Appeal Decision

Penderfyniadiau ar yr Apêl Appeal Decisions Gwrandawiad a gynhaliwyd ar 08/02/17 Hearing held on 08/02/17 Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 08/02/17 Site visit made on 08/02/17 gan Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) by Janine Townsley LLB (Hons) Solicitor Cyfreithwr (Nad yw’n ymarfer) (Non-practising) Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 07.04.2017 Date: 07.04.2017

APPEAL A Appeal Ref: APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 Site address: Land at Glynneath Business Park, Adjacent to A465, Glynneath. The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Waterstone Estates Limited against the decision of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.  The application Ref P2016/0117, dated 12 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 25 August 2016.  The development proposed is a road side service area comprising petrol filling station and kiosk, drive-thru coffee shop, car parking, access, landscape and associated works.

APPEAL B Appeal Ref: APP/Y6930/A/16/3159312 Site address: Land at Glynneath Business Park, Adjacent to A465, Glynneath. The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Waterstone Estates Limited against the decision of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.  The application Ref P2016/0254, dated 12 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 25 August 2016.  The development proposed is pub/restaurant, access, car parking and associated works.

Decisions

Appeal A

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B

2. The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

Application for costs

3. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by Waterstone Estates Limited against Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Background and Procedural Matters

4. This decision relates to two appeals against the refusal of planning permission on two adjacent sites. The appellant has indicated that together, the two developments should be considered to comprise a roadside service area. Notwithstanding this, there are two appeals before me to consider and these must be determined separately. However, since both planning applications were refused by the Council for the same reasons and the commonality of certain considerations, I have dealt with the appeals together but have distinguished between them where necessary.

5. The development proposed under appeal B is submitted in outline, with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for future consideration.

6. The evidence before me contains legal submissions and Counsel’s advice that there is an extant planning permission for a development described as “a McDonalds Restaurant, Little Chef Restaurant, Esso Petrol Service Station and associated road works (adjacent land for future development)1” on the site to which appeal A relates (“the 1999 permission”). This was a full permission and the McDonalds restaurant described in the permission has been built. The appellant relies on this to assert that the permission has been lawfully implemented and that the remainder of the works covered by the permission can be completed in accordance with that permission. The Council, however, states that a number of conditions precedent attached to the 1999 permission were not complied with and that whilst the McDonalds restaurant is now immune from enforcement action by passage of time, the 1999 permission was not lawfully implemented and has since expired. However, matters regarding whether or not the 1999 permission was lawfully implemented are not for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellant to apply to have these matters determined under Sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. In any event, the appellant has confirmed in written evidence and orally at the hearing that even if extant, it is not intended that works under the 1999 permission would be carried out since commercial expectations have since changed and the scheme would no longer be considered commercially viable. It follows therefore that I need not consider this as a realistic fall back position. As such, my decisions are unaffected by any consideration of whether the 1999 permission is extant.

Main Issues – Appeal A & B

7. These are:

 Whether the proposed developments comply with local and national policy designed to restrict new development outside defined settlement limits;

1 P/99/0445

2

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

 Whether the proposed developments comply with local and national policy related to new retail development and the effect of the proposals on the vitality and viability of the Glynneath district centre;

 If the proposed developments fail to accord with local and national policy as set out in the first two main issues, whether there are any material considerations that would outweigh any harm identified in relation to the other main issues.

Reasons

8. The appeal sites are accessed directly off the Blaengwrach roundabout on the A465 at Glynneath located adjacent to the McDonalds Restaurant o. The appeal sites are located on vacant land immediately adjacent to one another. Appeal site A is adjacent to the McDonalds restaurant. The sites are served by the existing road layout which was also constructed following the 1999 permission. The appeal sites have an open character and are bounded by trees and shrubs with the A465 to the south and fields to the north. Whilst there are wider verdant views of trees and fields, the character of the immediate area is influenced by the proximity of the built form and the presence of the trunk road roundabout. The Council does not take issue with the effect on the character and appearance of the proposed developments at this location.

Settlement Limits

9. It is common ground that the proposed developments fall outside the settlement boundary. Paragraph 4.7.8 of Planning Policy Wales2 advises that new building in the open countryside away from existing settlements must be strictly controlled. Policy SC1 of the Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Local Development Plan 2011- 2016 (LDP) seeks to place restrictions on developments which fall outside of settlement limits save for in circumstances set out within the policy. The appellant seeks to rely on criteria 1 and 9 in this case.

