Agenda item

Roadside services and associated works

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor Menna Trenholme and Councillor Cai Larsen

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

DECISION: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

 

Reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not fully align with the sustainability principles - in accordance with policy PS6.

2.     The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the area's amenities and those of nearby residents - contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2.

3.     The proposal would have a detrimental visual impact - contrary to policy PCYFF 3.

4.     The proposal does not sufficiently mitigate the impact in terms of biodiversity or biodiversity enhancements - contrary to the requirements of policy PS19.

 

 

 

Roadside services and associated work.

 

Some Committee Members had visited the site on 8 July 2026.

 

a)     The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that this was a full application for a service station which would provide fuel to vehicles, including an associated shop for a site near the Meifod roundabout. It was explained that the site had been located directly adjacent to the A487 strategic road network and access to the site would be from the roundabout on Pwllheli Road. It was elaborated that the site was outside the development boundary as noted in the LDP; although the site was not located within any other land designations, it was within the Afon Gwyrfai Special Area of Conservation consultation zone on the basis of Phosphorus impact and approximately 300m away from a Wildlife Site.

 

It was considered that the development would not impede the movement of strategic traffic and confirmation was received that the entrance was safe in terms of highway safety. In addition, the shop located within the same building as the till area for fuel would be an ancillary element to the primary purpose of providing fuel and breaks from travelling, and therefore it was not considered that the shop would likely undermine the retail provision of nearby centres; it complied with Policy TRA 1 of the LDP.

 

It was elaborated that there was a clear functional and locational rationale for the proposed site, and there were no sites that were more appropriate within the development boundaries. It was considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle under the requirements of Policy PCYFF 1 - the site offered a suitable location within the landscape to provide the development, restricting its visual impact and respecting the landscape and the local environment; consequently, it complied with the relevant requirements of policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 of the LDP.

 

It was not expected for the proposal to significantly add to the existing disruption or disrupt residential amenities to an unacceptable extent, subject to relevant conditions. To this end, it was considered that the development complied with policies PCYFF 2 and 3 of the LDP as a result of residential and general amenities.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, the Transportation Unit had no concerns in terms of traffic levels in and out of the site, nor in terms of the internal arrangements.  It was reiterated that the Government's Trunk Roads Unit was also satisfied with the proposal. It was reported that the conditions would be imposed to ensure that the surface water was appropriately managed and to protect the car share provision.

 

In the context of biodiversity matters, it was noted that the proposed site was located within the consultation zone of the Afon Gwyrfai Special Area of Conservation on the basis of Phosphorus impact, and in particular because there was an intention to connect to the main sewer (the Waste Treatment Site serving the area was the Llanfaglan site which discharged into Afon Gwyrfai). It was reiterated that information had been submitted as part of the application confirming that there was an intention to connect to the Caernarfon Waste Treatment Site instead of Llanfaglan, and Welsh Water's comments confirmed that this was acceptable, subject to connecting to a specific point which would need to be ensured by a planning condition.

 

The site was located approximately 4.5km away from the immediate parts of the Glynllifon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The information submitted as part of the application was considered, as were NRW's comments which suggested that the Lighting Impact Assessment and the Biodiversity Enhancement and Soft Landscaping Plan provided sufficient grounds to consider the potential impacts of the plan on the lesser horseshoe bat species as a feature of the SAC.

 

In terms of improving biodiversity, the development provided a wide range of measures to create new habitats and to increase ecological variety on the site. Overall, the plan went beyond mitigating impact, providing a net improvement to biodiversity by increasing the size and quality of habitats on the site compared with the existing condition. It was acknowledged that there would be an initial impact on biodiversity as a result of the development, particularly during the construction phase, but given the nature and size of the biodiversity enhancements proposed which included the creation of new habitats, planting native trees and hedges, providing specific features for wildlife, it was considered that the development would lead to net improvement to biodiversity in the long term.

 

It was explained that the proposed site was grade 3b agricultural land, and therefore it was not considered to be the best and most versatile agricultural land. It was considered that it would be acceptable to use the site for the development and it therefore complied with the requirements of criterion 6 of Policy PS6 of the LDP.

