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 approve with conditions

 

1.    Five years. 

2.    In accordance with submitted plans.

3.    Use to be ancillary to the main garden centre.

4.    Additional car parking area to be completed before the building is used. 

5.    All internal and external signs to be in Welsh only or bilingual with a priority given to the Welsh language.

6.    Biodiversity conditions (light, biodiversity enhancements).

7.    Landscaping.

8.    Land drainage plans to be agreed.

9.    Restricted to the sales of comparison goods only, no sale of convenient goods (food).

 

Application 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 

 

The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee in July in order to undertake a site visit.

 

Some of the Members had visited the site on 02/09/22 in order to familiarise themselves with the layout and context of the proposal within the local environment. 

 

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 Local Member made the following points:

·         That he was supportive of the application and disagreed with the grounds for refusal.

·         Biodiversity elements - confident that it would be possible to proceed without having an impact on the ancient trees and mature hedges. Protecting these would be advantageous in terms of attracting people to a wonderful and natural location.

·         That the development is substantial but the site is not open. It is not visible until it is reached. The proposed building does not meet the threshold for a 'large building'

·         The proposal is not subsidiary to the existing business - it cannot be attached to the main building but it 'fits' into the site - provides and rationalises order and site safety for users: Is integrated to the business and it is not independent in any way.

·         Loss of agricultural land - the site owners own the land and it is not used as agricultural land at present and there is no intention to do so in the future - it is not high-quality agricultural land.

·         A local employer and a significant employer.

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

·         That the business deserves support from the Local Authority and not obstructions.

 

c)            It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

ch)       In response to the proposal, the Assistant Head of Planning and Environment Department noted that the relevant policies prevented large-scale developments in the countryside and that the policy was not unique to this development. He suggested that Members should consider a condition that the use was ancillary use to the main building (subservient) and an additional condition to prevent any sales from the development.

 

d)            During the ensuing discussion members made the following observations:

·         That the extension was not large, considering what was on the site already.

·         That there was no intention to use the land for agricultural use.

·         That it did not create a detrimental impact on the appearance of the countryside - the location was hidden.

·         It created good jobs for local people. The Welsh language was 'alive' there.

·         Disappointment at the lack of response from the Economy Department.

·         That the Community Council and Gwynedd Council's Transportation Unit supported the proposal and Natural Resources Wales had not submitted observations.

·         That the site was a popular attraction, was neat, tidy and was a good employer.

·         That garden centres were popular - were good for the body and mind. The business was growing and expanding in line with the breadth of interest in the field.

·         Provided support for a sustainable future - a future where we will be encouraged to grow our own food.

·         That the extension was a natural step. The plan retained the shape of the land and protected the surrounding land.

·         Supported the proposed conditions.

 

In response to a comment regarding the propriety of the conditions and whether a second consultation should be held with the applicant and the Local Member, the Head of Legal Services noted that the Committee, despite the fact that it was going against the recommendation, had the right to draw up and impose conditions. He noted that if the applicant was unhappy with the conditions, then he had the right to appeal.

 

The Planning Manager highlighted the relevant conditions, and noted that the conditions reduced the risks of acting contrary to policy. The Head of Legal Services confirmed that there was nothing improper in what was being conditioned, and in accordance with the advice offered that the conditions supported the decision; it was the Committee's responsibility to make a decision.

 

RESOLVED: To approve with conditions

 

1.            Five years. 

2.            In accordance with submitted plans.

3.            Use to be ancillary to the main garden centre.

4.            Additional car parking area to be completed before the building is used. 

5.            All internal and external signs to be in Welsh only or bilingual with a priority given to the Welsh language.

6.            Biodiversity conditions (light, biodiversity enhancements.

7.            Landscaping.

8.            Land drainage plans to be agreed.

9.            Restricted to the sales of comparison goods only, no sale of convenient goods (food)