A £7 million 200-job investment retail and restaurant plan for the outskirts of Ross-on-Wye was under threat this week.
The boss behind a 25,000 sq ft development of new offices to serve entrepreneurs and start-up businesses on the same site may take his plans elsewhere, the Journal can reveal.
Councillors at next Wednesday’s, January 24, meeting of the southern area planning sub committee will be asked to refuse planning permission to site national companies Carpetright, Pets at Home, Halfords and McDonald’s at Overross, alongside the A449 trunk road near Ross.
The plan to build new office units on the site will not be considered at next week’s hearing, but details will be lodged with planning officers on Friday for consideration at a future meeting.
John Berry, chief executive of Monmouth-based Office Space Ltd, the specialist company behind the proposed new offices, told the Journal yesterday: “We have a proven track record in providing serviced office units for new and existing small and medium-sized businesses wanting to start-up or expand at their own rate.
“This is a gateway site linked to the prosperity of the Midlands, Wales and the West Country, and would provide some 200 new jobs for the area. I am astonished that the council’s planning officers have suggested the proposals should be refused.
“We have bent over backwards to meet the design requirements in earlier discussions with officers, and will re-submit plans on Friday.
“But I have asked our architects to look outside Herefordshire for sites other than at Ross, and Gloucester – which has a thriving business economy – is a possibility,” he said.
Meanwhile, applicants state that the proposed package “completes development of the land which has remained undeveloped for many years”, and would “provide a major stimulus to the economy of Ross”, within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
“Part of the site was formerly the Ross Spur Services and had a generally untidy appearance with poorly maintained buildings and structures and large areas of hard standing with no significant landscaping.
“This development completes the visual improvements started in 2004 by Ross Labels,” they say.
A retail study showed the development was of an appropriate scale for Ross and would not have an adverse impact on the town centre, where the vacancy rate was well below the national average with good units difficult to come by.
“The site has been marketed for a number of years without any interest and there is unlikely to be any alternative job creation on the site. Jobs will be created only if planning permission is granted,” say applicants.
Three letters objecting to the scheme say it is against current plans on a greenfield site, there are existing premises available, it will be detrimental to Ross traders in a town centre not in a “buoyant mood”, and could result in business closures.
They also claim the proposed development would cause traffic problems, and that McDonalds “would constitute huge health and safety risks in relation to the school”.
An officer’s appraisal says that while small scale developments are acceptable in an AONB the proposal was for “sizeable buildings”, but would have “limited adverse impact” and “is not sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission”.
A council survey said existing shops selling bulky goods “is reasonable for a town the size of Ross, with key sectors represented and with recent investment in new carpet and furniture stores.
The out-of-town retail units could divert some in-town investors, and the survey questioned the number of spin-off trips made by shoppers to the Overross site.
“It is concluded that there would be a small, but significant negative impact on the town centre,” it says.
Access to the site would mainly be by car, conflicting with the council’s sustainable development policies.
Officers recommend refusal on the grounds that the development would have “an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Ross town centre”, “not readily accessible from the town by cycle or on foot with a limited bus service” and “involve the loss of proposed employment land to retail development”.
Back to TOP