 

Reference was made to further observations that the agent had provided on the principle matters of the application, a public consultation, the need for the development, ecology, agricultural land and documents that they had not recorded which meant that some conditions proposed had received attention. However, the observations did not change the content of the report - all the documents submitted had received attention and the responses to the consultation confirmed that some of the documents would need to be amended which would be ensured through planning conditions.

 

It was considered that all the valid planning matters raised during the public consultations had been fully considered with the development complying with the relevant policies, specifically Policy TRA 1 which related to the principle of the proposal - the policy did not require a specific need for the development, but instead that it ensured that it focused on fulfilling the needs of drivers. It can be concluded that the proposal for the fuel station development and the associated work was acceptable, as it did not lead to an unacceptable impact on the area or its environment. Given the mitigation measures and the appropriate control through planning conditions, it can be ensured that there would not be a negative impact as a result of the proposal. The Planning Officers recommended to approve the development with appropriate conditions.

 

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

·        The decision must be made based on evidence, the LDP and advice from professional officers and not on the grounds of the commercial interests of competitive applicants who were unable to submit a high-quality complete application

·        That Policy TRA 1 supported roadside service developments that were located on the A487 - the purpose was to serve vehicles that already used the A487 - the Government had stated an immense need for roadside services like this

·        In terms of traffic, the Transportation Unit and the Welsh Government fully supported the development - a detailed transport assessment confirmed that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the roads

·        Despite respecting local concerns, the development would be a proposal to serve existing traffic

·        That every request for additional information from consultants had received a response from experts - it was a shame that the responses had not been reflected in the report

·        A host of assessments had been submitted on ecology, bats, birds, reptiles, air quality, lighting, drainage, etc. - the plan provided a significant net improvement to biodiversity, and it went beyond the requirements of Planning Policy Wales

·        The plan had significantly evolved since the start - it had now been halved in terms of size, and the retail element had been reduced - the shop was an ancillary element to the roadside service and not an independent retail unit

·        It provided 11 car charging points of the best standard

·        Connection with the grid had been approved by SPN Energy

·        There would be bilingual signs promoting the Welsh language on the site - a leading and important development for north Wales

·        Over 100 people had attended the public meeting; 850 letters were distributed and after the plan was fully explained, approximately 10 letters of objections had been received from the public

·        The proposal had been developed carefully; it fully complied with planning policies; it provided important transport infrastructure to the area and north Wales; it improved biodiversity and brought economic advantages

·        The Policy supported the use. The development had been carefully planned in the landscape. There were no technical objections. It proposed a clear improvement to biodiversity and the development brought genuine benefits to the area

·        A request for the Committee to follow the recommendation of the Officers and approve the application

 

c)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member, Councillor Menna Trenholme, made the following observations:

 

·        She wished to object to the application and encouraged the Committee to refuse it.

·        She questioned whether the development, in this location, complied with the LDP and the relevant planning policies.  In her opinion, it did not do this.

·        The site was located outside of the development boundary, in open countryside; Policy PCYFF 1 set clear presumptions against such development unless there was strong justification. She did not believe that the applicant had proved that need. Therefore, she asked a fundamental question, was this truly the most appropriate location for such a development?

·        If the applicant tried to rely on Policy TRA 1 - Transport Network Developments, the policy imposed clear conditions - it demanded that the areas of the roadside service had the least possible impact on natural environment and landscape, that it did not impede the movement of strategic traffic and did not undermine retail provisions in existing centres. She did not believe that it satisfied that criteria.

·        Would a development of this nature be more suitable on a brownfield site or land that had already been developed, where the necessary infrastructure already existed? For example, sites such as the Cibyn area in Caernarfon showed that land which already had connections to road, services and commercial infrastructure was available. Using such a site would avoid the loss of green land, reduce the impact on the landscape and comply better with sustainable planning principles. The application had not demonstrated why a new countryside site was the best option when other more appropriate choices existed.

