Welshpool Town CouncilEP060526/8.1 - P/26/0012/FUL
This was a decision taken on 06/05/2026 by Events & Planning Committee numbered WTCM661.
Status: Completed
Vote Type: Standard
Proposer: Cllr Phil Owen
Seconder: Cllr Revd William Rowell
Decision:
Members considered the planning application and provided the following response:
Response: Object
Comments:
1. Access, visibility, and highway safety.
The proposal raises significant highway safety concerns due to constrained access arrangements onto the A483 within a known collision hotspot, where slow-moving agricultural vehicles would enter and cross a high-speed trunk road with limited forward visibility, contrary to Policy T1.
The application is unsupported by any detailed transport assessment, speed survey, collision analysis, or swept-path modelling despite the acknowledged use of large agricultural machinery and slurry transport operations associated with a 2,500-acre farming enterprise.
2. Size, location, and use.
The proposed slurry store constitutes a substantial industrial-scale structure measuring approximately 39m in diameter and 11.354m in height with a fixed GRP roof, resulting in significant visual prominence within the open River Severn landscape, contrary to Policies DM4 and DM13.
The Planning Statement materially understates the visual scale of the development by initially describing the structure as 6.06m high whilst the submitted ammonia report confirms a total roof height of 11.354m.
The applicant’s assertion that the development “will not stand out in the surrounding landscape” is unsupported by any formal Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment despite the scale, height, and exposed rural location adjacent to the A483 and River Severn corridor.
3. Flooding & Pollution.
The site lies within Flood Zone 3 adjacent to the River Severn, and the applicant expressly acknowledges the flood risk, yet insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would remain structurally resilient and environmentally secure during flood events, contrary to Policies DM5 and DM6.
The proposal is located approximately 145m from the Montgomery Canal SAC and SSSI, yet insufficient evidence has been provided to conclusively demonstrate no adverse impacts from ammonia emissions, nutrient pollution, accidental release, or wider ecological disturbance, contrary to Policy DM2.
The ammonia assessment acknowledges that ammonia-sensitive receptors exist in close proximity to the site and relies upon future mitigation measures and planning conditions rather than demonstrating that impacts can be fully avoided at application stage.
The statement that mitigation measures “can reduce emissions by up to 100%” is generic and theoretical and does not constitute evidence that emissions from this specific development would have no adverse environmental impact.
The Council remains concerned that inadequate evidence has been submitted regarding slurry containment, overflow protection, groundwater protection, and pollution control measures in the event of flood inundation, structural failure, or operational malfunction, contrary to Policies DM2, DM5 and DM13.
RESOLVED
To respond to the planning authority in respect of P/26/0012/FUL with the above response and comments.
Accompanying Documents: