Loading document...
5.1 There are views from the following addresses, all of whom object to the application on the basis that the proposal will result in traffic congestion and obstruction as vehicles using the road conflict with vehicles parked and coming in and out in association with the church and private accesses onto the main road, as well as using the proposed shop and that this will be particularly difficult in practice and race periods for the TT and Manx Grand Prix. Concern is also expressed about alleged deficiencies in the application regarding trees and visibility splays.
5.2 Concern is also expressed about unsafe pedestrian access and the size of the site relative to the proposal use. Some residents question whether the majority of the population do support this proposal and whether siting it between the two settlements will actually mean that it is convenient to neither. Concern is expressed about the introduction of further hard surfacing on the site and the impact on drainage which this will have as there are already issues of excess surface water flowing onto the southern side of the road. Finally, concern is expressed that this is a green space which separates the two settlements of Glen Vine and Crosby and the operation of the shop could potentially cause noise and nuisance to dwellings in the vicinity.
Marown Manor (2 separate submissions) Marown Hall Twisted Chimneys Gatesgarth Meadow View Brook Cottage.
All the above properties are on Main Road relatively close to the site.
1, Glen Vine Drive (around 120m from the site) Kelway, Glenlough Circle (over 800m from the site) 98, Ballagarey Road (600m from the site) Garey Beg, Greeba Avenue (around 500m from the site) 94, Ballagarey Road (around 600m from the site) Eyreton Lea (500m from the site) Ballavitchel House (around 1,500m from the site)
5.2 The Vicar of Marown, Foxdale and Baldwin expresses concern about potential traffic conflicts with church use. They also add that they are looking for additional land on which to create new burial spaces and if planning permission is granted for the shop, perhaps additional land could be set aside for such purposes. A further representation submitted by a legal firm on behalf of the Marown Burial Authority indicate that they have no objection to the application but advise that they are likely to be adversely affected by noise, dust and smell and traffic and also advise that they have been instructed to act on the Burial Authority's behalf in respect of compulsory purchase of land which forms part of this application.
5.3 A resident of the following property has written in supporting the application on the basis that it is much needed:
1, Kermode Close.
Two further e-mails of support were forwarded to the Planning Officer through the Commissioners but which had been sent directly to the Commissioners and not to the Planning Office. Such submissions, from the residents of 30, Reayrt ny Crink and 1, Richmond Terrace, will as such have significantly less weight than those submitted directly to the Planning Office in response to the advertised application.
5.4 A resident of Douglas objects to the application as it would be ribbon development and contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
5.5 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application subject to the provision of visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m in each direction at a height of 1.05m and that car parking should be provided at a ratio of one space per 15 sq m of gross floor area with sufficient space for vehicular turning and the access must be constructed before any other part of the development. They advise that a traffic regulation order will be required to restrict parking on the opposite side of the road to ensure that access is not restricted and an agreement under Section 109a of the Highway Act is required prior to any works being undertaken within the highway. They have clarified that the physical length of the restriction will be around 20m.
5.6 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) make comments about existing supplies, some of which are overhead as well as comments about the provision of electricity supplies to the development. The former are material planning considerations, the latter are not.
6.1 The site is not designated for development. As such the relevant considerations are whether there is sufficient justification to set aside this land use designation and in doing so, whether the development could be satisfactorily accommodated in terms of the visual impact of the building, the car park and the access, whether a safe access could be provided and whether this would have any impact on those in nearby property including the church and whether the operation of the business would have an adverse impact on those close to the site.
6.2 The fact that the Commissioners have considered the needs of the parish is commendable and whilst there has been some criticism of the Commissioners acting as the applicant when they are unlikely to operate the shop, it was considered by the planning officer that as the impetus for the shop was coming from the Commissioners it was more appropriate for them to be the applicant rather than either the land owner, who would be unlikely to be the final tenant and operator of the shop, or indeed the potential operator who may well not yet have been identified. The Commissioners have undertaken the background research and have identified the need for the facility so it is considered entirely appropriate that the local authority is the applicant in this case.
6.3 The Commissioners clearly consider that there is a need for a local shop for the parish and indeed there was previously a shop in Crosby on the Main Road but as they have suggested this was not only very modest in scale and thus the range of goods it could sell, but also had poor pedestrian access, little or no car parking and was on the southern side of the road, contrary to the location of the majority of the population of Crosby and Glen Vine.
6.4 A shop was identified as being required as part of the Ballagarey residential development and indeed land was set aside for this purpose. However, it was considered later on that there was insufficient need or support for a shop to continue to set this land aside for these purposes and permission was granted for the development of the land for residential use, the inspector noting that "the commercial reality today is that such development will not take place. I am satisfied that the appellants have sought to find a potential retailer. In my view, it is not surprising that they have failed. A retail unit on this land would serve only a very limited and local catchment area. It would not divert traffic from the Peel Road and would not, in my view, be a viable option".
