An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL07.239541

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Mixed use development (9,040 square metres gross) comprising anchor retail unit (4,300 square metres gross); 3 no. retail warehouse type units including DIY centre; drive-thru restaurant and ancillary development.

LOCATION: Townparks, 1st Division, , County

PLANNING APPLICATION

Planning Authority (P.A.): Galway County Council

P.A. Reg. Ref.: 11/447

Applicant: Pat Donoghue

Application Type: Permission

P.A. Decision: Grant Permission subject to Conditions

PLANNING APPEAL

Appellants: 1. Kieran Lyons; 2. RGDATA

Type of Appeal: Third Parties –v- Grant

Site Inspection: 3 November 2011

Appendices: Photographs and Key Map; Site Location Sketches; Development Plan Extracts. ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 26

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 In this case there are two third party appeals against the decision of Galway County Council to grant permission, subject to conditions, for a retail development adjoining the N17 road at Tuam.

1.2 The appeal site has been the subject of previous proposals considered on appeal by An Bord Pleanala. Information on these cases is set out in the planning history section of my report (3.0 below). These two history appeal cases were in respect of mixed including mainly retail development. An earlier history case on the lands comprised a proposed residential development, in respect of which it is understood planning permission withered circa 2007.

1.3 I have read the file and visited the site and its environs and Tuam town, and can now report as set down below.

2.0 SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Location

2.1.1 The site is located north-west of Tuam town centre, north-west of and adjoining the N17 National Primary Route (main Galway-Tuam- Road). The site is surrounded by mainly residential development on its north, south and western sides. To the east it mainly fronts the public road N17, except for a single house residential development which forms a triangular site at the south-eastern corner of the appeal site lands.

2.1.2 It may be noted that while the southern and western boundaries of the site directly abut mainly residential plots and/or roads serving the residential areas, the northern boundary is separated from residential curtilages to the north by an existing access road serving some agricultural land and a detached house to the north-west.

2.1.3 The N17 is a heavily trafficked road in the vicinity bounded by footpaths on both sides of the road. To the east of the N17 in the vicinity there is a petrol filling station and a neighbouring auto business enterprise to its south. South of the appeal site vicinity is a traffic signalised crossroads junction where the N17 is joined by the R332 main road to/from Ballinrobe. The area of the town lying between the main town centre area, and the appeal site, includes a significant swathe of established residential lands. The routes between the town centre and the appeal site rise steadily northwards from the town and then fall to the level of the appeal site. Photographs illustrate some of the character of the intervening territory to which I refer, and also the immediately surrounding area of the appeal site. Direct pedestrian routes between the town centre include those shown on the sketch map associated with the current RGDATA appeal.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The site itself comprises a large field which slopes downwards from the south and west towards the north-east. The steady slope is reflected in the contoured survey map on file. On the northern and north-western boundaries there are post and wire ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 26

fences augmented by established hedgerows defining the field edge adjacent to the lane and adjoining the curtilage of a detached dwellinghouse; to the south and west there are mainly block walls reinforced by manicured hedges. The triangular house site to the south-east is surrounded mainly by a buffer of rough hedges adjoining the appeal site. Finally there is a low block wall adjoining the back of the footpath on the N17.

2.2.2 Photographs also illustrate the existing view towards the appeal site from the neighbouring Lissadyra appellant property. The rear building lines of existing and proposed development is of the order of 45 metres.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

The Planning Report for the Planning Authority dated 23 May 2011 identifies applications associated with subject lands; and planning applications in the vicinity of the site. Relevant cases are as summarised below.

3.1 Current Appeal Site

3.1.1 00/1853: permission granted subject to conditions for the construction of 150 residential units and associated roads and services.

3.1.2 County Galway 06/3007: (An Bord Pleanala PL07.223207): refusal of permission upheld on appeal for a mixed use retail/commercial phased development comprising anchor retail unit; 4 no. retail warehouse units (including DIY); 15 no. other retail units, restaurant, 2 no. retail showrooms and other development including a total of 1,103 car parking (including basement) spaces. Gross floor area was stated at 22,046 square metres. A copy of the appeal file is available for reference.

3.1.3 Galway 09/318 (An Bord Pleanala PL07.235225) . Permission refused on appeal for a mixed use retail, restaurant and cinema development including an anchor retail unit and 5 no. bulky goods retail warehouse and other development including 568 car parking (including basement) spaces. Gross floor area was stated at 16,518 square metres. This application was accompanied by an EIS. The appeal file is currently unavailable. Copies of the Board Order Direction/Inspector’s Report in that case are contained in a wallet on the current appeal file for reference.

3.2 Cases in the Vicinity

Recent cases noted relate to small scale development. Developments of more significant scale are dated. No further information identifying site locations etc. have been provided by the Planning Authority.

3.3 Recent Board Decisions

Appeal documentation refers to several retail development cases decided by An Bord Pleanala in Tuam and environs, in addition to the two cases relating to the appeal site itself. Relevant cases noted include those set down below.

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 26

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT

4.1 Proposed Development

4.1.1 The planning application form and public notices identify the following elements in an overall 9,040 square metres gross floor area mixed use retail and restaurant development.

• 1 no. anchor retail unit (4,300 square metres gross) comprising 3,000 square metres net convenience goods sales area combined with alcohol sales, hot deli counter and staff areas;

• 3 no. retail warehouses comprising

1 x 900 square metre gross 1 x 1120 square metres gross 1 x 2,300 square metres gross together with ancillary area of 650 square metres

• 1 no. drive thru restaurant of 420 square metres gross.

• Delivery areas, public recycling area, pedestrian footpath, taxi rank area, bus shuttle set down/pick-up area, cycle stands, 360 no. car parking spaces (including 250 no. basement spaces).

• Ancillary development including signage, ESB sub-stations and transformer rooms, vehicular and pedestrian access points and modifications to existing N17 road to include provision of a new roundabout, footpaths and cycleways.

4.1.2 The site area is stated at 6.41 hectares.

4.1.3 The planning application form (Section 18) makes reference to a history case 00/1583, which is understood to be the case 00/1853 referred to in the Planning History section of my report herein, above.

4.1.4 Water supply and services are stated to be utilising public mains and drains. A sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) and rainwater harvesting scheme are proposed.

4.1.5 Supporting Documentation

• Planning Report GHS Consultancy including Retail Impact Assessment and Design Statements.

