The objections and comments

l THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY: NO objection as long as no work starts until temporary access to the site has been submitted and approved so the the A49 and A465 continue to work normally.

l ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: OBJECTS due to the creche, community centre and health facilities being located in a flood risk area. The site is suitable for residential and industrial development if minimum standard of defence can be maintained for its lifetime but it is not for health and community facilities. Sites vulnerable to rapid flooding were unlikely to be suitable for those of restricted mobility. There is no guarantee of the construction of a flood alleviation scheme for Hereford. The Agency had been actively pursuing a scheme and earlier this month agreed with the Local Flood Defence Committee to progress one. Consultants are to prepare a detailed study and appraisal for DEFRA approval. It was an independent scheme and if approved would not rely upon any funding from the applicant.

l ENGLISH NATURE: The impact of removing land from the flood plain and defending the Asda development cannot be considered in isolation from Hereford Flood Alleviation Scheme. The proposals do not provide significant open space and this might be addressed by enhancing land between the tramway and bank of the Wye. The site is used by badgers and their main sett would be retained on the tramway.

l ENGLISH HERITAGE: IT meets some objections of a previous proposal, in particular moving the main building towards the western edge of the site for a better outlook from Greyfriars Bridge. Keeping existing allotments is welcome and it supports a landmark building at the junction of Ross Road and Belmont Road. There were reservations over estimates showing the height of this building could be much higher than the Greyhound Dog pub.

l WELSH WATER: WANTS eight conditions imposed mostly technical.

l SPORT ENGLAND: WELCOMES the decision to retain the bowling green but wants to ensure new greens are provided before the old ones are lost and that management and maintenance are secure.

l HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCIL'S chief conservation officer: UNCONVINCED development would enhance the area, the loss of trees and shrubs would directly affect the location. A proposed landmark building near the entry to the site would make a major architectural contribution to the city but there were serious concerns about the redefinition of Belmont roundabout. The scale would totally disrupt the scale and setting of surrounding buildings in a manner completely alien to this or any other part of Hereford.

Referring to landscape impact he said "The proposed layout lacks any design flair and maximises the development potential of the site without investigating the potential amenity open space linking with the riverside walk." At least half the trees would be lost, construction of the flood wall inevitably destroying a good proportion of them, a loss he considered unacceptable.

l HEREFORD CITY COUNCIL: NO OBJECTION adding the development was long overdue and the site needed tidying up. It was considered the most appropriate use of the site and the visual approach from the Greyfriars Bridge was acceptable. There would be no adverse impact from the view from Belmont Road. Adequate screening would avoid visual and sign nuisance for houses behind Belmont Road. The approved access should be of satisfaction to the Highways Authority. It should not have any serious impact on Belmont roundabout. It was understood it would not add to potential flooding problems. It should provide investment in local jobs and the inclusion of 18 flats is welcomed.

l THE CIVIC TRUST: OBJECTS although the amended plans went some way to overcoming previous objections. Still unresolved are the line of the store, its location near homes in Hunderton Road, no case made of need for a store and the trust remained unconvinced the supermarket was necessary.

l CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE: OUT of scale and not of good design. A lost opportunity. But it considered the proposed residential block an asset and a focal point, especially when lit at night. It would enhance the area and worthy of such an important site.

l COMMISSION for the Architectural and Built Environment: CONSTRAINTS of the site had given designers a difficult task but this is not making optimum use of the site.

l CPRE: OBJECTS - NOT in line with the local development plan.

l HEREFORDSHIRE NATURE TRUST : MINDED to ask the council to refuse it although previously recommended no determination until the completion of flood defence scheme study.

l SOUTH WYE REGENERATION PARTNERSHIP: THE derelict site is an eyesore and development would have a real impact on the physical appearance of one of the city's gateways. It was consistent with local business and community ambitions, would help with jobs, improve health facilities, child care provision, community facilities, and transport services.

l RAMBLERS' ASSOCIATION: congratulated the developers in the provision of paths and cycleways.

l ST MARTINS STREET RESIDENTS AND TRADERS ASSOCIATION: concern with suggestions on improvements for local people.

In a lengthy appraisal planning officers said the key issues were the retail need for the development, access and transport, flooding and land drainage, design and nature conservation. The applicant's case for a retail store was described as 'extremely weak'.

Government policy earlier this year stipulated that this need should be proved.

In conclusions the planners say the offered contribution to flood prevention and jobs were the only significant benefits.

They believe it to be contrary to national and local planning policy, conflicting with retail planning guidance and the requirements for development within a conservation area. The objections from the Environment Agency had to carry significant weight. Despite the weight attached to other material considerations, refusal is recommended.