·        The loss of green land for a commercial development would be a serious step, especially when other options were available. There were already fuel stations in Caernarfon, Dolydd, Bangor, Pwllheli, Porthmadog and Caeathro and a number of electric vehicle charging points were already available, as well as plenty of cafés, restaurants and shops. The application did not fill a gap in the provision; it is likely to take business away from local providers that already served the area. In addition, fuel stations existed within a reasonable distance along the A487 - from this site, there is a station in Clynnog - 8 miles away, Llys y Gwynt - 10 miles and Y Ffôr - 16 miles. Considering this alongside the provision in Pwllheli, Caernarfon, Bangor and Porthmadog, there is already a comprehensive network serving the area. The application did not respond to a local shortage or provide a service that was unavailable.

·        It was contrary to the LDP's objectives, which tried to maintain the vitality of town centres. A large commercial development on the outskirts of Caernarfon would attract spending away from local businesses and undermine the work being made to strengthen the town centre. Also contrary to PS15 - Town Centre and Retail Developments which tried to protect the vitality and viability of town centres. Instead of attracting people to the centre of Caernarfon and its businesses, this development would take people's spending before reaching the town.

·        Serious concerns regarding traffic and road safety. The Bontnewydd bypass was built to take traffic from the village, improve safety and ensure a better flow on the network and not to attract new commercial developments that would create more journeys for vehicles. Had sufficient consideration been given to the impact on the roundabout that was already very busy? It was reasonable to expect vehicles to slow down and queue when turning into the fuel station, having an impact on the traffic flow and increasing the risk of congestion and collisions on the strategic network. The development would undermine the purpose of the bypass.

·        The environmental impact caused concern - constructing on a green site meant the loss of agricultural land, a permanent change to the landscape and increased emissions due to more traffic. Biodiversity was also a cause for concern - although mitigation measures could be proposed, a development of this size would lead to a loss of rural habitats and introduce more artificial light, more noise, more activity to an area that was currently relatively quiet and impact the local landscape and wildlife.

·        Drawing attention to the matter of litter, which was often disregarded. Evidence from Keep Britain Tidy and National Highways showed that litter associated with food and drink “to go” was a significant problem along highways. The problem was not confined within the site’s boundaries - experience across the UK showed that food packaging, coffee cups, bottles and cans were often discarded on roadsides, in hedges and on agricultural land away from the place of purchase. Although the applicant could provide bins on the site, he could not control where users choose to discard their litter after leaving. In this type of rural area, it would impact the Bontnewydd countryside and the nearby area.

·        Policy MAN6 - Retail in the countryside presumed against these types of retail developments unless they satisfied all of the relevant criteria. There was no existing business on the site, vacant commercial sites were available in Caernarfon, and it was clear that the development would have an impact on local shops.

·        Concern about the impact of the development on local residents. A commercial site of this size would introduce more light, noise, vehicle movement and activity to an area that was currently in open countryside.

·        Bontnewydd Community Council had unanimously objected to the application, and referred in detail to Policy CYFF1, TRA1, PS15, MAN6 and MAN7 as grounds for objections; Llanwnda Community Council and Caernarfon Town Council had also objected to the application; therefore three local Town/Community Councils were unanimously against the development.   Although the number of objections itself was not grounds to refuse an application, it clearly highlighted that the community saw the development as one that would change the nature of the area for the worse.

·        Considering the process, some time had passed since the public consultation, and a fair question arose as to whether the information gathered at that time continued to be completely up-to-date given the time that had passed.

·        It was disappointing that the application was before the Committee so late in the day. As a Local Member, she would have welcomed more time to consider the final report and the information before making a decision on a development that had significant implications for the area.

·        There was a duty on the Committee to make a decision in accordance with the LDP unless there were firm planning reasons to divert from it.

·        Was there a real need for this site? The applicant had not proven the need for it. The site was outside the development boundary. The development would harm the countryside, undermine local businesses and raise real concerns regarding traffic, safety and environmental impact. Put simply, the alleged benefits did not outweigh the harm.

·        Respectfully asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

   Councillor Cai Larsen had no further comments to propose.

 

ch) It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the recommendation.

 

Reasons:

·        The proposal did not fully comply with the sustainability principles of Policy PS6

·        It would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area and nearby residents, and this was contrary to criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2

·        The proposal would have a detrimental visual impact, and this was contrary to policy PCYFF 3

·        The proposal to mitigate the impact of the proposal in terms of biodiversity or biodiversity enhancements was insufficient and therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy PS19.

