German foodstore operators Aldi and Lidl, whose arrival in Ireland is imminent, must be greatly encouraged by the proposed planning guidelines for new stores and by the reported welcome given to them by RGDATA. The cap is to remain at 3,000 sq metres and in Dublin it will be slightly higher at 3,500 sq metres.

Aldi and Lidl's 1,000 to 1,500 sq m foodstores are usually located in town centre and edge of town centre locations which have good public, pedestrian and car access. They will be keenly awaiting the publication of the various local authorities' "retail strategies" and expecting four third party appeals related to the principle (as distinct from the detail) of their proposals.

Press comment last week highlighted the draft Retail Planning Guidelines as not being good news for Tesco. There is also an opposite view. Few companies, having made £600m-plus acquisitions to secure a dominant market share, have found a Government rowing in behind them with legislation that deters their traditional competitors from entering the same market.

It was widely reported at the time of the introduction of the Policy Directive and Regulations restricting the size of supermarkets, that this directive would be a barrier to the entry of Tesco's traditional rivals, Sainsbury and Safeway.

Friday's Financial Times reported that John Bridgeman, the UK Director General of Fair Trading, has referred the £60bn per annum grocery retailing sector to the Competition Commission for investigation. He said "I believe that there are now significant barriers to new competitors . . . sites for new stores are dwindling . . . planning delays, site development delays add to the problems and give the existing stores an advantage."

That directive imposed a limitation of 3,000 sq m on the retail floor space of such stores. It must therefore be seen as good news for the existing supermarket chains in the Dublin area that the Minister proposes to increase this limitation by about 500 sq m which on a "gross area" basis (i.e., including stores, staff accommodation, administration) should equate to stores of some 5,250 sq m which may well be an acceptable and viable foodstore size.

It is not clear why the urban areas outside Dublin are being discriminated against by having the cap retained at 3,000 sq m but presumably this is related to the lower population densities in those locations. In the urban areas of Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford it is difficult to see any good reason why the consumer should not have the entitlement to an equal product range.

In the apparel market over the last three to four years, following the introduction of new retailers, competition has contributed significantly to a slowdown in inflation. Controls in the food sector which impede the ingress of new competitors seem to fly in the face of this trend.

The Retail Development Guidelines broadly follow the principles of the UK's PPG6 precedent and are certainly admirable in their aspiration of focusing retail development on existing town centres.

There is clear acknowledgement that there is a need and justification for further shopping development. Practical experience has shown that there are few significant town centre sites available capable of meeting the needs of incoming retailers. This is classically illustrated in Cork city, where numerous multiple retailers and potential anchor store occupiers have tried for years to identify acceptable town centre sites capable of accommodating stores of the size which they require to be viable.

In such circumstances, a sequential test of suitability is to be applied by the planning authority on the principle that the site for which permission should be granted should be the most suitable site within the town centre environs or, in the absence of that, the nearest suitable site on the edge of town.

However, with freehold properties very tightly held in Ireland, and in the absence of the local authorities taking a pro-active role (as traditionally happens in the UK) by the use of compulsory purchase powers to assemble town centre sites for retail development, it will be a rare occasion that a site of suitable size and configuration will be available when the sequential tests are applied.

The summary guidelines recognise that in the absence of such sites, retail development may have to be permitted in out-of-centre locations with good pedestrian and private and public transport access.

Ironically there is quite often a direct conflict between these combined requirements and the proximity of national roads and motorways.