• Technical Report GHS Consultancy: this is a report of some 160 pages including text and diagrams, set out in three main sections entitled General Information; Environmental Details; Roads Related. (In the interest of clarity it may be noted that page 1 of this report refers to “Additional Information”, however it is/was submitted to the Planning Authority as part of the current planning application in

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 26

March 2011, and therefore should not be confused with any other additional information subsequently received by the Planning Authority in the course of processing the planning application).

• Suite of Drawings.

4.2 Unsolicited Additional Information

4.2.1 Prior to the initial assessment of the case by the Planning Authority, an additional information submission was made by GHS Consultancy having regard to the content of a third party observation made to the Planning Authority. The additional information submission addressed certain matters under headings of planning history, Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG) and sustainable transport.

4.2.2 Regarding Planning History, the submission argues that the now proposed development overcomes the reasons given by An Bord Pleanala for refusal in the history case 09/318 (PL07.235225); and moreover the proposed development acknowledges the new Tuam Local Area Plan (LAP), the content of the Inspector’s Report in the case PL07.235225, and the thrust of views expressed in consultation with Planning Authority personnel.

4.2.3 The submission argues under this heading that the appeal site “is on average 500 metres from the commercial area of the town” (sketch map included in submission). It refutes any suggestion that there is an attempt by the applicant to present the proposed development as a neighbourhood centre. The submission explains that the proposed shuttle bus would not operate exclusively between the appeal site and the town centre, but rather it would serve the Tuam hinterland via the proposed development site.

4.2.4 Regarding RPG , the submission draws attention to certain limitations imposed by the Planning Authority on development of C1 zoned sites (reserved for specific purposes); satisfaction with the sequential test expressed in the Inspector’s Report in PL07.235225; delays in delivering permitted town centre developments; and justification for the catchment area identified in the submitted Retail Impact Assessment.

4.2.5 Regarding sustainable transport, it is submitted that the proposed development provides adequate facilities for users of all transport modes.

4.3 Initial Assessment by Planning Authority

4.3.1 This is set out in Planning Report dated 23 May 2011. The Report is/was underpinned by internal technical reports received from the Roads and Environment sections of the Planning Authority, and the Report noted also the contents of certain third party submissions received.

4.3.2 Policy considerations specifically acknowledged in the Planning Report are/were national policies as reflected in RPG and the Department of Transport “Smarter Travel” 2009-2020 and local policy per the 2011 LAP. ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 26

4.3.3 The Planning Report raised issues under headings of development principle, scale/form/layout, car parking provision and traffic safety. The Report concluded that while the proposed development would significantly enhance the provision of necessary services in Tuam and provide employment opportunities, it would not overall be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area having regard to the need for the future successful long term development of Tuam.

4.3.4 The Report recommended refusal of permission for four reasons:

• conflict with, and material contravention of, the Tuam LAP • traffic congestion • traffic hazard • legal estate shortcomings

4.4 Further information sought and obtained.

4.4.1 The recommendation in the Planning Report was followed by a direction that further information should be sought to allow the applicant to respond to certain areas of concern.

4.4.2 Further information was accordingly sought by the Planning Authority by letter dated 24 May 2011. Nine points were raised seeking a response. These may be summarised as falling under the following headings:

• scale of anchor retail unit proposed: reduction in size sought, with confirmation of nature of goods • road design issues and related: confirmation required that NRA is satisfied with the development, and road safety audit sought • car parking shortfall • legal estate • neighbourhood centre indicative proposal to be removed • geophysical survey requirement (re: archaeology) • clarification of ancillary area (650 square metres) noted in application but not shown in plans • omission of drawing referred (no. 08-05-S9-05) • query on references to history case details in submitted reports.

4.4.3 The applicant responded to the further information request in a submission under cover of GHS letter dated 19 July 2011.

4.4.4 The submission comprises a seven page letter, summarising responses on a point by point basis, accompanied by supporting appendices (1-15) and drawings (5 no.). The drawings are mainly in A3 format enclosed within the body of the main submission, except in the case of the A0 format drawing no. F1-R-02-A0.

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 26

4.4.5 The responses to the nine sets of queries raised may be summarised as set down below.

1. Submitted that plans as presented allocated a total of 3,000 square metres net to retail sales area. Confirmation of area to be dedicated to convenience goods only (Appendices 1-4 refer).

2. Liaison with Roads Section confirmed. A copy of (original) NRA submission enclosed. Road Safety Audit submitted (Appendices 5/6/8 refers).

3. Reference to spread sheet setting out car parking criteria (Appendix 9 refers).

4. A letter demonstrating legal consent submitted (Appendix 10 refers).

5. Neighbourhood centre omitted: drawing no. F1-R-05 refers (Appendix 11 refers).

6. Geophysical survey undertaken, and confirmed submitted to DoEHLG (Appendix 12 refers).

7. Drawing no. FI-R-06, delineating the noted 650 square metres ‘ancillary area’, submitted (Appendix 13 refers).

8. Missing drawing 08-05-S9-05 submitted as Appendix 14.

9. No changes to Planning/Technical Reports proposed.

4.5 Third Party Submissions and Technical Reports following Further Information

Following receipt of the further information submission the Planning Authority received a submission from the NRA repeating its position as stated in May in response to the planning application i.e. that the NRA would rely on the Planning Authority to abide by the official national policy in relation to development affecting national roads. There was also a submission from DoEHLG recommending certain conditions to any permission granted. A further Roads Section report was also prepared, stating no objection subject to conditions in any permission granted.

4.6 Final Assessment for Planning Authority

A final report was prepared for the Planning Authority, comprising a memorandum by the Director of Services dated 12 August 2011. This report traces the history of applications on the appeal site dating from 2006. The memo quotes extensively from the Inspector’s Report in PL07.235225 and refers to certain provisions of the current LAP. The memo concluded with a direction to grant permission subject to and including certain planning conditions.

4.7 Planning Authority Decision

4.7.1 By order dated 15 August 2011 the Planning Authority decided to grant permission subject to fourteen conditions. ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 26

4.7.2 In the context of the current appeals and other relevant planning considerations, I draw the attention of the Board in particular to the following planning conditions.

Condition No. 2 (a): requires reduction in size of anchor retail unit.

(b): requires agreement on exact usage of 5 no. bulky warehouses (sic )

(d): scope of permission does not include 650 square metres ancillary area noted in public notices etc.

Condition No. 3: requires inter alia compliance with requirements of road safety audit.

Condition No. 6: details to be submitted for agreement inter alia of external finishes and service plant, details to include anticipated noise levels.

Condition No. 9: hours of operation including loading/delivery to be agreed in writing.

