Bridgwater electric vehicle charging hub scrapped due to flooding fears
A planned electric vehicle charging hub near the M5 in Bridgwater has been scrapped due to concerns about localised flooding.
Last updated 4 hours ago
A planned electric vehicle charging hub near the M5 in Bridgwater has been scrapped due to concerns about localised flooding.
Ionity GmbH put forward proposals in late-February for an electric vehicle charging hub at the Dunball services, located north of the recently-upgraded Dunball roundabout near junction 23 of the motorway.
The London-based firm argued such a development will help to meet the government’s aim for providing at least 300,000 publicly available electric vehicle charging points across the UK by 2030.
But Somerset Council has now refused to grant planning permission, arguing that it could increase the risk of flooding and that other more suitable sites had not been properly considered.
The site lies north of the existing Costa Coffee drive-thru outlet, bordered to the east by the A38 Bristol Road and the accompanying active travel link (which forms part of the ‘purple route’ within the Bridgwater local cycling and walking infrastructure plan, or LCWIP).
The charging facility would have provided 16 charging bays, comprising ten standard spaces, two accessible spaces and four extended spaces.
Access would have been achieved through extending the existing access road from Old Works Road, which serves both the Costa Coffee outlet and the neighbouring Shell petrol station.
A spokesperson for BNP Paribas Real Estate (representing the applicant) said: “Landscaping has been an element thoughtfully considered within the design, with the proposal maximising the inclusion of green space and amenity within the scheme.
“The proposal includes the retention of native grassland, and the inclusion of new trees and hedgerows.
“This development proposal will provide a raft of benefits, which include supporting the transition to highly sustainable modes of transport and supporting the sustainability objectives of a local employer.
“The facility is located within an urban area, on previously developed land, and will not cause any adverse impacts on the transport network.”
The council refused permission through the delegated powers of its planning officers, rather than a public vote by its planning committee north (which handles major applications within the former Sedgemoor area).
Bill Cotton, the council’s interim service director for planning, said that the applicant should consider alternative sites outside of flood zone 3 (i.e. land deemed by the Environment Agency to be at the greatest risk of flooding).
He said: “The proposed development is located within flood zone 3.
“The proposal is not considered to pass the sequential and exceptions test, and is not supported by an adequate site-specific flood risk assessment.”
Ionity GmbH has not yet indicated whether it intends to appeal this decision.