Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for the erection of petrol filling station with ancillary shop and food outlet, car wash, electric charge points, air and water lines, ATM, underground fuel tanks and parking at Land Off Privas Way, Wetherby, LS22 6RN

The report of the Chief Planning Officer set out an application for the erection of a petrol filling station with ancillary shop and food outlet, car wash, electric charge points, air and water lines, ATM, underground fuel tanks and parking at land off Privas Way, Wetherby, LS22 6RN.

 

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day and slides and photographs were shown throughout the presentation.

 

The Panel were provided with the following information:

·  The application was presented to the Panel at the request of the Wetherby Ward Members, Cllrs Lamb, Richards and Harrington on the grounds set out at Paragraph 1 of the submitted report.

·  The application site is a triangular plot of land set between the A1(M) and the A168 just outside the town of Wetherby. The site is designated rural land under UDP saved policy RL1. The site is also within the designated Strategic Green Infrastructure associated with the River Wharfe, as set out under policy SP13 of the Core Strategy and the Leeds Habitat Network, as designated under policy G9

·  Street lighting is switch off at midnight until 5.30am

·  The only existing access from Privas Way is to the attenuation pond and the proposal is to create two new vehicular accesses through existing vegetation.

·  The site is currently scrub land with a dilapidated structure. The proposal is for a petrol filling station, shop and food outlet with provision for 12 covers and parking with toilet facilities.

·  Glenfield Avenue is located across the road from the proposed site with the rear gardens 30 metres away and the closest dwelling 40 metres away.

·  Existing vegetation would remain.

·  The proposed building would be constructed of cladding and brick with the shop front mainly glazed. It was noted that signage would be part of separate application for consent.

·  Key issues were set out in the report and included the principle of development, impact on residential amenity, highways and biodiversity.

·  A previous application by the applicant had been refused on 24 April 2020 for reasons set out at Paragraph 11 of the report and a subsequent appeal had been dismissed on 29 April 2021. The Inspector had accepted the principle of the development in this location. The Inspector also found that the proposed development would not result in harm to residential amenity or to highway safety. The reason for refusal in relation to biodiversity was the sole reason for the refusal being upheld, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.

·  The Inspector did not object in principle to the use of an offset site to achieve biodiversity net gain which would comply with the aims of SP13 and G9. However, the appeal proposal offered no reliable mechanism to deliver biodiversity net gain off site. This was because there was no robust Section 106 Agreement proposed to adequately secure works to a specified offset site and such an Agreement would have had to offer confidence that such a scheme could be delivered in a timely fashion. The draft Agreement presented to the Inspector at the time of the appeal was seen as unlikely to achieve this.

·  The applicant has now provided details of a triangular piece of land approximately 2km from the application site within the Leeds Habitat Network close to Swinnow Hill and Turners Wood and has a definitive bridleway running along the boundaries of the offset site. The offset site is currently used for arable farming and the proposal is for this to become grassland which would be expected to generate a biodiversity habitat value of 0.59 units.

·  A Section 106 Agreement is under negotiation to secure the offset site with a biodiversity management plan and annual work programme which would last for five years.

·  50 objections to the proposals had been received from Ward Councillors, residents, Better Wetherby Partnership, Boston Spa, Wetherby and Villages Community Green Group and Wetherby Civic Society. Comments had been summarised at Paragraphs 25-31 of the report.

 

Cllr Lamb and a resident of Glenfield Avenue addressed the Panel in objection to the application and provided the following comments:

·  Cllr Lamb said that the concerns of Ward Councillors, Better Wetherby Partnership, and Wetherby Civic Society were with the principle of the development in this location. It was his view that this application was not acceptable in accordance with Council policies.

·  He said that there were highways issues in the location and mitigation had already taken place to address some of the issues.

·  Residents of Glenfield Avenue were in objection to this application as they had concerns in relation to air, light and noise pollution.

·  There are young children living in this street and even given the restricted opening hours the light and noise would impact on their bedtime. This would be made worse in the summer months when windows may be open.

·  The shrubs and trees along the verge are deciduous and during the winter months would not alleviate noise and light pollution.

·  There was also the concern that this proposal would have an impact on the landscape given its proximity to the Ebor Way.

·  There are already 3 petrol stations in the area and so the provision od a further petrol station was not necessary.

 

In response to questions from Members the following information was provided to the Panel:

·  There were concerns related to the highway the roundabouts and the junctions were busy and the exit and entry for the proposed station would be close to the roundabout and the junction. There would also be the impact on the residential area due to significant movement of traffic. It was noted there used to be a layby for truck stops in this area, however it had to be removed due to anti-social behaviour.