10. Dealing firstly with criterion 1, this permits development outside settlement limits where it constitutes “a sustainable small scale employment use adjacent to a settlement limit”. The Council’s position is that the appeal sites are not adjacent to the settlement because the site boundary is not coterminous with the settlement boundary and also there are permanent physical features which separate the appeal sites from the nearest settlements. In this respect, I note at the closest point, the nearest settlement, Cwmgwrach is approximately 45 metres away, separated by the A465. Whilst I note the appellant promotes a wider definition of “adjacent”, there is no justification for departing from the ordinary common sense meaning of this term. The presence of a physical barrier, in this case the A465, reinforces my conclusion that the appeal sites are clearly not adjacent to a settlement.

11. There is also some dispute between the parties as to whether the developments could be considered to comprise “small scale employment use”. However, it is not necessary to reach any conclusions on this point given I have already found that criterion 1 cannot be relied upon in this case.

12. In the alternative, the appellant refers to criterion 9 of policy SC1 which allows for development beyond settlement limits where it is associated with, amongst other things, infrastructure facilities. The Council does not accept that a roadside service

2Edition 9, November 2016

3

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

area amounts to infrastructure. The appellant has pointed to a reference to roadside service areas within Technical Advice Note 183 (TAN18), however, there is nothing within the TAN to suggest that this would amount to an infrastructure proposal. Similarly, at the hearing I was referred to the LDP glossary which defines infrastructure as including social elements such as education, recreation and health facilities. These considerations do not persuade me that a roadside service area is infrastructure for the purposes of the Plan. For this reason, I conclude that criterion 9 of policy SC1 does not apply in this case.

13. Consequently, I find that neither appeal A nor appeal B falls within any of the criteria listed within policy SC1 and therefore both developments would fail to accord with that policy. Accordingly, the developments would fail to accord with local policy which seeks to place strict controls on development which falls outside allocated settlement limits, thereby failing to accord with the advice set out within PPW.

Retail Policy and the Effect on the Glynneath District Centre

14. Appeal A includes two retail elements; the PFS kiosk with an approximate floor area of 375 m² and a drive-thru coffee shop with an approximate floor area of 170 m². Appeal B is in outline, however, indicative parameters suggest a net floor area of between 540 and 805 m². The appellants have stated in written evidence that the kiosk would have a net sales area of no more than 280m² which would include some counter space for a food concession such as a sandwich bar. The appellant acknowledges that this area indicates a larger floor area than many PFS kiosks.

15. Policy R3: Out of Centre Retail Proposals sets out criteria for retail developments outside designated town centres. However, its permissive effect does not extend beyond the defined limits of settlements. The amplification to the policy explains that the intention of the policy is to apply strict controls over retail proposals to ensure retail centres are supported and enhanced as far as possible. In the absence of any other relevant supportive retail policy it follows that the scheme conflict with the LDP’s retail policies.

16. PPW advises4 that if a need for retail development has been established, the form and scale of provision should be that which best meets the needs of the community.

17. It is common ground between the parties that there is an identified additional retail need for Glynneath. This is addressed in the LDP by the allocated regeneration site at Park Avenue. The proposed developments would therefore offer retail provision over and above the need identified in the LDP.

18. The Council is concerned that the proposed developments would have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the Glynneath district centre by diverting trade from the businesses located there and that they would undermine the deliverability of the allocated regeneration site at Park Avenue by competing with its complementary retail element. The evidence presented on potential retail impact is limited. I note that the appellant’s assertion that the Council did not ask for any empirical evidence however, at the hearing the Council explained that this was due to the perceived clear policy conflict. Whilst it is difficult in these circumstances to ascertain the degree of potential retail impact, it is reasonable to conclude that there

3 At paragraph 8.7 4 At paragraph 10.2.2

4

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

would be some trade diversion, as acknowledged by the appellant in their retail statement.

19. The Council has identified a retail need and that need has been addressed in the development plan for the area. I acknowledge the appellants arguments that the allocated site at Park Avenue is not readily deliverable, however, the Council’s position that the LDP is relatively newly adopted and there is no reason to suggest that the site would not be deliverable within the plan period. I note also that the allocated site is within the settlement limits and is promoted by the Council as having good connectivity to the district centre. For these reasons, the identified retail need can be met by a sequentially preferable site in accordance with the approach set out within PPW.

20. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal proposals fail to accord with policy R3 of the LDP and the advice set out within PPW in relation to the location for new retail development and would be harmful to the vitality and viability of the Glynneath district centre.

