PLANNERS remained defiant over the Settle supermarket saga this week, insisting that a legal agreement restricting the range of goods and services offered must stay.

Officers at Craven District Council had hoped to revive negotiations with Booths, which wants to open a supermarket in the town.

The council's planning committee has already given officers delegated authority to approve Booths' plans to build a store on land at Sowarth Industrial Estate and Bond Lane field. However, negotiations had reached a point where further progress was an "unlikely prospect".

In a bid to move the matter forward, officers recommended on Monday that the planning committee imposed restrictions on the range of goods to be sold at the supermarket and the provision of ancillary services, including a cafe, by a planning condition rather than a legally binding planning obligation (or Section 106 agreement), which had been agreed previously.

Booths had already indicated that whilst there were no immediate plans to have a cafe in the foodstore, a legally binding agreement that would prevent the operation of one in the future would be unacceptable.

Planning officer Roy Banks explained that the firm could appeal against both a 106 agreement and a condition, but in the case of the legal agreement the right of appeal was deferred for five years. With a planning condition, Booths could appeal immediately.

However, a report to the committee said events such as the adoption of the Craven Local Plan - the area's planning blueprint for the future - and a new report from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the impact of large foodstores on market towns backed up the council's case if it went to appeal.

Nevertheless, Coun Beth Graham successfully recommended that the legally binding agreement should stay.

The council hopes that restricting the goods and services offered at the proposed supermarket will help to safeguard shops in Settle Town Centre.

If the scheme goes ahead, Booths could not sell food or drink for consumption on the premises (ie in a cafe), bakery products wholly or partly baked on the premises, pharmacy products requiring a prescription, newspapers, stationery, books, videos, recorded music, hardware, decorating materials, fabrics and yarns, clothing and footwear. In addition, it would not be able to offer banking facilities such as cash machines, a post office, dry cleaning services, film processing or video hire.

The applicants had already stated that they regarded the provision of a cafe, bakery, banking facilities, books, newspapers and magazines as being a normal part of any foodstore and should be acceptable as such.

Speaking at Monday's meeting, Booths' solicitor Andrew Ferguson said: "Booths is trying constructively to negotiate and agree terms and tended to accept restrictions on certain goods and services, but they are concerned that to go any further will prejudice the commercial viability of the proposed development."

But Coun Beth Graham added: "I can find nothing in the argument which suggests we should change our decision. Restrictions on the range of goods to be sold are exceedingly important for the viability of local shops."

Following the meeting, Booths' director Neil Standing said the company was "surprised and disappointed" by the planning committee's decision.

He added the negotiations between Booths and Craven District Council revolved around three issues - the residents' car park, the supermarket car park and the restrictions on the sale of certain goods.

While the two parties had reached an agreement on the first two issues, Booths had reservations on the latter.

"It is our opinion that these restrictions are unfair as they relate to goods and services normally associated with supermarkets and would make Booths uncompetitive against rival stores in nearby towns. Indeed, the Co-op on the Whitefriars site sells all these restricted products," said Mr Standing.

"To make matters worse, the council seeks to impose these restrictions under a legal agreement, against officers' advice, and not by the usual method of a planning condition.

"The latter would give the opportunity to Booths to seek outside opinion about the fairness of these restrictions. An independent inspector would be appointed and following Government policy would determine whether or not it is fair to stop the company providing the above goods and services.

"It must also be pointed out that the company had already agreed to certain of these restrictions in order to reach some compromise with the council and in any event was prepared to accept restrictions provided they were planning conditions and not legal obligations."

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