6.5 It is therefore logical that the Commissioners have elected to pursue a location which would be able to benefit from passing trade as well as serving the local residents and indeed the application site satisfies this requirement. It also has sufficient space to be able to provide adequate car parking and manoeuvring space. It is also relevant that the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services has advised that the site can be satisfactorily accessed and that the drawings submitted indicate that this can be done whilst retaining all but a few trees.
It is also possible that additional planting could be undertaken to increase the screening effect from the Main Road and also to reinforce the boundary between the shop and the nearest house, Meadow View.
6.6 The site is located equidistant from both settlements thus potentially benefiting from trade from both communities, as well as from passing motorists. As such, there is a significant argument that the siting is appropriate from this point of view. However, the evidence provided from the responses gathered would seem to indicate that there is a clear lack of support for the facility, whether this be because of the siting or simply because the population do not think it is something which the settlements need. Whilst it is fully accepted that in the Commissioners preliminary investigations there was support indicated, this has not translated into support for this application. As such, some doubt has to be cast upon the benefit to the local community from such a facility. Whilst it is understandable that those close to the site may be concerned about the direct impacts of a shop here, there are other concerns expressed from those who would not be directly affected about the impact and whether or not it would actually be used by residents of Crosby and Glen Vine.
6.7 There is an important impact to consider here both in terms of the principle of development on land which is not designated for development, but also the principle of the development of the open space which separates Crosby from Glen Vine on this northern side of the road. This concern is given further weight by the submissions from Marown Burial Authority who indicate that not only are they interested in acquiring further land for burial purposes, but they have gone as far as instructing legal representation in respect of compulsory purchasing some of the field of which the application site is part. As such, the worry about precedent established for further development of this space as a result of an approval of this application is very real.
6.8 Whilst the application is in principle, the footprint of the building shown is considerably larger than that found at Union Mills and, as such, considered to be larger than what may be expected for a community or neighbourhood shop. If economic viability is likely to be an issue then the larger the shop, the greater the likelihood of the operation not being economically viable and potentially leading to the building becoming redundant.
6.9 In conclusion, the Commissioners should be applauded for trying to provide for their population and in terms of location there is a logic to this site which is understandable. However, there is a clear lack of support from the local community for this facility which calls into doubt the local benefit of the facility, which would be the only justification for setting aside the land use designation. As such, the application cannot be supported. It is, perhaps something which an Area Plan would look into and would involve local consultation and debate, and the consideration of other identified sites although the preparation of this Area Plan is some time away. It is likely that this part of the Island would be part of the Area Plan for the East, which is the next in line for preparation but which has yet to be commenced. As such, it is likely to be several years before a firm stance on a shop for Marown would be established.
6.10 There have been objections raised in terms of the safety of the access and the impact on nearby properties and in these respects it is considered that the proposal could be acceptable. It would be possible to create a safe means of access without the removal of too many trees and as the access exists, there could be a case for improving the visibility from this access anyway as it exits onto a primary road which is one of the Island's busiest. The highway authority has indicated that whilst controls on parking on the other side of the road may be required, this is not likely to significantly interfere with the operation of the church. Also, it is possible for the development to include the introduction of tree and shrub planting and the positioning of the car park and building such that the amenities of those in Meadow View were not compromised. As such, these are not considered to be reasons for refusal. Also, whilst the drawings indicate a shop which is larger than the typical neighbourhood shop found in Union Mills, it is considered that this concern could be dealt with by way of condition.
6.11 If the application is approved, consideration should be given to the following conditions:
☑ which must be retained as set the coffee
☑ car parking + nondecuring space
7.1 The local authority, Marown Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
7.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
7.3 The following residents are sufficiently close to the development to be directly affected by the development or its associated traffic or access and as such should be afforded party status in this case:
7.4 The following parties are some distance from the site and would not be directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this case:
1, Glen Vine Drive Kelway, Glenlough Circle 98, Ballagarey Road Garey Beg, Greeba Avenue 94, Ballagarey Road Eyreton Lea Ballavitchel House The Vicar of Marown, Foxdale and Baldwin and the Marown Burial Authority 1, Kermode Close.
7.5 Manx Utilities Authority raises material planning considerations and is a statutory authority and as such should be afforded party status in this case.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
Whilst the Commissioners should be applauded for looking at ways in which the local communities can be better served, in this case, whilst preliminary investigations which the Commissioners undertook may have indicated that there was significant support for a local shop, this is not manifest in the views submitted to this application which are mainly opposed to the development. In the absence of demonstrable local support for the development it is considered that there is insufficient justification to set aside the land use designation of the site as Open Space and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and also in view of the precedent which could be established for further development in this particular area, thus undermining the visual separation of Crosby and Glen Vine.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown