Supermarket proposals for Lawson’s Bridge

The Booths supermarket application was approved by Lancaster City Council’s planning committee on 3 May 2011. Approval was proposed by Labour Cllr Sheila Denwood and seconded by the Lib Dems. The vote was 15 in favour, 1
against (Green Cllr Chris Coates) and 2 abstentions (Green Cllrs Anne Chapman and Andrew Kay).

The CEP application for a second much larger superstore, hotel, pub and petrol station was turned down. Refusal was proposed by Green Cllr Anne Chapman. The vote was 12 for refusal and 6 against. There were 4 main reasons for refusal:

  • The proposal would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the highway network and operation of public transport in a key transport corridor.
  • By generating a detrimental impact on the highway network the development would have a prejudicial impact on the delivery of the development plan priorities by adding further constraints to future development in south Lancaster and in particular Lancaster University and Lancaster Science Park.
  • The proposal would have an adverse effect on the prime southern entrance into the City of Lancaster by reason of poor urban design, and significant unwarranted change to the character of the landscape on the south side of the A6.
  • The proposal would result in the loss of significant trees.

Emily Heath, Green Party Councillor for Scotforth West ward, spoke at the planning meeting objecting to the CEP application. After the meeting she commented:

“I would have much preferred the whole of Lawson’s Bridge to remain as open countryside, but at least the new Booths store has been well designed to minimize its impact on the landscape. However I am concerned that it will lead to further development of the surrounding fields, and I think the Council should have thought more carefully about that before putting its land up for sale. I am delighted that the CEP superstore was refused permission. It would have been far too big and dominating, causing traffic gridlock in Scotforth and undermining the viability of Lancaster City Centre and local shops.”

The Booths application was approved with a long list of conditions, including a condition that the existing Booths store must be retained as a foodstore. It is likely that a discount operator will take over the store once Booths has relocated to Lawson’s Bridge. There will also be changes to the road layout at Hala Road, and a new signalized junction at Lawson’s Bridge.

Scotforth Residents See Red - Protest

Scotforth residents see red over supermarket plans, 12 March 2011

 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Where is Lawson’s Bridge?

The fields to the south of Ray’s Drive in Scotforth, Lancaster – between the A6 and railway line. The fields are currently used by a local farmer for grazing cows, and by local residents for dog walking and other recreational activities. The site contains mature trees and hedgerows and a seasonal pond. A community woodland and footpath run along the northern end.

Who owns the land?

The City Council’s cabinet decided in July 2008 to sell the land it owned at Lawson’s Bridge to Booths for a supermarket development. This decision was supported by Labour, Conservatives Liberal Democrats and Morecambe Bay Independents. The 2 Green Party cabinet members (Cllrs Barry & Fletcher) voted against the sale of the land.

The City Council has already received some money for the sale of the land, but it will only receive the full amount (several millions) if planning permission is granted and the new store is actually built.

Ownership of the adjacent land (further south) was gained by a local farmer after he claimed squatter’s rights because the previous owner had not requested payment of rent for grazing his animals on the land for many years. The farmer then sold the land to a private developer called Commercial Estates Group, presumably for millions of pounds.

What is proposed for this site?

Two separate planning applications were submitted in Spring 2010:

10/00251/FUL – full application for a replacement Booths supermarket with net retail area of 2,052 m2(2.6 times bigger than the existing Booths). (APPROVED on 3/5/2011, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State.)

10/00366/OUT – outline application by CEP (Commercial Estates Projects) for an additional superstore with net retail area of 4,350 m2, of which 65% will be ‘convenience’ (eg. food), and 35% ‘comparison goods’ (eg. electrical goods, clothes, etc). This is 5.5 times bigger than the current Booths, and about 57% bigger than the current Lancaster Sainsbury’s. Also proposed are a hotel, pub, petrol station and 500-space car park. (REFUSED permission on 3/5/2011, but now subject to an appeal by CEP, which will be considered by an independent Planning Inspector in the due course).

What will happen to the existing Booths site?

Booths were originally planning to redevelop the site of their existing store on Hala Road for housing, a residential care home, and a small convenience store (such as a ‘Spar’ shop). However, it now seems likely that the existing store will be sold to another supermarket operator (such as Lidl or Aldi). We could therefore end up with 3 supermarkets in Scotforth if the CEP appeal is successful.

What have local Green Councillors done?

Green Councillors for Scotforth West (until May 2011), Emily Heath and Jane Fletcher, submitted objections to both planning applications, primarily on the grounds of:

  • Lots more traffic will be generated on already congested roads
  • Harder for local people to shop by foot or bicycle due to the out-of-town location.
  • Loss of green space and biodiversity
  • Commercialization of a key entrance to Lancaster.
  • Excessively large out-of-town stores will damage the vitality of the City Centre.
  • Setting a precedent for further greenfield development in south Lancaster – a new housing estate at Whinney Carr is likely to follow.

They have also organized protests and leaflet drops, endeavoured to keep local residents informed about what’s going on, and encouraged people to have their say (whether for or against the developments).