Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Temporary consent allowing for the erection of a detached food-to-go building (Greggs Pod) and other associated minor site alterations including the formation of vehicle parking for a period of two years (development already commenced).

RESOLVED: That application 25/02260/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

A) The resolution of the LLFA matters to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority with the imposition of planning conditions or amendment of planning conditions as necessary with any actions required pursuant to LLFA response being devolved to the Development and Conservation Manager; and

B) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the additional condition as follows:

‘Conditon 6

Within 12 months of the first implementation of the approved use, the operator shall undertake monitoring of vehicle movements within the Northway Service Station forecourt and their interaction with the adjacent highway network (A1). A GG104 Risk Assessment Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with National Highways, at the end of the 12-month period and any mitigation shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable.

Reason: To enable the operational impacts of the development on the Strategic Road Network to be assessed and to ensure that the safe and efficient operation of the A1 slip road is maintained in the interests of highway safety and network performance and in accordance with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 – 2031.’

Audio recording – 02 hours 32 minutes 31 seconds

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson declared an interest as Member Advocate Objector and moved to the public speaking gallery.

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 25/02260/FP and advised that:

· They were awaiting a final response from the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA).

· Following further concerns raised by the Agent to the Neighbour, National Highways were willing to propose an additional condition to mitigate any concerns over internal vehicle movements.

The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report in respect of application 25/02260/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Martin Prescott

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

· Those wanting to access the Greggs Pod would turn left as they drove into the service station.

· The application had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 12 March 2026 as National Highways concluded that the application needed a risk assessment.

· After discussion, the site needed to be assessed while the pod was live, which would take place during the two years given for temporary permission.

· There were also food facilities on the A1 northbound service station.

· The site layout had already been amended after comments from National Highways.

In response to questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

· National Highways did not have an issue with the slip roads entering and exiting the site, they only wanted to assess internal vehicle movements.

· The site layout may be changed to improve its functioning during the assessment period, but if this could not improve the situation, it would weigh against any proposal to renew planning permission.

· Planning permission would be recommended for refusal if there was a highways safety issue, but National Highways had not raised concerns of this kind.

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, Ms Hayley Doyle to speak against the application. Ms Doyle thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· They had not been made aware of the additional condition detailed by the Senior Planning Officer in their verbal update until now.

· They had reviewed the application on behalf of the adjoining landowner who had raised concerns on several issues.

· Members should defer the application until they were able to visit the site as online pictures did not provide an adequate view of the site.

· The slip road to exit the site was already unsuitable for the existing arrangement and this application would only intensify this.

· A safety audit would be carried out if a permanent application was applied for in two years, but consideration had to be given to the possibility of a serious accident occurring before then.

· Severity of the highway impacts should be considered against paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

· The Committee needed to consider whether the application for temporary permission was a shortcut as a permanent structure had been installed.

· There was an outstanding objection from the LLFA and a safe decision could not be made on the application without more information on this.

· Highways risk was difficult to judge without visiting the site.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Nigel Mason

In response to points of clarification, Ms Doyle advised that:

· Risk between the neighbour entering their property and traffic exiting the filling station on the slip road would need assessing through a safety audit.

· The Transport Statement produced by the Applicant had observed an increase in vehicle trips onsite since the construction of the Greggs pod.

· They believed that there would be an intensification of use of the site because of the Greggs pod, even if the Transport Statement did not conclude this.

The Chair thanked Ms Doyle for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Mr David Clifton, to speak against the application. Mr Clifton thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· They were a chartered surveyor and were representing the safety concerns made by the neighbour on the access to their dwelling on the exit slip road.

· Constructing the pod and then asking for retrospective planning permission put unnecessary pressure on the planning system and the Council.

· Temporary planning permission had been incorrectly requested as substantial foundations and deep excavations had been made for the long-term structure of the pod.

· It was unclear whether building regulation approval had been obtained for the pod.

· National Highways had indicated that an entrance to a driveway on a slip road would no longer be permitted, therefore, this application should include a new slip road design to account for safety.

· Given the conduct of Welcome Break in constructing the pod without planning permission, the safety audit should be carried out before permission was granted as they may not conduct this immediately, or at all.

· Permission for the application should not be determined until all safety issues had been resolved, and a site visit had been carried out by Members.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Ian Mantle

· Councillor Louise Peace

In response to points of clarification, Mr Clifton advised that:

· The neighbouring property had several vehicles and any movement in or out of the site would pose a serious risk, particularly when large lorries used the exit slip road.

· The neighbour could not use the filling station to enter their property as there had been disagreement between them and the site owner.

The Chair thanked Mr Clifton for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Tom Tyson, to speak against the application. Councillor Tyson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· There would be intensification of use of the site as the pod would not have been constructed without the Applicant anticipating that it would produce more custom.

· Traffic movements in and out of the site should be measured to determine a baseline.

· Delivery vehicles entering the neighbouring property also added to the risk.

· There would be a confrontational situation between vehicles and HGVs exiting the site and those wanting to access the pod after the filling station.

· A safety audit should be carried out as soon as possible, especially if permission was granted.

· The layout of the filling station did not compare well in terms of safety to the A1 northbound service station that had a one-way system.

