The case was the Council's attempt to overturn the Government's decision to modify (effectively revoke) part of a planning permission granted in 1993. The decision was not overturned and unless the Council successfully appeals it will have to pay compensation to SAFEWAYS. They have claimed £4.5m which will be settled by the Lands Tribunal if the Council and Safeways can't agree. The position in 1993: Northumberland Estates (effectively the Duke of Northumberland's family businesses) made a planning application for some development lying to the West of South Road, Alnwick. The Council granted permission. It seems that the planning permission granted was at best ambiguous and that although it was discussed as an application for 50,000 sq feet of development of which 30,000 sq feet was retail (class A1), the decision did not clearly restrict the amount of retail to 30,000 sq feet. Arguably it allowed 50,00 sq feet A1 retail - a much bigger shop than was discussed at the time. Safeways and the Council disagree (or at least at one stage they did) about what the permission granted. The question of what permission was actually granted has never been settled by a court and, now it has been revoked, it probably never will be. Planning applications for this kind of development are sometimes "called in" to be decided by central government. Although the Government was well aware of this application, it chose not to do so. In 1993 the national planning policy was against out of town retail sites, but to nothing like the same extent as it is now. Alnwick was not alone in granting permission for such development at that time. It is always difficult to gauge public opinion accurately but there was not an outcry against the decision to grant the permission. There seems to have been a view that it would provide a welcome alternative to the existing Safeway store in Alnwick which opened in - I think - 1991, and which, in my experience, charges higher prices than other supermarkets. It is also the only large supermarket I have ever been to where they have run out of bread and milk. Safeways has a monopoly of large supermarkets along the Northumberland A1 corridor. People wishing to avoid Safeways commonly have to go to Tyneside (35 miles) or the ASDA at Ashington (22 miles). The 1996 Situation: Northumberland Estates sold part of the site to Safeway and they submitted an application for a 50,000 sq feet store. It does not take much imagination to realise that if they had the new store then they would close the other one (one operatore might want two stores in a large towns but not in Alnwick). It would also preserve their unpopular monopoly [note to Safeways lawyers: that view is based on my perception amongst the people of my acquaintance, I have not surveyed the whole town to ask them if the monopoly is popular or not, perhaps everyone else loves it]. Further, out of town shopping was less popular in 1996 than it was in 1993. In 1996 the local traders were anxious on the effect that effectively moving the Safeway monopoly out of the town centre would have on their businesses. Strings were pulled. John Gummer, who was then Secretary of State, announced that he was minded to revoke the permission and asked if anyone objected. Not surprisingly, SAFEWAYS and the Council both objected. There was a two week long public inquiry in June 1997 and in Spring 1998 the DETR announced that it considered that the Council was grossly wrong to come to have granted the permission. To simplify
two weeks of argument, at the inquiry, Safeways argued that the Council
had been perfectly correct. The Council argued that a 30,000 sq feet
store - which was what they'd intended to grant wouldn't damage the town
centre and that the inspector should amend the permission so that it clearly
permitted no more than that.
The inspector ignored the Council's arguments saying in his report that he had to either keep all the retail or get rid of all the retail, relying on some ministerial policy about compulsory purchase orders. It would have been nice (and would have saved a lot of arguments) if he had mentioned at the inquiry that this was the view he was going to take. Was the Council "grossly wrong"? Well. No doubt it wasn't a model decision - it was ambiguous for goodness sake - but no one has ever managed to demonstrate to me that it was much worse than decisions taken by other local planning authorities all over the country all the time. Unless there is a "behind the scenes" reason it is difficult to see why this decision has been singled out for such criticism. The power to revoke planning permission has existed for years but it is rarely used, and this is the first time it has EVER been used on any development of a significant size. The people of Alnwick ought to be wondering "why us?" Consequences of the Decision THE COUNCIL:
Will probably have to pay compensation of at least a seven figure
sum;
SAFEWAYS: Get to pocket the compensation. Keep their monopoly position without having to shell out on a new store. Own a useless site in Alnwick (but they'll be compensated for that) NORTHUMBERLAND ESTATES: Get to keep the money they made from Safeways. The Duke won't have to make his promised contribution towards the proposed leisure centre if it isn't built. PEOPLE OF ALNWICK: Get to keep their unsatisfactory present supermarket, lose the chance of getting a leisure centre and end up with a council - which they fund - in a much weakened financial position. Does SAFEWAY have to claim the compensation? No, of course not. You might
have thought that a company which rakes in piles and piles of cash from
the town would not want to claim this money the payment of which which
will have a catastrophic effect on it.
But it seems they were wrong. Safeway (perhaps taking into consideration that Alnwick shoppers don't have too much choice) has claimed the money, saying that it has obligations to its shareholders. That is true, but misses the point. Company law does not require directors to collect every debt owed to the company. The law recognises that sometimes it is in a company's interest not to collect some debts. It seems that they just don't care. "What reason could there be to not seek our legitimate claim for loss of value?", a Safeways spokesman said in the Gazette, caringly. They mumbled something in the Guardian about that they thought that the government should "look at [the Council's] predicament". But they aren't exactly mounting a campaign on behalf of their customers. Maybe they think that if we don't have a new swimming pool we'll all have more time to shop? Pictures of
Alnwick
A Bob
Mouser Production © 1999
|