Wells councillors reject bid for round-the-clock petrol station opening
Local councillors vote against extended opening hours at Esso station
Efforts to extend the opening hours of a petrol station in Wells have failed following a vote by local councillors.
The Esso petrol station lies on the B3139 Bath Road, in a predominantly residential part of the city, and includes a Budgens store and a Post Office counter.
Motor Fuel Group successfully secured a new licence from Somerset Council regarding the site in October 2025, allowing it to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises 24 hours a day.
But the company has now failed in his bid to have the petrol station open for 24 hours a day every day, with councillors ruling it will be used by people who “predominantly high or drunk” and harm residents’ quality of life.
Under the original planning permission, granted by Mendip District Council in June 2014, the petrol station and shop’s opening hours were restricted for a 12-month period – fixing them at 6am to 10pm from Monday to Saturday and 7am to 10pm on Sunday.
Following this initial 12-month period, the opening hours were standardised to between 7am and 10pm daily – with the recent licensing decision requiring that all sales of alcohol and “late-night refreshment” (which includes hot drinks takeaway hot food such as pies or pasties) be conducted through the night pay window.
Motor Fuel Group stated that, if permission was granted, the shop would remain closed to the public between 10pm and 7pm, with all petrol sales being conducted through the night pay window and only one set of pumps being in operational (to reduce the risk of bilking).
The proposed change was debated by councillors when Somerset Council’s planning committee east (which handles major applications within the former Mendip area) convened in Shepton Mallet on July 7.
Daniel Dutton, who lives near the site, said: “When this petrol station was approved, the condition restricting the opening hours was imposed specifically to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents. What has materially changed to justify removing this protection?
“The applicant’s own noise impact assessment predicts that noise levels will rise by between 5dB and 13dB – this is a significant adverse impact. A detailed lighting scheme still has not been submitted.
“The grant of a premises licence is not evidence that planning issues have been fully addressed.”
Local resident Arthur Hayward concurred: “I can hear the forecourt from my bedroom window – how would any of you like that from 1am to 4am? I wonder if your conscience would allow that.
“We’re talking about common sense here, never mind rules and regulations. Can you believe that a 40-tonne vehicle unloading there would be ‘imperceptible’?
“The artificial light is so powerful, you could read a newspaper from the forecourt with my bedroom lights turned off.
“I know I’m an old fart at the end of my days, but I would like to have a reasonable night’s sleep if I could.”
Councillor Theo Butt Philip – whose Wells division includes the site – said he shared these concerns, adding: “The condition limiting the hours exists for a reason, and those reasons have not changed.
“This is a residential area, and while it is hugely beneficial to have a shop and a petrol station in it, it would not be hugely beneficial to have one operating throughout the night.
“There is a very real concern that having this site operating throughout the night will be a magnet for people buying food and indeed alcohol, and that will cause problems, as these things tend to do.”
Councillor Susannah Hart (Conservative, Glastonbury) agreed: “We should reject this. It’s not Las Vegas, it’s Wells.
“We don’t need another 24-hour garage. There is avoidable harm and no gain.
“People who go shopping in the middle of the night are predominantly people who are high or drunk. Normal, quiet, family people don’t go out shopping at a garage in the middle of the night.”
After around half an hour’s debate, the committee voted to refuse the plans by ten votes to one.
Motor Fuel Group has not yet indicated whether it wishes to appeal the decision.