Lidl wants a 2,184 sq m store and 127 parking spaces on protected open space off Thanet Way. Its own figures say Aldi loses most, not the town centre.
Ninety-one people have objected to Lidl’s plan for a supermarket on Thanet Way in Whitstable, against 13 in support. Canterbury City Council’s own comment counter puts the total at 109 comments from 103 consultees.
The council has until Tuesday 20 October to decide it.
The application is CA/26/01236, for land north of Millstrood Road and west of Thanet Way, in Gorrell ward. It was validated on 21 July 2026. The applicant is recorded on the register as “Lidi GB Limited”, a misspelling on the council’s own system: every submitted document is Lidl’s, and the agent is Rapleys LLP.
What Lidl wants to build
The covering letter submitted with the scheme sets out the store in plain numbers:
- a discount foodstore of 2,184 sq m gross internal area
- 1,529 sq m of net sales area, of which about 1,223 sq m is food and 306 sq m non-food
- 127 car parking spaces, including 6 disabled bays, 9 parent-and-child bays and 2 electric vehicle charging spaces
- access taken from Thanet Way, shared with the consented care home next door
- opening 8am to 10pm Monday to Saturday, including bank holidays, and 10am to 4pm on Sunday
- roughly two deliveries a day, with waste stored inside the warehouse
The site runs to about 1.1 hectares, or 10,885 sq m. Lidl’s planning and retail statement says the store would employ “around 40 staff”, described elsewhere in the same document as up to 40 full-time equivalent jobs.
The council has already cleared one hurdle
A separate request, CA/26/01204, asked the council to decide whether the scheme needed a full Environmental Impact Assessment. Because the site is marginally over the one-hectare threshold for an urban development project, it had to be screened.
The council issued its screening opinion on 17 August. The council decided it did not. Its letter says the proposals “are not considered to have significant environmental effects and, as such, do not constitute an EIA development”.
The letter accepts the store would alter the setting of the Grade II listed Little Millstrood. It says a Heritage Impact Assessment at application stage is enough to judge that.
That decision does not grant anything. It only removes the requirement for an Environmental Statement.
Lidl’s own figures on who loses trade
The objection from ward councillors is that an out-of-town supermarket drains the town centre. Lidl’s retail impact assessment answers that directly, and its answer is more specific than either side’s rhetoric.
On the applicant’s own numbers, the store would divert £11.47m of trade in 2026. The heaviest hits land on other out-of-town food stores, not the High Street:
| Store or centre | Trade diverted, 2026 | Share of its turnover |
|---|---|---|
| Aldi, Prospect Retail Park | £4.29m | 26.42% |
| Lidl, Thanet Way, Herne Bay | £2.44m | 20.90% |
| Tesco Express, Tankerton Road | £0.20m | 8.29% |
| Iceland, High Street | £0.10m | 5.61% |
| Sainsbury’s, Reeves Way | £1.05m | 4.36% |
| Tesco Extra, Millstrood Road | £1.26m | 2.64% |
| Whitstable District Centre, all stores | £0.47m | 1.20% |
The single biggest casualty on Lidl’s own arithmetic is Aldi, followed by Lidl’s own store at Greenhill in Herne Bay. Whitstable District Centre, which the retail statement puts about 1.6km from the site, loses 1.2 per cent of its trade.
Those are the applicant’s forecasts, produced by its own consultants. The council is not obliged to accept them.
Where the objections actually land
Two organised objections and one from ward councillors are on the file.
Ward councillors Clare Turnbull and Stuart Heaver filed a joint objection on 20 August. They call the scheme “a large and unnecessary retail unit on a totally inappropriate site that is officially designated as a protected open space and wildlife and biodiversity habitat (site ref: SLAA059)”.
They also argue there is “simply no need for additional out of town supermarkets which are largely dependent on car access and drain commerce and footfall from independent businesses in the town centre”.
The Whitstable Society objected on two grounds: highway safety and the loss of protected open space. Its highway case is unusually concrete. The Society counted traffic at Lidl’s existing Greenhill store on Thanet Way, which it says is only 2.8 per cent larger than the one proposed:
- Lidl’s highest forecast for the new store is 152 arrivals and 165 departures an hour, on a Saturday lunchtime
- the Society counted 227 arrivals and 230 departures at Greenhill between 11am and noon on Saturday 8 August 2026
It also objects to the proposed right turn out of the site onto the 40mph A2990, which the Greenhill store does not permit. It cites three crashes in three years at the nearby Foxgrove Road junction, two of them serious, on 21 November 2022, 5 August 2023 and 27 July 2024. The path alongside Thanet Way is National Cycle Route 1, and the Society says it is below standard width and would need widening to three metres.
On the land itself, the Society says the site is protected under Policy OS9 of the adopted Canterbury District Local Plan 2017. It argues the permission for the adjoining care home sets no precedent. That Inspector granted it on the strength of a demonstrated need for specialist care accommodation, which the Society says does not apply here.
The Thanet Way Residents Association also objected, on 21 August.
What the statutory consultees say
Neither of the two most important technical responses is a green light.
KCC Highways and Transportation replied on 11 August asking for more work before it can conclude. Its specific points:
- the Transport Assessment’s conclusion that nearby junctions are unaffected rests on assumptions about trips transferring from existing Lidl and Aldi stores, and those assumptions need evidence and sensitivity testing
- the assumption that 30 per cent of trips are pass-by traffic and 20 per cent transfer from Tesco needs further justification
- the existing footbridge over Thanet Way “is not compliant with current accessibility standards and cannot reasonably be relied upon”
- the footway along the site frontage and the new footway opposite should both be at least 3.0 metres wide, as shared pedestrian and cycle facilities
- the proposals “do not meet KCC parking standards”, and evidence is required to justify the reduction
- typically four goods vehicle spaces would be required at this scale
- a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is needed for the proposed controlled crossing
The council’s own environmental health noise officer, replying on 20 August, accepted the headline findings: plant noise is acceptable with mitigation, and deliveries are acceptable if restricted to 07:00 to 23:00. But the officer listed seven pieces of missing information. Two of them concern the car park: there is no noise assessment for it at all, and homes sit immediately to the south west of the proposed parking area. If the car park is to be used at night, the officer wants an LAmax assessment for sleep disturbance.
What it means for you
The determination deadline is 20 October 2026. The formal consultation period expired on 21 August, but the register was still logging public comments on 24 August, so it is worth submitting through the application page rather than assuming the door has shut.
If it is approved and built, three things change for Whitstable:
- another large food store on the Thanet Way corridor
- a new controlled pedestrian crossing on that road
- a right-turn exit onto a 40mph carriageway, which the Whitstable Society calls the scheme’s weakest point
If KCC Highways maintains its position, amended plans will have to come back before any of that is settled.
You can track the case, read every document and comment on it through the council’s planning register. Our guide to how Canterbury planning applications work explains the stages and the deadlines.
Sources
- Canterbury City Council planning register, CA/26/01236: application details, dates, comment counts and documents
- Canterbury City Council planning register, CA/26/01204: EIA screening opinion, decided 17 August 2026
- Rapleys LLP, EIA screening covering letter and Planning and Retail Statement, submitted with CA/26/01236
- The Whitstable Society, objection dated 20 August 2026, on the CA/26/01236 file
- Cllr Stuart Heaver, objection on behalf of ward councillors dated 20 August 2026, on the CA/26/01236 file
- KCC Highways and Transportation consultee response dated 11 August 2026, and Canterbury City Council environmental health noise response dated 20 August 2026, both on the CA/26/01236 file
Have your say