Agenda item

Erection of a dry goods store (for garden furniture) with adjacent retail area to display furniture, formation of improved storage yard and extension to customer car park

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Cai Larsen

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To defer in order to conduct a site visit

DApplication to erect a building to store garden furniture together with erecting an adjacent building to exhibit and sell furniture, open storage area and extension to existing customer car park 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form.

a)                  The Planning Manager highlighted that this was a full application to extend Fron Goch garden centre by constructing a building to store garden furniture as well as nearby space to display and sell furniture, open storage area. The building would measure 46.2 metres long (at the longest point), 22.7m wide and 7.8m to the highest part of the roof a total of 977 square metres.  It is also intended to extend the existing customer car parking area, as well as create a 1452m2 storage area, located between the proposed building and the new south-western boundary of the site.

As retail use already existed on the site, it was suggested that the principle of the proposal should be considered against Policy MAN6 (Retail in the countryside). In accordance with policy MAN6, proposals for small-scale shops and extensions to existing shops outside the development boundary will be permitted, as long as the proposal complies with the criteria included in the policy. The first criterion requires the proposal to be a subservient element of the existing business on the site.  The explanation to Policy MAN 6 states that the most suitable location for shops is within the boundaries of the settlements of towns and villages. However, small scale shops run jointly with a business that already exists on the site is likely to provide a useful service and employment for rural communities.

Having weighed up the proposal in the context of the relevant policies, it was not considered that the proposal was acceptable to approve since the location, density and increase in size was unreasonable, and the proposal would have a substantial negative impact on the character of the area, which is contrary to many policies. In addition, it is unclear if the impact on biodiversity and the natural environment is acceptable and it was not considered that there was justification for the loss of agricultural land deriving from the proposal.

After giving full consideration to all material planning matters, it was not considered that the proposal met planning policy objectives.

b)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant noted the following observations:

·         That there was no responsibility to fell trees - trees suffering from ash dieback would be the only ones to be felled, with the intention to plant and grow more.

·         The proposal would respond to Health and Safety matters: Heavy goods - fewer supplies, but larger loads and therefore a need to make more storage space for them and create additional car parks for customers.

·         That there was no room in the centre for storage, and it was not possible to locate a storage area closer to the main building - it should not be considered as a separate business

·         The business was established in 1981 - had prioritised countryside aspects

·         The business now employs 102 employees: ensuring environmental and community balance - carrying out work locally with schools, local councils and supporting local projects.

c)            Taking advantage of the right to speak, the Local Member made the following points:

·         He was supportive of the application.

·         That the business was native and quality - was managed responsibly, tastefully and was popular both locally and nationally

·         That there was a need to extend to compete with large shops

·         A local employer and a significant employer. Need to consider the economic benefit

·         That the Welsh language can be heard and was visible on the site

·         Confident that the applicant would respond to the requirements to protect native tree species

·         That there was a substantial development on the site already - unable to accept that a new building would have an impact on the countryside and the amenities of nearby residents

·         In terms of the technical threshold - major development - in a village maybe, but this was in the countryside

·         An additional parking space was needed to rationalise with the health and safety requirements

·         Loss of agricultural land - comment that the site owners own this land, and that it is not used as agricultural land

·         Propose to approve to develop the site in a responsible manner for local use

·         Support needed for businesses and not barriers

ch) It was proposed and seconded to conduct a site visit 

RESOLVED: To conduct a site visit