100-075-873 (Image Credit: Reigate & Banstead BC)
The council supported the change of use of the 998m2 building provided the range of goods sold was limited to those normally found within retail warehouses. This would accord with its local plan which identified the site as falling within an area suitable for retail warehouse development. The appellant, however, stated that there was no identified operator and was unwilling to accept any limit on the range of non-food goods which could be sold.
The inspector noted that the local plan, adopted in 1994, did not define what constituted retail warehouse development. It did make reference to national advice at the time which referred to stores specialising in household goods such as carpets, furniture and electrical items. She disagreed with the appellant’s contention that the policy permitted any retail application within the defined retail warehouse areas since this would be inconsistent with national advice which favoured a ‘town centre’ first approach. With the latter in mind she decided that there were at least two sites within a nearby town centre which were suitable and viable for a non-food retail store of the type proposed on the appeal site.
In relation to impact, the release of the appeal site for unrestricted non-food retailing, directly competing with shops in the town centre, would undermine the council’s plans to secure its improvement and expansion. It would create uncertainty and undermine investor confidence in the centre threatening planned investment. It would divert consumer spending away from the centre, with minimal levels of linked trips. While a limit on the nature of the goods sold would minimise this conflict the appellant had firmly resisted the imposition of such a condition and it would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposal. On this basis the scheme was unacceptable.
Inspector Mary O’Rourke; Inquiry
DCS Number 100-075-873