5.0 THE APPEALS AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE

There are two third party appeals in this case, in the names of Kieran Lyons of Lissadyra, Tuam and RGDATA.

5.1 The first third party appeal (Lyons) is based on considerations of both issues of principle, and amenity considerations arising from the scale and form of the proposed development. The appeal queries the principle of the development by reference in particular to the statutory development plan for the area. Amenity issues raised query both the scale and form of development.

5.1.1 The grounds of appeal may accordingly be summarised as set down below.

• The Tuam plan seeks to maximise town centre/commercial zoning, so that there can be greater town centre footfall and reduced retail leakage to other areas, whereas the proposed development would not help in the realisation of these objectives.

• Future Tuam Bypass may increase likelihood of town being bypassed because of traffic patterns linked to that scheme and the evolution of the town after the bypass construction.

• In the absence of the Tuam Bypass, development would be premature and would increase traffic flows especially at peak time.

• Proposed development is too close to residence of appellant, having regard to considerations of plant noise and vehicular noise emanating from delivery vehicles notably in early mornings: there are no plans to raise height(s) of intervening wall(s). ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 26

• Proposed development would generally diminish the residential amenities associated with appellant property by reasons of reduced rural aspect, and the propensity of people to “short cut” their pedestrian route(s) to the proposed development by using a route through appellant property.

5.2 The second third party appeal is/was submitted by McCarthy Keville O’Sullivan on behalf of RGDATA, under cover of a letter dated 9 September 2011.

5.2.1 The Introduction (Section 1) of the submission summarises the concerns of RGDATA under three headings which may be summarised as set down below.

1. Conflict with relevant local and national retail and planning policy documents which would lead to adverse impact on vitality and viability of town centre.

2. Failure to address previous reasons for refusal.

3. Direction of Planning Authority Manager/Director, overruling planning advice, does not adequately address concerns raised on this application at planning application stage.

The main points made in support of the stated grounds of appeal as summarised, are set down below.

It should be noted that the first point of the appeal (“1”) above as highlighted in the introductory section is subdivided under certain headings (see 5.2.2-5.2.5 herein below).

5.2.2 Regarding Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG)

- The primary anchor convenience retail unit has remained consistent in size throughout the planning history period associated with the appeal site. The scale of development, in the location proposed, has been deemed unacceptable by An Bord Pleanala in the past by reference to considerations including RPG.

- The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate the need for an edge of centre or out of town location. The applicant’s attempt to demonstrate the need for choosing the appeal site is flawed because it is based on the entirety of the proposal i.e. the applicant’s sequential test seeks to dismiss other possible sites on the basis that they would be unsuitable for a combined large supermarket and several bulky goods units.

- Applicant’s proposal for a shuttle bus facility is an effective admission that the site is physically and socially removed and separate from the town centre: the proposed development would not create any form of footfall connectivity or commercial synergy with the town centre, contrary to the objectives of RPG.

- Large scale permissions recently granted at Tuam demonstrate the ability of the town to cater for large scale mixed retail developments subject to compromise on format and co-operation with local authority initiatives on access matters (Galway ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 26

07/3767 granted by An Bord Pleanala under PL07.229471, and Galway 09/1722, refer). The recent ongoing evolution of Tuam central area, already partly on the strength of one of these permissions now being implemented, is consistent with objectives of RPG, but appears largely ignored by the applicant in the retail analysis of the town.

- The creation or perpetuation of the perception that only a “large format” out of town store is worthy of pursuit by a potential tenant, militates against objective consideration of town centre location possibilities as encouraged by RPG, and the town centre investment which could follow.

- Applicant’s sequential test in application is dated by reference to the change in zoning on the appeal site in the current LAP relative to the previous LAP.

- Retail Impact Assessment undertaken is flawed by reference to several considerations:

• assessment remains largely unchanged since that undertaken in 2009, moreover the applicant failed to take the opportunity, at further information stage, of revising the submitted RIA;

• the statement in the RIA – to the effect that the majority of the proposed floor space proposed is dedicated to retailing of bulky goods – is technically correct but effectively masks the reality that the current application is a vehicle for securing permission for a large out of centre convenience retail unit;

• the retail catchment described appears identical to that presented in the context of the 2009 proposal, for a then larger mixed unit: it takes no account of new retail developments and/or relevant permissions granted in the interim at locations including Galway City, Oranmore, and Headford;

• the RIA does not appear to take account of all of the permitted floor space (extant permissions) at Tuam, including a most relevant permission granted by An Bord Pleanala (the O’Toole development) for Tuam town centre: this is described in the RIA as a decision due, moreover this significant development is now under construction;

• the statement that vacant premises are limited in Tuam town centre is at variance with the published statement regarding total vacant floorspace in the 2011 Tuam LAP;

• population projections used in the RIA are dated by reference to Tuam LAP and County Plan;

• sequential test fails to take proper account of the new zoning provisions in the Tuam LAP 2011-2017, and it discounts the site of a significant permitted retail development as being unsuitable (site 6 in RIA refers).

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 26

5.2.3 Regarding the Tuam LAP 2011-2017

- The zoning on the appeal site (“C2”) has been effectively downgraded relative to the previous “Commercial” zoning under the predecessor Plan prevailing at the time of previous decisions relating to appeal site lands.

- The amount of land zoned for town centre development (“C1”) in the central area has been increased in the 2011 Plan, notwithstanding future site assembly difficulties envisaged.

- Other sites in the area now zoned C2 are closer to the town centre than the C2 zoned current appeal site.

- The plan specifically highlights in its text the quest to facilitate development consistent with the spirit and objectives of RPG.

- The proposed development (as amended at further information stage) omits any acknowledgement of the Tuam Plan indicative designation of appeal site lands for “neighbourhood centre” development. In addition the proposed development specifically conflicts with policies and objectives set out in the Tuam Plan references policies RD1, RD2, RD3, RD4, RD5 and objectives RD1, RD2, RD9, and RD10.

5.2.4 Regarding site planning history

- The proposed development, although of somewhat reduced scale relative to that refused by An Bord Pleanala under PL07.235225, fails by reason of its location outside the town, to address the nub of the previously stated (location) reason for refusal in the case.

- The proposed development if permitted would undermine permissions granted within the town centre at superior locations viz a viz sequential test criteria.

- The impact of a net 3,000 square metre convenience retail store at the location proposed would have a clear and adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing town centre.

5.2.5 Regarding Sustainable Transport Considerations

- Proposed development at the scale and location proposed is not consistent with the stated principles of the National Transport Strategy 2020 Vision which seeks to reduce car journeys by 2020.