Material Considerations

21. The evidence for the appellant is that there is a local need for additional roadside service areas. There is no national guidance in Wales relating to roadside services areas other than related to motorways. TAN 185 advises that the need for motorway and roadside service areas should be addressed within the development plan; however there is no provision within the LDP. The appellant asserts that roadside facilities provide an important function in highway safety terms by enabling motorists to take a break from driving and to refuel vehicles. The evidence before me is that the nearest dual directional PFS facilities are on the M4 motorway, 19.3 miles away to the south west and 29.1 miles away to the south east, however, there is no assessment of other facilities in the environs of the A465 which may offer FPS and rest facilities. It is the appellant’s evidence that the shortage of rest and PFS facilities along the A465 as a strategic route and the ensuing potential for increased highway safety weighs in favour of the proposals.

22. I acknowledge that the provision of additional and convenient stops may be welcomed by some motorists and that the location of the sites adjacent to the A465 would be convenient in this respect, however, it is the Council’s case that this would have the potential to have a negative economic impact on the district centre as set out above. The Council is also concerned that the appellant had failed to justify the need for roadside services at this location given the presence of PFS facilities within Glynneath and the existing parking, toilet and refreshment facilities available at Mc Donalds. I note the appellant’s comments that diverting HGVs into Glynneath for refuelling may be undesirable, however, no evidence has been presented to point to inconvenience either to HGV drivers or other users of the highway network serving Glynneath.

23. Even if I was satisfied that there was a need for roadside services in the area and that this justified development outside settlement limits, I am not satisfied that there are no sites available that would be more closely related to the existing settlement, for example, at the hearing the Council referred to a recently submitted application for a PFS and associated development close to the appeal site, accessible from the

5 Paragraph 8.7

5

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

A465 and within the settlement limits. Whilst this is not a determinative issue since the application is at an early stage of consideration, the appellant’s arguments that the appeal sites are the only location for the developments are somewhat reduced.

24. Furthermore, and focussing on appeal B alone, the appellant has failed to provide any justification for the provision of the pub/ restaurant facility at this location contrary to policy. Given my findings that the development would be in clear conflict with policies SC1 and R3 of the LDP, the onus is on the appellant to give reasons in favour of the development. Whilst I acknowledge that the appellant’s position is that the developments proposed under appeal A and B should be considered together to comprise a roadside service area, there are two appeals before me to consider. In the light of my conclusions above, the failure to produce any specific justification for the pub/restaurant development weighs against the justification for the roadside service area as a whole.

25. I have taken into account the potential employment opportunities which would be created as a result of the developments, estimated at 32 jobs for appeal A and 37 for appeal B, however, it is not clear whether these would be full or part time jobs. The Council states that the numbers of jobs anticipated would not be sufficient to outweigh the policy considerations particularly if the developments resulted in a negative impact on the vitality and viability of the district centre and the deliverability of the retail element of the Park Avenue development. For these reasons, I conclude the potential for additional employment opportunities would be insufficient to justify a departure from policy in this case.

26. Overall, I conclude that whilst the developments may bring some potential benefits, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

Conclusion – Appeal A and Appeal B

27. Taking into account all matters raised, I conclude that both proposed developments would be contrary to local and national policy and the considerations referred to do not outweigh the policy breaches. Accordingly, the appeal A and B should be dismissed.

28. I have considered the duty to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales, in accordance with the sustainable development principle, under section 3 of the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (“the WBFG Act”). In reaching these decisions, I have taken into account the ways of working set out at section 5 of the WBFG Act and I consider that these decisions are in accordance with the sustainable development principle through their contribution towards one or more of the Welsh Ministers well-being objectives set out as required by section 8 of the WBFG Act Janine Townsley

Inspector

6

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/16/3159310 & 3159312

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Arfon Hughes Planning Agent; Mango Planning

Darren Brown Mango Planning

Simon Jehu Director Waterstone Estates Limited

Will Lloyd Davies Waterstone Estates Limited

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Matthew Fury Planning Officer NPT CBC

Steven Ball Development Manager NPT CBC

Iwan Davies Solicitor NPT CBC

INTERESTED PERSONS:

P Weavers Director PPI (Operations) Ltd (applicant for alternative site ) Cllr Edwards Blaengwrach Ward Member Cllr J Price Cwmgwrach Ward Member

DOCUMENTS

1. List of suggested conditions 2. Location plan of nearby site subject to an application for planning permission 3. Statement on behalf of PPI (Operations Ltd) 4. Schedule of appeal drawings 5. Statement of Cllr Edwards 6. Glossary of LDP terms

7