 

d) During the ensuing discussion, the following observations were made by Members:

·        The Government's statistics on the demand for fossil fuel highlighted less use following carbon regulations in the future and an increase in the use of electric cars - therefore did not see the need according to Policies PCYFF5, PS4, PS5 and PS6. If required, only a charging resource would be needed

·        Acknowledged that such a station would create litter along the roads and incur costs for the Council

·       Disagreed with the statement 'respond to the existing demand' - that local businesses and stations along the road would be happy with the business, therefore should we not encourage and promote local businesses that provide the current service - these were services in local communities that took pride in their businesses - need to encourage instead of building new ones

·        It would create a visual impact on the amenities of nearby residents

·        The station was likely to be labelled as the last one on the road and would therefore prevent people from using other stations

·        The need was being met by what already existed

·        EV stations were being developed by the Council and continued to have infrastructure problems - therefore how would we know that these would succeed?

·        A community station had been developed in Clynnog - the station had regenerated the village - this development would have an impact on that station and others locally.

·        The relevant Community Councils were unanimous in objecting strongly and the rationale for their objections was fair

·        PCYFF1 - the proposal was located outside the development boundary - it was not an 'exceptional' location

·        PCYFF 1 - there was sufficient provision in the area, therefore there was a need to challenge the need and consider the cumulative impact

·        Policy 6 Retail - the retail unit and the fuel station would pose a threat to local businesses

·        Policy 7 Retail - there would be an increase in litter and noise on roadsides and an increase in noise and light pollution

·        There was a need to protect and improve the natural environment - the proposal was contrary to Policy 19 - the impact of the development on biodiversity - the mitigation measures and the enhancement work was insufficient

·        It created an unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the area - contrary to PCYFF3

·        Why refuse the Muriau Park application but approve Meifod? It seemed that officers had turned every stone to refuse the Muriau Park application, but made every effort to turn every stone to approve Meifod

·        Given the current fuel and living costs, was it fair to approve a site where fuel was more expensive than local stations?

·        An intrusive impact on the local landscape - the location was unsuitable for the development

·        The location and the roundabout were already busy - how could adding more traffic be justified?

·        It was located on good and useful agricultural land - did not want to lose good land

·        EV power equipment appeared everywhere by now - there was no need for them to be in a fuel station - they could be installed anywhere.

 

The Planning Manager highlighted that the proposal included a combination of proposals, such as fossil fuel provision, EV charging, park and ride provision, and therefore it would be difficult to evidence against this as the proposal provided for the current need.  She elaborated that consultants had responded without objecting to the proposal in the context of the need, but some matters were matters of opinion - a visual impact and impact on amenities. It was noted that none of the policies required to prove the need for the development. She reiterated that Policy TRA1 was suitable if the development was close to a highway that provided for drivers, and PS 4 was suitable if the development provided a transport service and identified different travel needs - she suggested that the Committee considered the location instead of the need.

 

She noted that Policy PCYFF 1 did not object to developments outside of the boundary, unless it would comply with other policies, e.g. in the context of this application, the suitability of this development outside of the boundary was considered because the requirements of Policy TRA1 noted the need for the development to be close to a highway and provide a service for the drivers of those highways. Consequently, it would comply with Policy PCYFF1. In terms of the impact on other local centres, it was considered that the size of the shop was irrelevant as it was ancillary to the development therefore it would not have an impact on the businesses of the town and nearby villages; suggested for the Committee not to consider this matter as an objection, unless there was relevant evidence to support that.

 

RESOLVED: To refuse, contrary to the recommendation

Reasons:

 

1.            The proposal did not fully align with the sustainability principles - in accordance with Policy PS6

2.            The proposal had a detrimental impact on the amenities of the area and nearby residents - contrary to criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2

3.            The proposal would have a detrimental visual impact - contrary to Policy PCYFF 3

4.            The proposal does not sufficiently mitigate the impact in terms of biodiversity or biodiversity enhancements - contrary to the requirements of Policy PS19.