- The proposed development reflects inadequate positive linkage between land use and transportation planning, contrary to the spirit of RPG.

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 26

5.2.6 Regarding reasons and considerations in Planning Authority decision

- The justification provided in overturning the recommendation of the Planning Officer does not address the fundamental issue of location too remote from the town centre.

5.2.7 The appeal submission is/was accompanied by appendices comprising copies of certain documentation relevant to the submission of the appeal.

5.2.8 I draw attention also to a coloured sketch map following page 4 of the main text of the appeal (Map No. 01) which seeks to highlight the relative locations of the appeal site and town centre lands.

5.3 Planning Authority Response to Appeals

The Planning Authority has not responded to the current appeals.

5.4 Applicant’s Response to Appeals

5.4.1 The applicant responded to the two third party appeals in a submission dated October 2011 received by An Bord Pleanala on 7 October 2011. Page 3 of the submission comprises a letter stating that the response has been prepared by GHS Consultancy on behalf of the applicant Mr. Pat O’Donoghue .

5.4.2 The response to appeal is set out in three broad sections, comprising (1) an Introduction, (2) response to Lyons appeal and (3) response to RGDATA appeal.

The Introduction seeks to highlight the immediate and longer term benefits which the proposed development would bring to the town of Tuam.

5.4.3 Response to First Third Party (Lyons) Appeal

- Proposed development would knit together the fabric of the town. - There has not been significant progress in the development of two commercial town centre developments permitted by the Planning Authority. - Proposed development would enhance footfall generally, stemming retail leakage and promoting sustainability of the area as a whole: the type of development proposed is clearly mentioned in the LAP. - The retail attraction of Tuam is diminishing because of lack of competition, with increasing town centre vacancies arising. - The Tuam “Ring Road” is not in its infancy but capital funding issues are causing delay. - Approach roads to Tuam do not suffer congestion pressure: such problems are within the town centre. - Proposed development would not cause or exacerbate traffic congestion, as is demonstrated in the relevant traffic impact assessment. - Noise generation would be within acceptable norms subject to certain design mitigation features (see Sections 8 and 10 of submission, also Appendix 6).

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 26

- Boundary fencing issues were satisfactorily addressed at further information stage, with the Planning Authority (see Section 9 including diagram in submission, also Appendix 5). At the time of purchase of appellant home there was a (residential) permission on the appeal site, therefore any view to the rear of appellant property would in any event have been altered if these houses had been built. - Access will not be available to appeal site via appellant property. - The absence of significant impact on the N17 will result in net benefit to the appellant through the greater retail choice being made available at Tuam.

5.4.4 Response to Second Third-Party Appeal (RGDATA)

5.4.4.1 The main thrust of the response is to deny the substantive planning arguments advanced in the appeal. In addition, in the preliminary comments with the submission, the applicant party questions the motives and objectivity of the appellants and their advisors. The submission also highlights the references made in the appeal to the “processing planner” recommendation being based on the 2005 Tuam Plan: it is submitted for the applicant that this was not a typing error as suggested but rather a substantive error effectively corrected by the intervention of the Director Services in an appropriate interpretation of the 2011 Plan.

5.4.4.2 The salient points of the submission may be summarised:

• subject site is “edge-of-centre”, not “edge of town” • the historic nature of the central area of the town of Tuam (including archaeological heritage) creates a certain impediment to its modern evolution: such an impediment to a healthy retail dynamic in towns and cities is acknowledged in RPG • the “sequential test” involved a separate testing of each site to establish what could be accommodated within the boundaries of each site • town centre grants of permission and certain commencement of development as referred in the appeal are not sound reasons for discouraging other improvements to retail offer as envisaged in the proposed development • the shuttle bus proposal would be designed to serve intervening areas along its route

The main text of the submission concludes (page 11) with a point by point rebuttal of the summary and conclusions contained in the submitted appeal.

5.4.4.3 The response submission includes appendices (no. 1-6):

1. Extracts from RPG 2. Extracts from Tuam LAP 2011-2017 3. Extracts from Inspector’s Report in the appeal case Galway 09/318 (PL07.235225); 4. Sub-division of text in Lyons submitted appeal; 5. Boundary wall with Lissadyra residential estate (see also section drawing page 7 of submission)

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 26

5.5 Further Submissions from Parties to Appeal

5.5.1 Arising from the circulation by An Bord Pleanala, of the applicant’s response submission, to the other parties to the appeal, there was a final submission received from Kieran Lyons. The submission does not raise substantive new planning issues, but repeats and highlights concerns relating to traffic congestion which he submits would be exacerbated by the proposed development; and concern regarding noise impacts at appellant property: the appellant considers the proposed development would so seriously injure amenities that his property would be devalued.

5.5.2 A final submission received from RGDATA has not raised new issues. The appellants stand by their original grounds of appeal.

5.5.3 There was no submission received from the Planning Authority, either in relation to the submitted appeal or in response to the later invitation to make observations on the applicant’s response to the appeal.

5.6 Other Submissions

5.6.1 There have not been other substantive planning submissions made to An Bord Pleanala in the context of the appeal. At planning application stage the Planning Authority noted 4 no. third party submissions made. These comprised submissions then made by the two current appellants and by another objector Mr. Michael Wynne of Fairview, Dublin 3, and by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG). Copies of these submissions are on file, the contents of which I noted.

5.6.2 The DoEHLG submission relates to archaeology. It recommended that a geophysical survey be undertaken and the results submitted as further information.

5.6.3 The other submissions received at planning application stage do not raise new issues relative to those raised in the current appeal.

5.6.4 As previously noted, a later submission was also made to the Planning Authority by the (NRA). In this submission the NRA states that it would rely on the Planning Authority to abide by official national policy in relation to development affecting national roads, as outlined in the May 2006 NRA Policy Statement on Development Management and Access to National Roads (NRA letter dated 23 May 2011 refers).

6.0 OFFICIAL POLICY

6.1 I consider the main guidance in this case is that set out in the County Plan, the 2011 Tuam LAP and RPG. There is reference also to official policy on “Smarter Travel”, which is relevant but not perhaps a crucial consideration in the case. It may be noted also that review of RPG is currently in hand, with a consultation period having recently expired.

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 26

6.2 I am familiar with the relevant provisions of the Galway County Plan, RPG and “Smarter Travel” policy.

6.3 The Statutory Development Plan

Relevant sections of the Tuam LAP 2011 are highlighted on extracts from the Plan attached herewith to my report.

