Co-op plans for South Kirkby come to an end

Controversial plans for a new Co-op supermarket have been thrown out by the government.

Friday, 28th December 2018, 11:16 am
Updated Wednesday, 9th January 2019, 2:49 am
The proposed development site. Picture: Google.

Calderwood Developments, who applied for the planning permission on the supermarket’s behalf, then complained to the government, arguing that Wakefield Council had “behaved unreasonably” and not dealt with the issue quickly enough.

But the government’s planning inspector, Elaine Worthington, has backed the local authority, saying that it acted fairly during the process.

A separate application for council taxpayers to pay Calderwood’s own legal bill, has also been rejected.

Sign up to our daily Wakefield Express Today newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

Although Ms Worthington disagreed with councillors’ safety concerns about the proposed entrance, she said that converting the former health centre into a supermarket would disturb its neighbours.

In her appeal decision notice, she wrote: “Noise would be likely to arise from the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles and the processing of deliveries. Existing noise levels iare already high and the site is subject to high background noise levels through the day, mainly from traffic on Barnsley Road, in South Kirkby, but also from nearby commecial uses including the ambulance depot.

“In this context (Calderwood) finds the noise impact in relation to daytime HGVs would be acceptable and indicates that the proposal adheres to national policy.

“(But) It seems to me that the the noise from deliveries would be likely to have a different impact to that of more constant and recessive road traffic noise.”

Calderwood had claimed, incorrectly, that the council had rejected the plans at a meeting in July, but the matter was deferred for further talks between the applicants and the local authority.

But the developers decided against meeting council officers, and complained to the government. Ruling against Calderwood’s application for costs against the authority, Ms Worthington said she was content the council had not prevented or delayed development which should clearly have been permitted and that the council’s behaviour had not been unreasonable and the appellant’s costs in mounting the appeal were not unnecessarily incurred.”

The Co-op, declined to comment, and said it was for Calderwood to respond.

Calderwood has still not replied to a request for comment.