THE Government has thrown out an appeal by retail giants B&M who controversially wanted to build a budget superstore at the gateway to Cockermouth.

The shock decision puts an end to a long-running David and Goliath struggle which has already seen Allerdale Council reject the scheme twice, only for the supermarket heavyweights to step up their fight back.

Council officers had recommended approval, but the authority’s planning panel disagreed amid claims the development, earmarked for land next to Lakes Homecentre on Low Road, would spoil the area’s character and lead to a loss of precious employment land.

Opus Land North, agents for B&M, had fielded an eight-strong team made up of a barrister, surveyors, as well as drainage, landscape and heritage experts in a bid to overturn the council’s earlier decision.

But the inspector was not persuaded and ruled that the planning panel’s decision had been reasonable.

He also dismissed an appeal to award costs against the council following claims it had not given adequate reasons for rejecting the scheme in the first place.

The victory will delight campaigners from Cockermouth Civic Trust, Chamber of Trade and Cockermouth Vision, all of whom bitterly opposed to the scheme’s out-of-town location– though there was also strong support for it from some quarters.

Planning inspector Graeme Robbie said that the superstore would have a “dominant, harmful and damaging prominence” wholly at odds with the entrance to the Georgian gem town.

He said that the trees were part of the parkland setting of the nearby Grade II-listed Fitz and that their “wholesale removal” would be “starkly felt”.

Mr Robbie said the trees that would have been felled to make way for the superstore created a “pleasant” approach to the town.

He also ruled that the planting proposed as part of the scheme “would fall some way short” of making up for what is there now.

“I am not persuaded that the proposed landscaping scheme would be sufficiently robust or extensive to adequately mitigate the loss of the wooded area,” he added. He accepted ruling that there were public benefits to the scheme, including increased consumer choice but said this did not outweigh the harm from the development.

Opus Land North’s appeal for “full and partial awards of costs” against Allerdale council was also dismissed.

The agents had claimed that the council had relied on “vague, generalised and inaccurate assertions” about the effect of the scheme.

The inspector admitted that, while he did not share the council’s concerns about the effect of the proposal on employment in the town,  their conclusions had not been unreasonable.

He was also satisfied that the council had indeed demonstrated why the proposal was “unacceptable” even though the planning panel had gone against their own officers’ advice. “Councils are not duty-bound to follow the recommendations of their professional officers,” he said.

Objectors had previously told him at public hearing that the budget superstore would kill off independent trade and “destroy” what makes the Georgian market town “unique”.

B&M and Opus Land North have both been approached for comment.