THE public planning inquiry into the Leale’s Yard outline planning brief is too site-specific and weighted in favour of the Co-op. Oscar Holdings, a subsidiary of ComProp, believes that land it owns to the north of the Co-op’s should be included in the main development site.

ComProp’s advocate, Ian Beattie, said the mixed-use redevelopment area was too centred on land owned by the Co-op.

‘From my client’s point of view, the Mura is a disappointment,’ he said.

The planning brief was ambiguous and ComProp was seeking assurance that the Co-op would not be allowed to develop its site in a manner that would compromise his client’s land in future.

This was nothing to do with the aspirations of ComProp, but the site as a whole, said Advocate Beattie. Omitting ComProp’s land from the main development site would effectively sterilise it.

It seemed absurd, he said, that if the Co-op’s proposals were approved, there would be two petrol filling stations on a Mura of that size.

‘It seems to be a them-and-us situation.’

Advocate Beattie asked for clarification on the mandate of planning inspector Keith Durrant. Was it to consider the whole Mura or was this a site-specific application?

Mr Durrant said it was the former.

Advocate Beattie said there seemed to be complete segregation between the Co-op’s land and that of everyone else and there was a clear intention by the Island Development Committee to protect industrial accommodation. ComProp’s land was currently in multi-purpose use with retail, wholesale and leisure facilities.

The Co-op, ComProp and Falles Holdings owned practically the whole of the Mura site, he said.

Island Development Committee forward planning officer Damon Hackley said the committee had consulted all landowners of surrounding property while preparing the brief, including ComProp. None had shown an interest in immediate development.

‘The committee would be pleased to enter into talks with Oscar Holdings [ComProp] over its long- and short-term aspirations for the site,’ he said.

Co-op chief executive Allan Smith said the outline brief had been a long time in coming and Oscar had had a long time to communicate.

Mr Hackley said it was not the brief’s intention to alienate the main site from the other parts of the area.

‘But the nature of the area does change between the Vale Garage and the Bridge and we feel it would be inappropriate to support retail development throughout the area,’ he said.

One of the illustrations in the outline planning brief showed a road running from the main development site, linking it with Braye Road.

Advocate Beattie said this should not be taken as read.

‘The existing road has a number of owners and I don’t want you to assume that it’s a given thing.’

Mr Hackley said the outline planning brief was not a blueprint for development; it was a very early suggestion of what might be achieved. But the committee had no intention of putting a main road through the redevelopment site at the risk of creating a ‘rat run’.

The development of a Mura was very dependent on individual landowners, he said. Both the Glategny and Bouet Muras had come to fruition only when the land was assembled by private agreements.

He said the area behind the Bridge was an obvious place to create a linked and integrated extension to the Bridge.

‘On a practical note, Oscar Holdings’ site is already densely developed with very little parking and servicing space, which would need to be addressed in any redevelopment scheme,’ he said.