Agenda item

Proposed petrol filling station, electric vehicle charging hub, retail building and creation of new access and associated works to include landscaping. 

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor Menna Trenholme and Councillor Cai Larsen

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To Refuse

Reasons:

1.     The proposal, due to its location, scale and use is considered to be unacceptable as a result of the level of disturbance and increase in activity compared to the current situation and as a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026, which safeguards the amenities of local property occupiers.

2.     The test of the likely significant impact suggests that the proposal may cause a significant impact on the Glynllifon SAC, particularly the lesser horseshoe bat which is a feature of this SAC, as a result of the location of the proposal, the evidence that the area is used by lesser horseshoe bats and that the proposal affects the hedges used by the bats. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application to enable the Local Planning Authority to complete an Appropriate Assessment in this case in accordance with the Authority's requirements under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is therefore concluded that there can be no assurance that the proposal will not have a significant or adverse effect on the SAC due to the lack of information and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

3.     A green infrastructure statement has not been submitted as part of the application and therefore there is no assurance that the proposal complies with the requirements of Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (2024) in terms of the step-by-step approach and biodiversity improvements.

4.     There is currently insufficient information submitted as part of the application for assessing any risk to in relation to contamination in the land. To this end, it cannot be confirmed whether the proposal complies with the requirements of criterion 7 of policy PCYFF 2 or policy PS6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026.’

5.     The site includes a designated main river (Afon Rhosdican) and there are concerns about this development and the future flood risk to the proposal and to third parties. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application to ensure suitable and adequate access to machinery to enable future maintenance of the main river and provide a flood flow route/buffer zone to the main river. Without this information, it is considered that the proposal cannot be ensured to comply with the requirements of criterion number 4 of policy PS6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026.

6.     Insufficient evidence has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. It is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of Policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 and the advice provided in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales.

7.     The development does not reflect a sensitive or appropriate approach to design. It appears incompatible and intrusive within its context, and therefore does not comply with PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 policies of the Gwynedd and Anglesey Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026 which ensure that proposals and the landscaping plans respect their context and location in the local landscape.

 

Proposed petrol filling station, electric vehicle charging hub, retail building and creation of new access and associated works to include landscaping. 

 

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

 

The Planning Manager highlighted that an application, supported by a letter, had been submitted by the agent of application 5.4 asking for application 5.4 and application 5.5 to be deferred because some matters required further attention.  In response to the application, the Planning Manager noted that the Highways Unit had now submitted observations confirming that they did not object to the application and the proposal therefore complied with criterion 3 of Policy TRA 1, as well as Policy TRA 4 in terms of road safety.  As a result, the first reason for refusal (as it appeared in the report) was removed. It was reiterated that the Local Planning Authority's objections to the application highlighted that the location was unsuitable, and sufficient information had been submitted for the Members to make a decision on both applications.

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form which included an additional reason for refusal to reflect the intrusive impact of the development. It was highlighted that the reason stated that the development did not reflect a sensitive or appropriate approach to design and it appeared incongruous and intrusive within its context; it therefore did not comply with policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 which ensured that proposals and the landscaping plans respected their context and their location in the local landscape.

 

a)     The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that this was a full application for the construction of a service station which would provide fuel to vehicles and included an electric car charging hub, a retail building, along with the creation of a new entrance and associated works including landscaping.

 

It was reported that the site was located outside the development boundary as noted in the LDP and although it was not located within any special land designation, it was noted that the site was within the Afon Gwyrfai Special Area of Conservation consultation zone on the basis of Phosphorus impact.  It is located directly adjacent to the A487, which was part of the strategic road network, with the nature of the development focusing on providing a service to users of this road. ⁠The principle of the development was assessed through Policies TRA 1 and PCYFF1 of the LDP.

 

It was explained that the shop element was located within the same building as the till area for fuel and from the information submitted, the size of the retail area would be defined as a 'small shop', within the LDP. It was therefore considered that a shop of this size would be an ancillary element to the primary purpose of providing fuel and breaks from travelling, and therefore it was not considered that it would likely undermine the retail provision of nearby centres.

 

It was expressed that proposed developments that led to an increase in the phosphorus load within the catchment area could lead to detrimental impacts on water quality and therefore on the ecological condition of the SAC. Information was submitted as part of the application that confirmed that there was an intention to connect to the Caernarfon Waste Treatment site, with comments from Welsh Water confirming that this was acceptable; it was not considered that the proposal would have any impact on the Afon Gwyrfai phosphorus levels and therefore the proposal showed neutrality in terms of this.

 

In the context of visual, general and residential amenities, it was considered that the proposal, due to its location, scale and use was unacceptable as a result of the level of disruption and an increase in activity compared with the current situation - contrary to criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2 which safeguarded the amenities of local property occupiers. The site was not considered suitable for a development of this nature, especially given its prominence in the landscape and the failure to minimise the visual impact.

 

In addition, the proposal may cause a significant impact on the Glynllifon SAC, specifically the lesser horseshoe bat which was a feature of this SAC (evidence that the area is used by lesser horseshoe bats and that this proposal would disrupt the hedges used by bats). It was reported that insufficient information had been submitted as part of the application for the Authority to complete an Appropriate Assessment in this case, and therefore it was concluded that no assurance could be given that the proposal would not have a significant or detrimental impact on the SAC.  It was reiterated that a green infrastructure statement had not been submitted as part of the application which led to uncertainty that the proposal complied with the requirements of Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales.

