Plans for a new retail development in Stirling - including an Asda superstore - could be approved by councillors today (Wednesday) - if they reject planners’ recommendations to refuse it.
Ramoyle Developments Ltd are seeking planning permission for a mixed use development comprising of offices (Classes 2 and 4), retail, drive-thru restaurant, car showroom and car parking, infrastructure and landscaping at land at Crookbridge, south of the Wickes DIY store and north of Kerse Road and Muirton Road.
The site is currently owned by Stirling Development Agency (SDA), a joint venture company which includes Stirling Council.
The application is the subject of a hearing at the council’s planning panel today.
However, council planners are recommending it be refused.
The officials say the applicant refers to a Retail Impact Assessment that is out of date and therefore have not demonstrated that there will not be a harmful impact on the city centre.
They also say there is no robust, up to date Retail Capacity Assessment to show sufficient consideration of alternative city centre sites, or town centre sites to accommodate the proposals, albeit of a reduced scale.
Click here for more news and sport from the Stirling area.
The proposed foodstore development - said to be Asda - is felt to be contrary to the Local Development Plan as the proposals are for a different form of retailing than stipulated in criteria demanding that the Springkerse and Millhall Retail Commercial Centre has a specific role and function for household (bulky goods) retail only.
It is also felt the development would rely too heavily on private car travel and not public transport, walking or cycling.
The greenfield site is more widely currently a mix of large retail units, car showrooms and industrial units, however there are also a few residential properties.
Around 353 car parking spaces would serve the new retail units and hot food takeaway while the new car showroom would have 378 spaces and the business space 64 spaces.
Broomridge Community Council has objected on grounds including that the proposals will damage the town centre and it is also dissatisfied with the level of public consultation.
Nineteen letters of representation were received, 17 objecting to the proposals with one in support and one making neutral comments on accessibility.
Severe adverse impact on the high street and contradiction of efforts to improve trading and viability of the high street were among objectors’ concerns.
Springkerse Retail Park II have objected and say vacant floor space across Springkerse will be undermined by the development.
Stirling Thistle Centre has also objected saying the vitality of the town centre must be protected.
One letter of support has been lodged - from the John Clark Motor Group - who say they intend to relocate the Jaguar Landrover business on Glasgow Road to the site should it be approved.
The developers have said a superstore would be in place of previously proposed mix of convenience and comparison units and that the proposals as a whole would create around 500-600 new full time equivalent jobs as well as make an important contribution to extending the retail range within Stirling.
They also argue the site has been marketed for sale for over a decade by SDA and has never attracted interest from bulky goods operators because there is a surplus of such space and vacant units elsewhere in the city.
They say they have already discounted a number of sites including the former Rainbow Slides site, Station Road north and south sites, Stirling Enterprise Park and the vacant Debenhams store within the Thistle Centre.
In their report for today’s hearing, however, council planners said: “It is acknowledged that Stirling likely has an oversupply of land and premises reserved for bulky goods retailing, as evidenced by undeveloped areas which have been allocated for many years, as well as vacant buildings particularly at Springkerse.
“The Crookbridge site has been available for development of bulky goods for a decade with no interest - however this is not reason on its own to justify allowing these proposals.”
