PLANS for round-the-clock opening at a Worcester supermarket have suffered a setback after councillors have shown reluctance to back the scheme.

Tesco has applied for a 12-month trial at its St Peter's store - opening continuously from 8am on a Monday to 10pm on Saturday.

"This is not the first time Tesco has put in an application for 24-hour store opening," said the city council's principal planning officer Peter Yates.

"Last year, when they saw the level of local opposition and the parish council, they withdrew."

Mr Yates said the refrigeration unit ran for 24 hours already.

"The Warndon branch already opens 24 hours and, on average, they have 18 customers per hour during the early hours between midnight and 7pm," he said.

David Lloyd, a resident from Bullfinch Close, spoke at the planning committee meeting, objecting to the scheme on behalf of local residents.

He said they could not understand why there was a need for 24-hour opening when the store was already open 87-and-a-half hours a week and there were other 24-hour garages nearby.

"I am a shift worker but I find it very easy and convenient to shop in the 87-and-a-half hours a week," Mr Lloyd said.

Residents were also concerned the effect cars driving in the area late at night would have with extra car noise, loud music from cars, and slamming doors, he said.

"Only last week, it was a warm night, but I had to get up to close the window at 1am because of traffic noise," said Mr Lloyd.

"They say 'every little helps'. It helps Tesco but it does not help anyone else."

Councillor Geoff Williams said if the trial went ahead and residents' reasons for objecting were proved right, then they would have a much more robust argument that would stand up on appeal.

"If you buy a house near a supermarket or a football pitch or garage you should expect a certain amount of noise," said Councillor Jo Hodges.

Councillor Paul Denham said residents would "get used to" the level of traffic.

Councillor Mike Layland said Tesco was motivated by "greed", and other councillors objected to the plans to maintain the environment of the area and prevent the loss of a residential amenity.

Councillors voted to be minded to refuse the application by six votes to four.