THESE are the nine reasons given for refusal by planning officer Roland Close, numbers one to five being non-negotiable and six to nine negotiable.

1) Planners considered that alternate sites in or near the town centre had not been appropriately assessed.
2) Impact assessment reports conducted by Sainsbury’s were not “robust” and failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have “a significant adverse impact upon the viability and vitality of Ledbury Town Centre”.
3) Given this, the proposed development was considered likely to adversely affect the character of the Ledbury Conservation Area.
4) The inclusion of a petrol station would result in the loss of high-quality employment land.
5) The location would increase reliance upon the use of motor vehicles and was therefore considered unsustainable.
6) A flood risk assessment did not provide enough information to convince planners there would be no increased risk.
7) The presence of the protected slow worm species. Although Sainsbury’s proposed moving them to a suitable “receptor”

site, one was not identified in the application.
8) The development would require a “planning obligation”

payment towards sustainable transport infrastructure, including enhanced pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre. However a completed planning obligation had not been deposited with the council.
9) Concerns that proposed landscaping fell outside the application site and as such could not be guaranteed.