EH BOOTH and Co would abandon its compromise scheme for a supermarket in Settle if it won its appeal to build a school and food store on Bond Lane field, a public inquiry was told this week.

Inspector John MacBryde opened the inquiry into Craven District Council's decision to refuse permission for the supermarket and school on Bond Lane on Wednesday.

He was told by Booth's representative, John Barrett, that a joint scheme with Stan Jordan for a food store on Sowarth and school on Bond Lane, which the council has indicated that it would approve, would be dropped if the appeal was successful.

Expert witnesses for Booth's told the inquiry the appeal scheme was better than the approved one.

Mr Barrett also gave assurances that if the appeal was allowed, the proposed supermarket would not open until the school and playing field were available for use.

And he showed the inquiry a legally-binding document enshrining the "school first" principle, and committing Booths to running a free bus service for at least two years.

Mr MacBryde started by identifying four key preliminary points. They were :

* the effective loss of recreational open space

* the effect of the proposed development on the Settle conservation area

* the impact of noise and activity upon the locality

* the effectiveness of the linkage of the proposed foodstore with the town centre for shopping.

Mr Barrett said: "The proposal does provide improved shopping facilities. It will be further enhanced by Booth's transport scheme."

The inquiry heard from Booth's retail expert Harvey Cole, who said that there was a proven need for a food store, and a medium sized supermarket could claw back 40 per cent of the shoppers who currently went mainly to Skipton to shop.

Booth's traffic expert David Walpole said the local road network was capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the scheme, and noise expert Michael Tomlin said the noise caused by the supermarket would not be noticeable.

Planning expert Steven Abbott also argued out Craven District Council had not identified Bond Lane for protection as a recreational area.

Coun Janet Gott said councillors felt the appeal scheme would lead to the loss of a significant area of open space which the community used for recreational purposes. The character and volume of traffic likely to be generated was another reason why the council refused the application.

She said: "The council believes, in comparison with the appeal proposal, the alternative would have significantly less impact on the living conditions of Bond Lane residents."

The inquiry continues.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.