Proposed development of a petrol filling station, ancillary retail kiosk with associated infrastructure.

The application was approved in accordance with the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Proposed development of a petrol filling station, ancillary retail kiosk with associated infrastructure.)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr S Kerry, Town Clerk, Hereford City Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme. Mr A Jones representing ASDA, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor ACR Chappell, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        He paid tribute to the community work of ASDA in the South Wye area. ASDA had also through the S106 agreement contributed to the provision of a flood alleviation scheme, the Kindle Centre and relocation of St Martin’s bowling club and the reconfiguration of the A49/A465 roundabout.

·        The planning permission granted to ASDA in 2005 had included provision for apartments on the portion of the site on which it was now proposed to locate the petrol station. The applicant was now arguing that a residential development was not viable.  However, there was a higher need for residential accommodation within the City now than when permission had originally been granted.  A development on the Ship Inn site opposite was clearly considered viable.  

·        He questioned the need for another petrol filling station in the County.  There could also be no guarantee that ASDA would remain the provider of petrol at the lowest cost, which was its current reputation.

·        The principal concern was the capacity of the road network.  The road filter to ASDA could only accommodate four cars and this currently led to tailbacks.  Even if the increase in traffic as a result of the development matched the applicant’s claim this would still create additional problems.  The view expressed by Highways England that the proposals would not represent a severe impact on the strategic road network was at odds with the daily experience of congestion by residents.

·        A number of cycleway developments were underway and these would converge on the A49 (Belmont/Asda roundabout).  Additional road traffic would be in conflict with these developments.

Councillor P Rone, an adjoining ward member, also spoke on the application.  He made the following principal comments:

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on the busiest junction in the County, generating traffic and causing congestion.

·        He questioned the applicant’s conclusion that residential development on the site would not be viable.  If the requirement that a S106 agreement was entered into was the issue making the development unviable it was an option for this to be waived.

·        He questioned the demand for an additional petrol station.  He also suggested the petrol station could be located on a different part of the ASDA site, preventing the construction of an eyesore on a gateway to the City in the central conservation area.

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        Demand for housing remained high.  The applicant’s view that residential development was not viable was questioned.

·        It was questionable whether there was demand for another petrol station.  The provision of a kiosk suggested the proposal was intended to attract additional custom not simply serve those already using the store. 

·        The proposal would increase the existing congestion.    Any accident in that location brought the City to a standstill.  Increased traffic and driver frustration would lead to more accidents.

·        It was proposed that the application should be refused because of the adverse effect on the highway network.

·        Several members expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal and concern about its impact on the highway network.  However, there was also a view that there were no strong planning grounds for refusal.

The Transportation Manager commented that the proposal would have a minimal impact on the highway network.  In his view it would not be possible to defend an appeal against refusal of permission on highway grounds.

The Lead Development Manager supported this view adding that the professional and technical advice to the Committee provided no grounds for objection on highway grounds.

·        A view was expressed that the impact on the highway network was not severe and the proposal therefore complied with policy MT1.  The report acknowledged that there were a number of issues to be addressed, however, conditions in the recommendation were designed to provide the required mitigation.  There were therefore no grounds for refusal.

·        It was questioned why the absence of a five year housing supply did not support the case for the site to be developed for residential development as originally intended. The Lead Development Manager commented that the NPPF provided that, ‘to be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years and in particular that the development of the site is viable’.  The site did not meet those criteria.

·        Regard should be had to the comments of the local ward member and the adjoining ward member, and to the concerns expressed by the City Council.

·        The threat of increased congestion created a risk to air quality.

·        Reassurance was required that the petrol storage arrangements were safe having regard to flood risk.

·        The site was prominent, at an entrance to the city and in a conservation area.  It was suggested that the proposal was contrary to policy LD1 and if other landscape and conservation area policies did not militate against such a proposal it suggested a need to revisit those policies. The proposal could be located on another part of the applicant’s site in a less prominent position with less adverse impact.

The Lead Development Manager commented that:

·        Members’ concerns were acknowledged.  However, to refuse the application on highway grounds the impact of the development on the highway network would have to be severe.  The assessment was that in the peak hour there were 3,000 traffic movements; it was estimated that a petrol station would add 64 movements.  The professional advice was that this could not be regarded as a severe impact.

·        The development was not assessed to be a “destination” but an addition to the ASDA store.

