Village car park plans refused

By Elgan Hearn, Local Democracy Reporter

Plans to create more car parking spaces at a mini business park in a village right on the border with Shropshire have been rejected by county planners.

In June last year, John and Pamela Dix lodged a planning application with Powys County Council to change the use of a field from agriculture to parking and storage at land next to Tan Y Bryn, The Shop in Coedway.

Coedway is a village on the B4393 road that roughly lies between Welshpool and Shrewsbury and Planning Agent, Tudor Watkins of Roger and Parry and Partners, explained the proposal in a planning statement.

Mr Watkins said: “The site lies immediately adjacent to the existing business park. The movements associated with the existing business park will remain unchanged as the existing parking area within the front yard area will move to the proposed site.

“Also, with so many vehicles parking on the main road to visit the business park, this proposal will ultimately reduce any current potential highway issues and therefore will be a benefit.”

The application had been objected to by Bausley with Criggion Community Council which encompasses Coedway.

In a lengthy correspondence, the council objected to the application on several grounds including that the: “proposed car park is oversized for demand.”

The council also “refutes” the claims made by the applicant that vehicles are “constantly and consistently” parked on the main road there.

The council added that the concern from residents is that approving the scheme would lead to the expansion of the business park.

In her report, Planning Officer, Hannah Miller, said: “Officers agree with the Highway Authority that without any additional information on the parking requirements associated with the units, clarification of the proposed storage use and the existing access, combined with the size of the development, an assessment of whether the access is suitable for the type and volume of vehicles expected to use the site cannot be carried out.

“Officers note that the development would relate to an existing economic use, however, we do not consider that the economic benefits of the development outweigh the requirement to properly assess the highway impacts.

“In addition, the submission fails to demonstrate that that sustainable drainage would be achieved, does not justify the loss of agricultural land and fails to provide sufficient information to consider impact upon amenity.

“As such, refusal is recommended.”