· Permission for the application should not be approved at this stage.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Ian Mantle

· Councillor Val Bryant

In response to points of clarification, Councillor Tom Tyson advised that:

· Customers would not be able to access the filling station after going to the Greggs pod and if they tried to access the pod after the filling station, they would have to make a tight left turn, which would not be possible without going into the other lane of traffic exiting the filling station or crossing other flows of traffic when trying to park.

· Without a safety audit, the site layout could not be classed as safe.

· They were unaware of the history of safety audits for the site or the number of layout changes it had gone through over the years.

The Chair thanked Councillor Tyson for their presentation and invited the Agent to the Applicant, Ross Fraser, to speak in support of the application. Mr Fraser thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· Facilities at the site were dated and had not kept up with modern expectations.

· The Department for Transport Circular 01/2022 recognised that roadside facilities provided an important safety function for road users to take a break in their journeys and acknowledged that facilities must support the uptake of zero emission and hybrid vehicles through the installation of EV charging points.

· The application comprised a retrospectively built 66-metre square metre pod unit and two EV charging points to address a shortfall of charging points on the A1.

· Relevant consultees had given their support for the application and the report of the Senior Planning Officer recommended to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

· Economic benefits of the application included the creation of 5 jobs.

· The site was classed as brownfield, and this proposal was a positive use of the land.

· National Highways accepted that the proposal would not result in an intensification of site use, and they had recommended approval of temporary planning permission.

· The pod would operate on reduced hours compared to the 24-hour petrol station.

· Design of the pod was moderate in nature, which would assimilate it well with the immediate context of the site.

· Passing views would be limited to road users on the A1.

· Rationalisation of parking would aid the efficiency of the site.

· Positive responses had been received from consultees in terms of flooding and ecology.

The following Members asked points of clarification:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Louise Peace

In response to points of clarification, Mr Fraser advised that:

· Theoretically, there was no reason why Welcome Break could not introduce EV charging points to the site without constructing the Greggs pod.

· A reason for why the neighbours were not allowed enter their property from the filling station could not be provided.

· A swept path analysis would likely have been part of the Transport Assessment.

In response to points raised in the verbal presentations, the Senior Planning Officer advised that any safety audit carried out would assess the internal circulation of vehicles, not the entrance or exit slip roads for the filling station.

The following Members asked additional questions:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Louise Peace

· Councillor Claire Winchester

· Councillor Ruth Brown

In response to additional questions, the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

· The Council would not undertake modelling of vehicle movements onsite as they did not employ experts on highways matters. Instead, they took advice from the highways consultee, which was National Highways, and they had not raised an objection subject to a safety audit being undertaken while operational.

· If there were outstanding safety issues after 2 years, the temporary planning permission would not be renewed.

· It would be for the Council to enforce the conditions imposed on the application, but they would consult relevant consultees such as National Highways where necessary.

· If there were serious safety concerns with the site, the Council could use enforcement powers to issue enforcement notices, and there was also a backstop that planning permission would only be temporary.

· They would not be able to impose a condition on the application that would grant a third party the right to access the land.

In response to additional questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that mitigations to any identified risks would be implemented within an agreed timetable after the 12-month period.

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson left the Chamber at 22:28.

Councillor Nigel Mason proposed to grant permission subject to the additional condition detailed by the Senior Planning Officer in their verbal update, and this was seconded by Councillor Dave Winstanley.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Nigel Mason

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Ruth Brown

· Councillor Claire Winchester

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· The filling station was an existing footprint, and some of the issues discussed regarding traffic would be present in its current layout.

· Members should mind that National Highways had not objected to the application if they were inclined to refuse it.

· The conditions on the application would satisfy the safety concerns.

· There would be a conflict with vehicles travelling round the rear of the filling station to access the pod, but it would be unlikely for a serious accident to occur.

· The site looked dangerous based on the plan, and they wished that the Applicant had redesigned the site to make access and safety a consideration.

N.B. Councillor Val Bryant left the Chamber at 22:36 and did not return.

In response to a further question raised by Councillor Martin Prescott, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the vegetation separating the site from the neighbouring property provided screening for the neighbour, and it was speculated that they would not want that to be cut back.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 25/02260/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to:

A) The resolution of the LLFA matters to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority with the imposition of planning conditions or amendment of planning conditions as necessary with any actions required pursuant to LLFA response being devolved to the Development and Conservation Manager; and

B) The conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the additional condition, as follows:

‘Condition 6

Within 12 months of the first implementation of the approved use, the operator shall undertake monitoring of vehicle movements within the Northway Service Station forecourt and their interaction with the adjacent highway network (A1). A GG104 Risk Assessment Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with National Highways, at the end of the 12-month period and any mitigation shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable.

Reason: To enable the operational impacts of the development on the Strategic Road Network to be assessed and to ensure that the safe and efficient operation of the A1 slip road is maintained in the interests of highway safety and network performance and in accordance with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011 – 2031.’

N.B. Following the conclusion of the item, the Chair advised that under 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution, the meeting had reached 10:30pm. However, they believed the Committee could continue with the remaining business on the agenda and advised that the Committee would proceed.

N.B. Councillor Tom Tyson returned to the Chamber at 22:38.

25/02260/FP NORTHWAY FILLING STATION, GREAT NORTH ROAD, HINXWORTH, BALDOCK, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG7 5EX

Help improve this site by giving feedback

Give your feedback