6.4 New Retail Planning Guidelines

I have not reviewed the consultation document recently in circulation. It is understood the content of the review does not have significant implications for settlements of the population size of Tuam.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 Principle of Development

7.1.1 Both of the submitted appeals in this case question the principle of development of the type proposed, being located at a considerable distance from the established town centre of Tuam. There are arguments to the effect that the spirit and intentions of the Tuam LAP 2011-2017 would be offended and undermined. In response the applicant relies heavily on justification of the development by reference to the zoning of the site in the LAP, and demonstration of retail capacity available at Tuam to accommodate the extra retail floorspace proposed.

7.1.2 The arguments relating to retail impact will be addressed in the relevant section of my assessment below (Section 7.4, refers). However regarding the issue of conflict with or compliance with the LAP zoning of the lands, I note the development of the type proposed would appear to be generally covered by reference to the published land use zoning matrix presented in the LAP. Notwithstanding this, the LAP makes indicative provision for a neighbourhood centre – suggesting a lesser scale of retail provision than that currently proposed – within the relevant site. There are other considerations arising also from a reading of the LAP, and it may be noted that the initial assessment for the Planning Authority in the case (this application 11/447) recommended refusal of permission for reasons including material contravention of the Development Plan for the area. Consideration of the statutory Development Plan for the area is set out in the relevant section of my assessment, below.

7.1.3 Another issue of principle which I consider must be addressed in the context of development of the nature proposed is the location of significant retail development adjacent to a strategic road transport route. Certain guidance is offered in RPG under this heading. I shall refer to this matter further in the relevant section of my assessment, below (7.3 refers).

7.1.4 At the outset also I consider it appropriate to make certain observations on the matter of distance from the town centre. The straight line distance between the appeal site and the nearest point of the zoned town centre/commercial lands is of the order of 400 metres. However in reality the walking distance between the existing centre of the ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 26

prime shopping area and the appeal site development (proposed entrance to anchor retail store) is in excess of 900 metres over elevated ground. There is also the further perceived barrier to movement comprising the national route which in this vicinity comprises a traditional purpose built relief road bypassing the historic town centre. I consider the references made in the past (see previous Inspector’s report for Board) to a one kilometre distance between the town centre and the appeal site, represent a realistic description in the context of distance consideration being crucial in the application of RPG.

7.1.5 Having regard to the considerations outlined above, and to the planning history of the site including refusals of permission for certain retail developments for reasons including distance from the town centre, I do not consider there can be a presumption in favour of the proposed development simply arising from the LAP land use zoning provisions per se.

7.2 Review of Issues

Having read the appeal and reviewed the current appeal file and visited the area and the town of Tuam, I consider the appeal is best assessed by reference to the following general headings.

• Compatibility with LAP • Retail Planning Guidelines • Panning history

• Impact on residential amenity • Other issues

7.3 LAP Considerations

7.3.1 The appeal and other relevant correspondence place considerable emphasis on comparison of the current and historic zoning covering the appeal site. I do not consider it necessary to dwell unduly on the minutae of the text in the old and new LAP’s. I consider the critical consideration is that there is a clear and deliberate distinction between the “C1” and “C2” zones. It may be noted that there is also a general “C” zone, but reference to the current zoning map reveals little if any land currently carrying this zoning. I note also that some of the C1 zoned lands incorporate established residential properties, so that it is clear there is intention to use the zoning provisions of the LAP to help consolidate the town centre over time.

7.3.2 Overall under this heading I must agree with the thrust of appeal arguments put forward by both appellants. I note also that the appeal site is covered by one of several indicative “NC” objectives (Neighbourhood Centre) for the wider town area. This indicative objective appears reasonable in the context of the appeal site being located west of the existing national route, proximate to a residential area and inside the indicative line of the future Tuam bypass.

7.3.3 Regarding the assessment in planning reports for the Planning Authority, that the proposed development would materially contravene the development plan for the area, the emphasis here appears to be a combination of conflict with the spirit of retail ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 26

policy and conflict with the NC indicative objective specified in the Plan. The Planning Report at planning application stage clearly opines conflict with the LAP, therefore I consider an interpretation of material contravention of the Plan to be reasonable. However, having regard to the content of the zoning matrix in the current Tuam LAP, I do not conclude that the proposed development would be a material contravention per se.

7.4 Retail Planning Guidelines

7.4.1 The general thrust of, and substantive arguments in the appeals, under this heading, may be summarised:

• the proposed development conflicts with the spirit of RPG which encourages town centre locations for most retail development: there has been a failure to consider alternative retail formats capable of physical accommodation within the evolving town centre of Tuam;

• the retail impact assessment undertaken shows little change from that presented in support of the previous planning application (09/318 PL07.235225), in particular population projections are dated by reference to those used in the County Development Plan and the current LAP; the identified catchment area remains the same as previously, notwithstanding the reduced overall scale of the current proposal; there is no acknowledgement of significant developments undertaken and relevant permissions granted at competing locations including Galway City, Oranmore, Athenry and Headford; and no real account is taken of the change in zoning on the site relative to the previous (2005) LAP;

• The integrity of floor space calculations may be questionable e.g. it appears that a significant town centre permission recently granted has been ignored for the purposes of calculations.

• Retail vacancies are understated by reference to the officially stated vacancy position contained in the Tuam 2011 LAP.

7.4.2 Regarding conflict with the spirit of RPG, I must agree generally with appellants that RPG creates a presumption in favour of new retail developments in town centres, but the applicant appears overly dismissive of the potential of other sites within or adjacent to the town centre area of Tuam. Notwithstanding the numerous paragraphs of RPG identified as ostensibly containing supportive statements for development of the type here proposed, on balance I consider there are – as suggested by appellants – an equal or greater number of paragraphs which could be cited in opposition to the concept of the proposed development. However I agree with appellants that the onus rests with the applicants to demonstrate the need for an edge of centre or out of centre retail development where it has been established, in the first instance, that there is sufficient retail capacity to accommodate relevant development. The issues of retail capacity and sequential test are addressed below.

