments, the Chairman confirmed that the proposal to prioritise the application with the stronger transport links had been both proposed and seconded. 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval of the Aldi application was carried.

Vote:         8 In favour         0 Against              2 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That Application S/086/00391/22 for the Aldi store be approved.

Following the vote, the Chairman confirmed that as the Aldi application had been approved, the competing application by Lidl would be refused within the context of the comparative assessment. 

In summing up, the Chairman remarked that there had been very little difference between the merits of the two schemes and acknowledged that both applications had considerable strengths.  It was noted that the Committee's decision had ultimately been constrained by the need to consider the potential impact on the town centre. 

The Chairman thanked members of the public for their patience throughout what had been a lengthy meeting.