Petrol station to be built on A59/A65 Yorkshire Dales gateway roundabout opposite Keelham Farm Shop after council's refusal overturned

A government planning inspector has granted permission for a new petrol station off the A65/A59 roundabout in Skipton — overturning a decision by the former Craven District Council to refuse it last year.

The petrol station will be built on Gargrave Road, opposite Keelham Farm Shop, and will also include a shop, car wash, EV charging points and a new mini roundabout.

Developer Brookfield Property Holdings Ltd says it will meet a demand for roadside services along the A65/A59 road network but there have been concerns from residents and businesses about the facility spoiling views, exacerbating congestion and damaging nature.

An appeal hearing was held in Skipton earlier this month when planning inspector Helen Hockenhull heard arguments both for and against the proposals.

But in her decision notice which has now been published, Ms Hockenhull ultimately sided with the developer and said the council was wrong to refuse it.

The key element of the appeal centred around whether the petrol station would harm views of the open countryside.

Karen Darvell, chair of Stirton with Thorlby Parish Council, told the hearing that it would destroy an area cherished by residents. She said: “It lies in open, unspoiled and undeveloped nature.”

However, Ms Hockenhull concluded that due to the “modest” size of the proposals it would have a limited impact.

She was also satisfied that the plans will improve biodiversity due to trees that will be planted on land 350 metres to the north of the site.

She wrote: “I find that the appeal proposal would overall preserve open character and local significance. The scheme would therefore comply with Policy ENV10 and cause no unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

Several objectors said the proposals would increase congestion with Conservative councillor for Mid Craven, Simon Myers, claiming queues could put people off from visiting the market town.

However, the developer successfully argued that the “vast majority” of trips generated by the development would be from cars already passing the site.

Ms Hockenhull concluded: “I find that the appeal scheme would provide a safe and suitable access to the site and that there would be no unacceptable impacts on highway safety. The residual cumulative impacts on the road network would not be severe.”

The developer did not ask to be repaid legal costs from the council.