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 26

7.4.3 Regarding retail capacity at Tuam , there is limited argument to query the RIA findings that adequate capacity exists at Tuam. Filling some of this capacity would reduce leakage of retail expenditure from the retail catchment associated with Tuam. However on my reading of the RGDATA appeal and the response to that appeal and related correspondence, I accept that there are a considerable number of anomalies in the text of the submitted retail assessment. In particular certain passages of the submitted retail assessment do read as if referring to the earlier proposal (Galway 09/318:PL07.235225). Several of the anomalous references occur in the sequential test section of the report. In several sections there are references to commercial zoning without reference to the LAP distinctions between C/C1/C2 zones. Other passages refer very specifically to the currently proposed development. I note that the applicant does not deny that the catchment area identified for the current assessment is the same as that for a previously submitted proposal, despite a change in scale of development. The RGDATA appeal is somewhat vague in its references to new retail permissions in the wider area affecting the geographical extent of the relevant catchment. I note on the other hand the failure of the applicant to clearly take account of all relevant development permitted recently for the town centre. In essence the queries arising do not undermine the fundamental credibility of submitted conclusions on retail capacity. However I would accept that the excess capacity may not be as great as presented, so that the sensitivity of existing town centre convenience establishments to a new entrant outside the town may be greater than what is portrayed in the retail assessment presented by the applicant. The positive effects of arresting catchment leakage must not be cancelled by the diversion of trade from town centre to out of town. Such would be damaging to the town centre vitality and viability and contrary to guidance given in RPG.

7.4.4 Regarding the sequential test undertaken, the RGDATA appeal submits that too many of the sites examined were dismissed by the applicant on the basis that they would be unsuitable for combined large format supermarket and bulky goods units. This is denied in the response to appeal which submits that sites were tested to establish what could be accommodated within the boundaries of each site. However the response to appeal also submits that the historic nature of the central area of Tuam (including archaeological heritage) creates a certain impediment to the modern evolution of the town consistent with facilitating a healthy and dynamic retail environment. It is argued that RPG acknowledges that such a particular constraint is common to many Irish towns.

7.4.5 I do not consider the inherent central area character of Tuam with its heritage of narrow streets, cathedral and archaeological monuments and remains, should be used as an excuse to avoid the central area in considering significant new retail development. In this regard I accept the thrust of the RGDATA appeal that flexibility of approach by investors and developers is very important and I note the evidence that significant convenience retail development is currently under construction, and another permission has been put in place since consideration of proposals by An Bord Pleanala under PL07.235225 (June 2010) and PL07.229471. The further permission referred to in the current RGDATA appeal is noted as “Glynns”. It is understood there was no appeal in that case.

7.4.6 As noted in the inspector’s report in the case PL07.235225 (history-current appeal site), the applicant’s consultants examined several other potential sites for ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 26

development in the town centre, edge of centre and out of centre locations. It is understood that the sequential search presented in the now submitted retail assessment is essentially the same as that previously presented under PL07.235225. I note that some 30 no. sites have been considered and dismissed. This total includes some relatively small sites (less than 1 hectare) and/or some sites located considerably more than 1 kilometre west of the established town centre area. On my reading of this part of the retail assessment, many of the sites considered could not have been regarded at the outset as being realistic options for reasons including limited size of site and distance from the town centre. The average site size explored (excluding the current appeal site itself) in the sequential site search can be calculated at 1.44 hectares. While at least one of the sites explored above that average site area was dismissed for reasons including being too small, the following observations can be made regarding other sites in the larger (above average) category. Firstly all of the sites were deemed unavailable for purchase. Several were dismissed for a combination of this reason and other reasons notably the likelihood of causing or exacerbating traffic hazard and congestion in the town centre and to a lesser extent heritage considerations. Certain built environment constraints on site assembly were noted in several cases.

7.4.7 In reality I consider that dismissing sites as unavailable because they are currently not available for purchase renders the sequential test exercise somewhat academic. I agree generally with the RGDATA submission that RPG encourages imaginative and flexible approaches to accommodating new retail development in established town centres. Such an approach is not clearly demonstrated to me in my reading of the sequential site search in the submitted retail assessment. Site no. 1 stated at 2.35 hectares has been dismissed for reasons including that the site is insufficient to contain the proposed development. This would appear to imply a reluctance to modified format in the retail offer envisaged. I note also little reference to communication and liaison with the local authority on meeting the challenge of effective site assembly. Moreover undue emphasis on the traffic congestion impediments identified in respect of several sites can only make the failure of the quest for a central site to be a self-fulfilling prophesy in which it is assumed there can be no progress on critical road infrastructure improvements or improvements in traffic management, such as the roads and traffic management objectives set out in the LAP.

7.4.8 I accept generally the view expressed in the Inspector’s Report in PL07.235225 regarding the case for facilitating retailing warehouse type units outside the town centre. However the recommendation to allow the then proposed development including a large scale anchor convenience retail store was not followed by the Board in that case. It appears to me that a most significant change which has occurred in the interim is progress with the “Super Valu” and related town infrastructure improvements (partly associated with the permission granted under another Board decision). This progress reflects a plan led consolidation of the town centre retail function, which should not be undermined by a rush to facilitate competition on an out of centre greenfield site at this time. PL07.235225 was decided as recently as June 2010 and I consider consolidation of the town centre preferable in the current economic climate to piecemeal expansion of a hub town. Notwithstanding therefore any justification for planning genuine retail warehouse type units outside the town centre, I do not consider it should follow that a large scale convenience “anchor” in the same development would be justified. A new store outside the town which would simultaneously help to arrest leakage of catchment expenditure and divert alleged ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 26

town centre overtrading would inevitably harm the town centre and adversely affect the vitality and viability of the town centre. Anecdotally I must observe also that retail park type ‘bulky’ units are seldom reserved exclusively for bulky type goods in the context of provincial Irish towns, and once constructed the ability of a planning authority to enforce user type, appears in reality to be limited.

7.4.9 Regarding the integrity of floorspace calculations per se, the appeal argues that the RIA does not appear to take account of all of the permitted floorspace already granted permission in the town centre. The tone of this argument is rather circumspect and it is not further substantiated in the relevant text of the appeal (penultimate bullet point section 4.1.2). The submitted RIA and the applicant’s response to appeal submit that all relevant floorspace is included. On my reading of relevant tables in respect of this matter, floor areas including permitted development yet to be undertaken and floor area of the currently proposed development have been included in figures shown in relevant tables. Accordingly I consider statements in the RIA to the effect that there is adequate retail expenditure potential in Tuam to accommodate the relevant further retail development now proposed, formally soundly based.

7.4.10 Regarding the matter of vacancies in the town centre – which RPG identifies as an important indicator of existing town centre “health” – the RGDATA appeal submits that the submitted retail assessment plays down any concern there might be under this heading. The concluding sentence in the second paragraph under the “vacancy” heading in the retail assessment (page 54 of Planning Report submitted with the planning application) states that vacant premises in the town are limited and predominantly short-term reflecting the general health of trading conditions. In contrast it is highlighted in the RGDATA appeal, that the 2011 LAP states that total Tuam floorspace vacancy was higher than other towns surveyed (in the period 2005- 2007). Clearly the thrust of these two statements represents significantly different views. However it must be acknowledged that there has been an economic downturn since the period 2005-2007.

