A DECISION over plans for a new supermarket in Minehead has been delayed after an 11th hour intervention by Williton businessman and potential rival David Gliddon.

Discount store Lidl's scheme for a 1,407-square metre development on land off Seaward Way had been recommended for approval at West Somerset Council's planning committee last Thursday.

But councillors were warned they could face a judicial review if they did not defer the application for a month.

The authority's legal advisor Martin Evans told the meeting that a letter from solicitors representing Mr Gliddon – who has drawn up plans for a supermarket and retail development on land in Bank Street, Williton - had been received the previous day.

It raised two issues – a claim that the report and recommendation by planning officer John Burton could not be accessed and that an independent retail assessment commissioned by the council had not been made available to Mr Gliddon or other members of the public.

Mr Evans said the claim about the officer's report was untrue as it was available online on the council's website.

But he said the retail assessment, which Mr Burton had made reference to and relied on for a fundamental part of his considerations, had not been made available.

Mr Evans said it was considered that both Mr Gliddon and other members of the public should be afforded the opportunity to see the assessment and that the application should be deferred until the May committee meeting.

"If you proceed and determine it, there is a significant risk that the decision could be challenged at judicial review.

"There is a risk to both the council and the applicant. Frustrating though it is, given that the letter [from the solicitors] was only received yesterday I think it should be deferred for one cycle."

Planning manager Bryn Kitching said as Mr Burton's report relied heavily on the independent retail assessment, it would go against natural justice not to allow people sight of it.

He said the document had been uploaded onto the council's website but 24 hours – from receipt of the letter on behalf of Mr Gliddon and the planning meeting – was not considered sufficient time for it to be scrutinised.

However, James Mitchell, head of property for Lidl in the South West, told councillors the company felt "massive frustration" at the situation.

He questioned whether it was a deliberately delaying tactic and appealed to councillors to determine the application in principle, giving officers delegated authority to make the final decision.

Mr Mitchell said the current problem was neither Lidl's fault nor the company's responsibility.

"We remain hugely committed and excited at the prospect of coming to Minehead but we are now facing a month's delay and it is very frustrating."

Committee chairman Cllr Tony Knight, who is standing down form the council at the forthcoming elections, said it was the last thing anyone would want to happen but councillors had been given legal advice and he did not want to leave the authority with a problem.

But Cllr Eddie May described the letter from the solicitors as a ploy to get the application deferred.

And Cllr Anthony Trollope-Bellew said he had no doubt that the intervention had been made so close to the meeting "to put a spanner in the works".

But, he added: "If it does go to judicial review the process will be held up even longer and Lidl would face even more disruption.

"And as the land was owned previously by the council, we have to be whiter than white."

Several councillors suggested the application should be debated and determined in principle, leaving officers to make the final decision and take account of any comments from Mr Gliddon or others on the retail assessment.

But Mr Evans said he could not recommend councillors followed that route.

"If it was not such a fundamental part of the officer's report – but a delegated decision on something as critical as a retail assessment, I could not recommend.

"The officer's report is relying on a report that no-one else, other than the applicant and our officers have seen.

"For the sake of one committee cycle and to avoid the risk of judicial challenge, it would be sensible to defer."

Councillors voted to defer the application until May.