·        The site was at a gateway to the City.  The applicant had modified the design of the petrol station in recognition of this fact.

·        The impact on independent petrol service businesses would not necessarily be adverse, as evidenced by a .petrol station on Ledbury Road, Hereford.

·        There would be landscaping around the perimeter of the site.

·        Hereford City was not progressing a Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Development in the City would be addressed through the Hereford Area Action Plan that Herefordshire Council would produce.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He reiterated his concerns about traffic congestion and observed that Highways England was only concerned in its response about the impact on the strategic road network, not other traffic impacts.  It would be preferable for the site to be used for residential development.

The adjoining ward member reiterated that the proposed development would be inappropriate in the conservation area and was in the wrong location within the applicant’s site.

A named vote was requested.

For (9): Councillors BA Baker, CR Butler, PGH Cutter, KS Guthrie, J Hardwick, JLV Kenyon, RI Mathews, WC Skelton, and EJ Swinglehurst.

 

Against (6): Councillors DW Greenow, EL Holton, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Seldon, and LC Tawn.

 

Abstain (1): Councillor TM James

 

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.         A01 Time limit for commencement (full permission)

           

 

2.         B01 Development in accordance with the approved plans

 

3.         G10 Landscaping scheme

 

4.         G11 Landscaping scheme - implementation

 

5.         The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to ensure that any petrol fuel storage tanks installed at the site shall be constructed, installed and monitored to ensure no pollution of groundwater has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and should include:-

 

            Detailed design of petrol storage tanks to include tank design to BS EN 12285-1:2003, leak detection system for tanks and pipe work, details of duel contained pipe work, details of the tank manufacturer’s warranty and details of proposed methods of construction and installation.

 

            Reason: To protect controlled waters.

 

6.         Development shall not be occupied until the agreed mitigation works, as shown indicatively on CA Design drawing number (PA)04 Revision H, have been designed in detail to the written satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority for the A49 Trunk Road, and implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure that the safety and efficient operation of the strategic road network is not compromised by this proposed development

 

7.         A detailed boundary fencing plan and schedule shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority for the A49 Trunk Road, prior to the erection of any fencing or similar boundary treatment. The detailed fencing plan and schedule shall be implemented as approved.

 

            Reason: To ensure that any proposed fencing structure does not jeopardise the ongoing safe operation of the strategic road network, in accordance with paragraph A1 of Annex A of DfT Circular 02/2013.

 

8.         A detailed forecourt lighting installation and maintenance plan and schedule, following the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011 (or as updated), shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority for the A49 Trunk Road, prior to the commissioning or alteration of any external artificial light source within the development hereby permitted. This shall give details of lighting specifications, lamp positions, directions, and intensity across the site and the surrounding highway network. The detailed lighting plan and schedule shall be implemented as approved and maintained in perpetuity.

 

            Reason: To prevent stray light from the site affecting the ongoing safe operation of strategic road network, in accordance with paragraph 49 of DfT Circular 02/2013.

 

9.         No development pursuant to this application shall commence until a Construction Management Traffic Plan (CMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority, in consultation with the highways authority for the A49 Trunk Road and that the scope of the CMP is to be agreed in writing, by the local planning authority, in consultation with the highways authority for the A49 Trunk Road prior to the preparation of the CMP. The CMP shall be implemented as approved and reviewed by the appointed main contractor throughout the construction period. If changes to the CMP are deemed necessary at any point throughout the construction period, these changes will be approved in writing by the local planning authority, in consultation with the highways authority for the A49 Trunk Road.

 

            Reason: To ensure that the safety and efficient operation of the strategic road network is not compromised during the construction period.

 

10.       E01 Site investigation - archaeology

 

11.       H21 Wheel washing

 

12.       H27 Parking for site operatives

 

13.       I16 Restriction of hours during construction

 

14.       Non – Standard – Hours of Delivery and management of delivery vehicles.

 

            INFORMATIVES:

 

1.         The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against planning policy and any other material considerations. Negotiations in respect of matters of concern with the application (as originally submitted) have resulted in amendments to the proposal.  As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework

 

2.         EA informative - Flood Evacuation Contact

 

3.         EA - Pollution Prevention

 

4.         HN01 Mud on highway

 

5.         HN04 Private apparatus within highway

 

6.         HN05 Works within the highway

 

7.         EA Waste informative