7.4.11 For the record on my visit to the town centre in early November this year, I referred in advance to the list of retailers contained in Section 3 of the Retail Assessment/Planning Report submitted with the planning application. On the occasion of my visit I noted that the number of vacancies in each street, relative to that of retail outlets, varied considerably. Shop Street, Market Square, High Street, Chapel Street and Egan’s Lane together had less than 8% average vacancy. Other central area streets had significantly higher vacancies, with overall average vacancy over 14% at the date of my visit. The variation as between streets appears generally consistent with the statement in the retail assessment/planning report to the effect that most vacancies occur in the secondary and tertiary retail areas. However I consider the overall level of vacancy to be significant, and I must disagree with the thrust of some of the analysis put forward in the submitted retail assessment under this heading. Here it is submitted that because the retail offer in the proposed development is qualitatively different to that associated with existing visible vacant premises in the town centre, the former would not be competing with the potential of the latter. In my view this analysis for the applicant seems to underplay the significance of any declining central area footfall on the viability of town centre businesses. In my view the existing incidence of vacancies is significant and the lost opportunity of securing new convenience retail, in or adjacent to the town centre, ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 26

would have the potential to contribute towards a downward spiral with adverse implications for the vitality and viability of the town centre.

7.4.12 The analysis for the applicant goes on to submit that the proposed development would not lead to a preponderance of vacant shop units within the town centre. Here it is submitted that the proposed development seeks to link effectively with the town centre with the aid of a shuttle bus connecting link and improved cycle way and pedestrian links. Having read the submissions in this connection, presented at planning application and appeal stages, I do not consider a convincing case has been put forward. Notwithstanding the applicant’s response to the appeal, I am inclined to agree with the RGDATA submission that the shuttle bus proposed is a tacit acknowledgement that the proposed development would be physically too far removed from the town centre to add retail synergy, and rather by diverting town centre trade and attracting new (arrested) convenience retail trade to itself, it would adversely affect the town centre.

7.5 Planning History Considerations

7.5.1 As previously noted, recent planning history associated with the appeal site has included two Board decisions to refuse permission for retail and related development. The relevant history cases are/were PL07.223207 (County Galway 06/3007) and PL07.235225 (County Galway 09/318). The first of these cases was decided by the Board in 2007 but the later case (235225) is of far more recent date having been decided in June 2010. Planning permission was refused by the Board in each of the two cases, for a mixed use retail and related developments. The current proposal is for a smaller scale development. I shall below compare the main differences between the current proposal and the most recent predecessor case.

Previous (m 2)* Current (m 2)

Total Floor Area 16,518 9,040 Total Retail 10,600 8,620 Retail Anchor 4,300 4,300 Retail Warehouses 6,300 4,320 Cinema and Related 4,848 --- Other Uses 1,070 420 Car Parking Spaces 687 360

*figures in this column based on those presented in Inspector’s Report PL07.235225 (page 11 of that report refers)

7.5.2 Clearly the proposed development has been scaled down relative to the most recently refused development (and its predecessor). However the RGDATA appeal argues that the scale of the anchor retail element has remained consistent. This is regarded by appellants as crucial in terms of their fundamental concerns, having regard to the location of the appeal site, which may be a magnet of alternative trading rather than something complimentary to and reinforcing the viability of town centre retailing.

7.5.3 Apart from the floor area differences between the current and the immediately preceding proposal for the site, the most significant other difference is the exclusion ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 26

of the cinema and related element from the current proposal, and the reduction in the number of retail warehouse type units (from 5 to 3). It may be noted that while the earlier proposal had space devoted to children’s play within the then proposed cinema complex, there is now only an outdoor play area associated with the proposed civic space.

7.5.4 In the period intervening since the Board refusal of permission in June 2010, a new LAP has been adopted. I have drawn attention to the differences between the two plans in the relevant section of my assessment, above. I consider the differences in the two plans represents a change of circumstances affecting the context in which the currently proposed development must be considered.

7.5.5 The combination of scale of proposed development and its location 1 kilometre from the town centre were central to the stated reason for refusal in the history case. In the current appeal case the Director of Services final memorandum on file (overruling the final planning recommendation) places great emphasis on the evolved history, including reference to a recommendation to grant permission contained in the inspector’s report in the history case. However insofar as site planning history is a material consideration in the current appeal case, the substance and reasoning of the Board decision is in my view the crucial consideration.

7.5.6 So, in my view, the location of the proposed development has not changed since 2010, the scale of the convenience anchor store has not changed and the Development Plan zoning context has been refined by the Planning Authority. Here it is notable that at further information stage the Planning Authority requested removal of any notional Neighbourhood Centre (NC) provision on site only a matter of months after the adoption of the new (2011) LAP showing an indicative NC at the appeal site. The NC was indeed removed at further information stage, but there was no reduction in anchor store net retail sales area proposed as requested by the Planning Authority. The position of the Planning Authority appears somewhat ambiguous with regard to what is envisaged as appropriate for these C2 zoned lands.

7.5.7 In the current decision of the Planning Authority, the net retail sales area has been reduced through the imposition of a planning condition. I note that this planning condition has not been appealed by the applicant. The overall effect however is that the decision of the Planning Authority would allow something quite far removed from what has been sought and very far removed from what has been envisaged by the same applicant over a number of years. The applicant has not voluntarily reduced the net retail sales area proposed in the anchor retail store. Moreover the location of the store within the site remains substantially the same as previously proposed despite the site area remaining at over 6 hectares and the removal of several elements now since original proposals were put forward in the past decade. I sense the proposed development as conditioned by the Planning Authority if permitted by the Board, could only be an initial building block on this C2 zoned site outside the town centre. In this regard it may be noted that the original 2006 proposal put forward for consideration by the Planning Authority was described as a phased development. The Planning Authority refusal at that time was upheld on appeal by the Board.

7.5.8 Accordingly, notwithstanding certain technical adjustments to the proposal in comparison to that most recently refused by the Board on the same site, I do not ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 26

consider the proposed development overcomes the nub of the combined scale and location concerns embodied in the history decisions of the past.

7.6 Impact on Residential Amenity

7.6.1 Issues under this heading are raised in the Lyons appeal. The appellant is concerned in particular under headings of visual impact, noise and general disturbance including service vehicle movements at unsocial hours.

