Newtownabbey: planning refusal for Mallusk filling station shop 'improvements' overturned on appeal
An appeal against a decision by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to refuse planning permission for amalgamation of a hot food unit with a filling station shop at Maxol Filling Station, 45 Mallusk Road, Newtownabbey, has been upheld by the Planning Appeals Commission.
The appeal by Paul Toal has been allowed and full planning permission has been granted by the commissioner subject to conditions.
The commissioner’s report said the main issues are whether the proposal would: have a significant adverse effect on an existing local centre, if it would meet deficiencies, be of a small scale and appropriate to its location.
The report stated the site is located within Mallusk Industrial Estate and fronts onto Mallusk Road. It comprises a petrol filling station with a forecourt, a convenience shop (Spar) and a drive-through coffee shop.
In addition to the shop, there are two separate adjoining units, one of which is unoccupied. The vacant unit has planning permission for a hot food unit. The other is occupied by an off-licence.
The proposal comprises the amalgamation of the vacant unit with the existing petrol station shop. This would involve internal lay-out changes including a new lobby, elevational changes and the relocation of a NIE substation.
The report noted dispute between the council and the appellant as to whether the proposed development would be within an existing functioning local centre.
“The council contend that the appeal proposal would not fall within the Mallusk quasi local centre. They say that the appeal site consists of a single convenience shop and therefore cannot reasonably be considered a local centre as per the definition,” the commissioner said.
Important Contribution
“However, the appellant considers that the appeal site already performs the function of a local centre store and that it makes an important contribution to the centre.
“I consider that the appeal site is not a local centre or within one. In the present circumstances, it is in an out-of-centre location.
“The appellant considers that there are no retail centres within the catchment that the petrol station shop performs the function of catering for the local shopping needs of residents within their identified catchment and an element of its trade is from workers drawn to Mallusk.
“However, the council contend that the proposal would have an adverse impact on their alleged existing retailing centres of Mallusk, Mayfield village and Glengormley.
“The appellant indicates that his reason for this is that he considers that approximately half of the existing shop’s turnover originates from the expenditure of workers drawn to Mallusk. He is of the view that the residents on the opposite side of the M2 motorway are highly unlikely to purposefully frequent the shop.
“I consider that the M2 motorway does physically dissect one side from the other and that this obstacle is likely to dissuade those residing on the other side of the motorway from frequenting the appeal shop particularly as there are intervening retailing facilities in Glengormley and Northcott, for example.
“I consider that the appeal shop would cater for those residing and working in that identified catchment,” the commissioner explained.
“There is dispute between both parties regarding the retail impact of the proposal on those similar type shops in the two quasi centres in the catchment.
“The council maintained that there would be a significant adverse effect on them. I am not persuaded that there would be a significant individual or cumulative adverse effect on the vitality and viability of existing ‘centres’ within the catchment as argued,” the commissioner stated.
“Given my on-site observations, I accept that there is a need for improvements to the shop.
“No substantive evidence was presented by the council to persuade me that the nature of the current shopping would not continue if the proposal were permitted or that the scale of the proposal is inappropriate at this location especially given the planning history associated with this site.
“Given that the council’s first and second updated reasons for refusal are not sustained, the appeal shall succeed.
"In the interest of protecting retailing centres in general, it is necessary to limit the net retail floorspace of the shop, confine the retail sales to convenience goods and condition the internal layout.”
Michelle Weir, Local Democracy Reporter