THE decision to veto plans for a Sainsbury's superstore in the heart of St John's is the best news the self-styled 'village in the city' has had since Old Labour's plans to wipe out Cripplegate Park imploded.

Councillor David Bannister's view that it would be "fanciful" to imagine supermarket customers visiting independent traders is spot on.

It would be a U-turn of rare proportions if last night's technical services vote were reversed when the full city council meets next month.

If that happens, it will leave councillors considering the applications for Asda and Safeway stores, both on prime sites, the first across the river at St Clement's Gate, the second on the tatty, overgrown fruit market land in Hylton Road.

Last August, it was music to our ears to hear technical services committee members being advised that Asda's plan was "open to question", and had nothing to offer Worcester which could justify the damage it would do to trade in St John's.

We've never found a saving grace in that plan. What's the point in pushing park-and-ride to free the city centre if we build a riverside car park?

The same adviser, however, cast doubt on how much trade would spin from Hylton Road to St John's.

That was less than encouraging. For a long time, we've believed that St Clement's Gate should be leisure-orientated - heaven knows, a city like Worcester cries out for such a complex - and accept that, of the three proposals, Safeway should prevail.

But we can't dispute the fact that the argument which helped carry the case against Sainsbury's should hold as much sway over Safeway too.

The same thinking can be applied to Tesco's hopes of knocking Christopher Whitehead High School down and putting a superstore in its place.

So, four proposals and four rejections? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and it wouldn't be a disaster if it happened.