7.6.2 As noted on my site visit and illustrated in the contour survey map on file, the site slopes generally northward and eastward from a level of over 50 metres OD in the south-west to approximately 43 metres OD in the north-east. Floor level of neighbouring houses (appellant property vicinity) is approximately 48 metres OD while the finished floor level proposed in the anchor retail store is 45.30 metres OD. The height of that element of the proposed development is indicated to be 10.7 metres.

7.6.3 The applicant states in response to the appeal that the service road and main building are effectively in a cutting below the level of appellant property. Having regard to these considerations I do not consider the proposed development, at a distance of 45 metres from the rear building line of appellant’s property, would be visually overbearing by reference to appearance, or any overshadowing.

7.6.4 I note the quality of the materials proposed in external finishes including the western elevation. In his final submission the neighbouring appellant refers to “… a monstrosity of a commercial building…”. I do not consider the proposed development would be a monstrosity or otherwise visually obtrusive feature. Clearly the appellant’s view eastward would change by comparison with the existing view towards agricultural land, or the potential view into housing envisaged under a previous permission. However I consider the change from the rural scene to a low density commercial landscape should be deemed acceptable in the context of the prevailing zoning. Finally under this heading it may be noted that in the history case PL07.235225, the relationship of the then proposed development with existing development to the west, was addressed in the Inspector’s Report. Height of building was stated at 10 metres and distance from boundary was similar to that currently proposed. The Board did not cite any residential/visual amenity grounds for refusal in that case.

7.6.5 Finally I refer the Board to Section J-J sketch on page 7 of the applicant’s response to appeal, which is submitted as a typical section through “cutting” between Lissadyra and the proposed development.

7.6.6 Regarding noise matters, these arise in respect of plant noise and noise and general disturbance associated with delivery vehicles. The main service road associated with all retail elements as now proposed is a cul-de-sac routed along the southern, western and northern sides of the retail units. Two-way traffic is proposed.

7.6.7 At planning application stage the submitted layout plan indicated a turning circle located north-west of the main building complex. At further information stage, arising from a query from the Planning Authority, part of the proposed turning circle ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 26

area was replaced by 650 square metres “Ancillary Area” as had been noted in the planning application but not shown on drawings at that stage (see now drawing no. FI- R-05 received by the Planning Authority at further information stage). This part of the proposed development as amended/clarified was then omitted by condition 2(d) of the Planning Authority Decision. The relevant condition has not been appealed, therefore for the purposes of my assessment and consideration of the project by the Board, I consider the proposed development should be deemed to include the turning circle shown on the original layout plan 11-04-02 Rev. A.

7.6.8 The vehicular access arrangements appear to be similar to the history case PL07.235225. Noise generation and any related amenity implications were not cited by the Board as a basis for refusal in that case. I note also that the reporting Inspector for the Board in that case highlighted the location of the vehicular turning circle in the north-west corner of the site, adjacent to agricultural land, which was deemed appropriate. I agree with that assessment.

7.6.9 More specifically in the current appeal case the applicant’s response to the appeal addresses noise issues. It is acknowledged in the response that store deliveries could generate noise levels warranting specific mitigation measures. Other noise sources addressed included building services plant; delivery vehicles, access and service yard; car parking; recycling centre; additional vehicular traffic on public roads; and entertainment noise. It is concluded that there would not be significant impact on residential amenity arising from other sources.

7.6.10 The appellant (Lyons) in his final submission queries some elements of the noise report prepared for the applicant. There is also criticism of any reliance on “good housekeeping” type practices of delivery service personnel. I consider the joint approach of physical mitigation and good practices in operation to be acceptable.

7.6.11 I note that in the decision of the Planning Authority there is no planning condition specifically requiring the recommended mitigation of a 2.5 metre high acoustic screen. In the event of permission being granted I recommend this specific condition be attached to mitigate noise effects of store deliveries.

7.6.12 Finally I consider in the event of permission being granted there should be a condition attached requiring details of unspecified mechanical services to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development, so as to ensure the employment of any necessary noise control mitigation as outlined in Section 6.6 of the Noise Study in Appendix 6 of the applicant’s response to appeal.

7.7 Other Issues

7.7.1 I consider the most significant other consideration to be the matter of traffic hazard and convenience. The technical aspects of this consideration have been addressed and crucial issues resolved. In particular the roundabout access would be “on-line” on the national route and provisions have been made overall for acceptable accommodation of pedestrian and cycle movements. However my greatest concern is in the matter of strategic road planning and management. I note that the NRA appears less opposed to the currently proposed development than to the larger scale history cases. Presumably the scale may have been a consideration for the NRA. ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 26

7.7.2 Notwithstanding this official position, I consider the proposed development located in proximity to and accessing directly the existing national route and “outside” (west of) the road, is contrary to good practice and in conflict with the spirit of RPG.

7.3.3 I acknowledge that there is a full bypass proposed for Tuam. The LAP reflects this. However in the current economic climate this road must be unlikely to proceed in the foreseeable future. I consider incorporating the existing national route into the commercial street network of Tuam may be acceptable in the context of a proper bypass, but without the bypass in place the practical carrying capacity of the existing national route should be preserved.

7.3.4 Regarding any consideration of ‘Appropriate Assessment’, I do not consider such assessment to be necessary in the case, having regard to the nature of the proposed development and the proposal to connect to public services in particular the foul drainage service.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

• The proposed development by reason of its nature, scale and distance from the town centre of Tuam would conflict with the spirit and objectives of the Tuam LAP and RPG which seeks to preserve and enhance retail hierarchy in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development. • The scale and nature of the proposed development at a considerable distance from the town centre would threaten the vitality and viability of Tuam town centre. • The location of the proposed development on the opposite side of the national road would in the absence of a completed Tuam bypass, undermine the strategic function of a national road and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. • The proposed development would, subject to conditions, not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

Refuse permission for the following reasons and considerations.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to the scale and location of the proposed development outside the town centre area, and to the strategy indicated in the current Tuam Local Area Plan to concentrate and consolidate commercial activity in the town centre, it is considered that the proposed development, would seriously injure the vitality and viability of the town centre of Tuam, and would be contrary to the policies indicated in the Local Area Plan and the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities, published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January, 2005. The proposed development would, moreover, undermine the LAP indicative ______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 26

objective of providing a neighbourhood centre of appropriate scale west of the N17 , and adversely affect the strategic function of the said road. The proposed development would, therefore, materially contravene an objective indicated in the local area plan and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______Keith Sargeant Senior Planning Inspector

23 December, 2011. Cr

______PL07.239541 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 26