Fresh plans to knock down and rebuild a filling station in Lowestoft, Norfolk, have been submitted after the developer’s first application was refused in September last year.
The site’s owners initially wanted to replace the Gulf-liveried Gunton Garage with a new forecourt complete with drive-through foodservice, new underground fuel tanks and a rollover car wash, but this application was rejected by East Suffolk Council partly due to concerns that noise, odour and traffic levels would all increase as a result of what would comprise an “intensification” of the site, which is bordered on three sides by residential properties.
Updated plans have now been submitted, and while the developers are still seeking to knock down and rebuild the site, the drive-through food facility has been dropped from the proposals. Also dropped is the rollover car wash, with the developers instead now seeking to install a purpose-built facility for the hand car-wash service that currently sits to the rear of the site.
In the refused September application the developers proposed to replace the underground fuel tanks with two new 60,000-litre units, but the council said this would require more investigation regarding the potential for ground contamination, alongside a swept path analysis charting the arrival and departure of fuel tankers.
Now, the developers say they will retain the existing tanks, which comprise four units: one 45,000-litre petrol tank installed in 1984, and three diesel units thought to date back to 1973, one with a 14,000-litre capacity, and two holding 7,000 litres each. Records indicate a leak was suspected in the petrol tank in 2010 after water was found in it, with this prompting a re-line.
The demolition of the vacant on-site manager’s bungalow remains in the updated plans, while the rebuilt forecourt shop will feature a three-bedroom flat above it, assuming planning consent is obtained this time.
Four EV charging bays served by two chargers are also planned, while a standard 1.8-metre boundary fence will be installed rather than the 2.4m-tall fence that was initially proposed, but criticised by the council for being likely to have an ”adverse visual impact” on the area.