·  It was suggested to the Panel that the proposed biodiversity site was not close enough. Cllr Lamb was of the view that the proposed site did not meet with current policies and not what the Inspector had expected.

·  There had been no consultation with Ward Councillors, the local community or the Town Council.

·  There are already three petrol stations in the area. The resident was asked how long approximately it would take her to drive to them. It was noted:

o  1^st – 3 minutes

o  2^nd 3.5 minutes

o  3^rd 5 minutes

 

The agent for the application attended the meeting and provided the Panel with the following information:

·  The agent said she was a Chartered Town Planning Consultant elected to the Royal Town Planning Institute with over 12 years Local Authority experience. She represents clients nationally with planning submissions and planning appeals with a particular expertise in roadside services.

·  The agent said that the 3 reasons for refusal by the Council of the 2019 application had been:

o  Impacts on the rural character of the landscape

o  Harm to amenity

o  Net loss to biodiversity

·  The agent quoted the Inspector who had said ‘The proposed development would not significantly harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area including the Wharfe Valley Green Infrastructure’. The Inspector had also said ‘The hours of operation suggested by the appellant and details submitted in relation to noise and light would not adversely affect residential occupiers which could be mitigated through a suitably worded condition’.

·  The agent said given the scheme is identical to the one already assessed by the Inspector which was found to be compliant in terms of character and appearance, impact and highways there was no reason why the scheme could not be approved.

·  She acknowledged that the previous scheme had not had a reliable mechanism for net gain biodiversity to be delivered. It was her view that this issue had now been resolved as the applicant’s legal representative had worked with the Council Officers, to produce an Agreement requiring biodiversity management before any work commences.

·  It was her view that the application now complies with local and national planning policies and there was no valid reason for refusal. The Panel were advised that if there was a refusal this would mean an appeal which would likely result in costs being awarded against the Council due to the absence of a valid reason for refusal

·  She again quoted the Inspector in terms of the economic benefits of the erection of the filling station, bringing local amenities and local employment opportunities.

 

In response to questions from Members the Panel were provided with the following information:

·  The Inspector in assessing a very similar application had already concluded that there would no impact to amenity, there had been no objections to the application in relation to highways and had not objected to the principle of the application.

·  Woodman Forecourts would be managing the site and had agreed to the proposed Section 106 Agreement. It was noted that there was one developer but two discreet companies with one company address. However, it was emphasised to Members that the identity of the applicant is not a material consideration to be taken into account in decision-making.  

·  Members were advised that gender neutral toilets could be considered as part of the application. It would be a requirement anyway under the recently updated Building Regulations.

·  It was noted that there was no requirement to consult with the local community, particularly with regard to the proposed location of the biodiversity net gain offset site. It was acknowledged that local community consultation more generally was good practice, but not a requirement.

·  20 jobs would be created with a mix of full-time and part-time positions.

·  The proposed site for net gain biodiversity was currently agricultural land.

 

Officers responded to questions from the Panel:

·  Current guidance on use of off-site land for net gain biodiversity provides. No indication vis-à-vis specific distances of an offset site from a proposed development but options for an offset site required for it to be in or adjacent to the ward. It was acknowledged that the proposed site for biodiversity net gain was 2km away from the development site but was in the same ward.

·  The Legal Officer provided advice to the Panel Members on the proposed Section106 Agreement to be secured in relation to the proposed offset site biodiversity area. It was noted that the Section 106 Agreement would be tied to the piece of land set out for biodiversity in perpetuity and sought to ensure this could be robustly secured. The Inspector had previously been concerned about the mechanism to secure the offset site, rather than the principle of an offset site.

·  If the proposed offset site became the subject of an application in future, it would have to be brought to Plans Panel.

·  It was noted that the proposed offset site would be grassland providing 0.59 units. All details would form part of the Section 106 Agreement.

·  Clarity was provided on policies within the relevant Neighbourhood Plan and their applicability to the development proposed, as these had been raised in public comments but were not necessarily relevant or applicable.

 

Members Comments included:

·  Insufficient weight given to the Wetherby Neighbourhood Plan.

·  No consultation with the local community

·  Acceptability of using agricultural land for offset site and the fact that the site was 2km away from the development site was questionable.

·  Loss of scrub land and impact on the environment.

·  There would be the creation of local employment opportunities, which was a positive.

·  The Panel were of the view that this was a difficult decision given the advice of the Inspector and the Council’s current policies which remained as they had been at the time of the previous application. There had also been no change to the surrounding circumstances which would give a basis for refusal of the application in its current form.

·  They were of the view that the developer should have consulted and tried to work with the Ward Councillors and the local community.

 

RESOLVED – To defer and delegate to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report.