 

In the context of Land Drainage, Ground Water and Flooding, it was noted that the site included a designated main river (Afon Rhosdican) and concerns regarding the development and the future flood risk to the proposal and to third parties.  It was noted that insufficient information had been submitted as part of the application to ensure suitable and sufficient access for machines to enable maintenance work of the main river in the future and provide a flood flow route/buffer zone to the main river; without this relevant information, it was considered that it could not be ensured that the proposal complied with the requirements of criterion number 4 in Policy PS6.

 

It was reiterated that insufficient information had been submitted as part of the application to assess the impact as a result of any contamination in the land. To this end, it could not be confirmed that this proposal would comply with the requirements of criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2 or Policy PS6.

 

Sufficient evidence was not submitted as part of the planning application to highlight that full consideration had been given to the impact of losing the best and most versatile agricultural land and therefore it was considered that the application was contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of Policy PS 6, as well as the advice given in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales.

 

Also, additional information was received regarding the petrol tanks and NRW was re-consulted. To date, no reply had been received to the further consultation and therefore the fifth reason for refusal was amended to reflect this.

 

Having considered all the relevant planning matters, including local and national policies and guidelines, as well as all the observations received, it was considered that the proposal was unacceptable in the form that it was submitted as it was unable to fulfil the requirements of the relevant policies and guidelines.

 

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector to the application made the following observations:

·        She had been the owner of Muriau Park, a nearby hotel, for 38 years and had faced many challenges in that period. This was a new challenge

·        The land on the site was agricultural, rich land in a beautiful location - the proposal would ruin the environment

·        Cwmni Cadnant had not considered the local policies - the document discussed her hotel, and she could not imagine such a development on her doorstep

·        There were fuel stations in Dolydd, Caeathro and Caernarfon that employed locally - what would be the impact on these businesses? Loss of jobs? Closure? - the local economy must be considered

·        The area was a green area - why choose this location with such a plan?

·        The access would go from the old road - was there an intention to conduct a traffic assessment to monitor the genuine significance of activity in this situation - risk of accidents?

·        Asked the Committee to adhere to the policies and legislations and refuse the plan.

 

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

·        The application had been submitted prematurely, and this was because matters had not been resolved in full

·        Basic concern had been raised about the visual impact and the reason for refusal had been submitted to the applicant for the first time in the late observations

·        The impact of ground water and nearby river continued to be discussed by NRW

·        NRW had no objection on the grounds of the impact on bats

·        There was no intention to erect a 4m acoustic fence as had been stated; the landscaping plan highlighted a 3m fence and a substantial hedge along the northern boundary - the applicant was happy to look into this further and discuss with officers and the neighbour

·        The reference to agricultural land was not grounds for an objection - this had been made clear during the consultation period

·        Referring to the Horncastle Court Case; when discussing two similar applications alongside each other in a committee, they must be considered together after being reviewed appropriately and in full - based on the Committee meeting today, the Local Planning Authority would be open to the possibility of a judicial review - a complete plan had been submitted here as the Motor Fuel Group (MFG) had been secured for the charging facilities and the petrol station

·        The company already operated the Morrisons fuel station in Caernarfon - they had no intention to close that station should the application be approved

·        MFG asked that the Committee deferred the decision on both application in fairness to an employer in the town and one that had invested significantly

 

ch) The Local Members had no observations to propose.

 

d)       It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation⁠.

 

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

·        There was enough fuel provision in the town

·        The proposal would lead to a loss of good agricultural land

 

RESOLVED: To Refuse

Reasons:

1.     The proposal, due to its location, scale and use is considered to be unacceptable as a result of the level of disturbance and increase in activity compared to the current situation and as a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan 2011-2026, which safeguards the amenities of local property occupiers.

 

2.     The test of the likely significant impact suggests that the proposal may cause a significant impact on the Glynllifon SAC, particularly the lesser horseshoe bat which is a feature of this SAC, as a result of the location of the proposal, the evidence that the area is used by lesser horseshoe bats and that the proposal affects the hedges used by the bats. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application to enable the Local Planning Authority to complete an Appropriate Assessment in this case in accordance with the Authority's requirements under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is therefore concluded that there can be no assurance that the proposal will not have a significant or adverse effect on the SAC due to the lack of information and therefore the proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

 

3.     A green infrastructure statement has not been submitted as part of the application and therefore there is no assurance that the proposal complies with the requirements of Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (2024) in terms of the step-wise approach and biodiversity improvements.

 

4.     Insufficient information had currently been submitted as part of the application to assess the impact as a result of any contamination in the land. To this end, it cannot be confirmed whether the proposal complied with the requirements of criterion 7 of Policy PCYFF 2 or Policy PS6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd LDP 2011-2026.

 

5.     The site includes a designated main river (Afon Rhosdican) and there are concerns about this development and the future flood risk to the proposal and to third parties. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the application to ensure suitable and adequate access for machinery to enable future maintenance of the main river and provide a flood flow route/buffer zone to the main river. It was considered, without this information, that it could not be ensured that the proposal complied with the requirements of criterion number 4 of Policy PS6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd LDP 2011-2026.

 

6.     Insufficient evidence has been submitted as part of the planning application to demonstrate that full consideration has been given to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. It was therefore considered that the application was contrary to the requirements of criterion 6 of Policy PS 6 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd LDP 2011-2026, as well as the advice given in paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of Planning Policy Wales.

 

7.     The development did not reflect a sensitive or appropriate approach to design. It appeared incompatible and intrusive within its context, and therefore it did not comply with policies PCYFF 3 and PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd LDP 2011-2026 which ensured that proposals and landscaping plans respected their context and their location in the local landscape.