The Principal Officer,

Planning Department,
Cavan County Council
Courthouse
Farnham Street
Cavan
Co. Cavan
th
14 November 2008
Our Ref: 08084

RE: Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and the statutory regulations thereunder.
Objection by the Irish Petrol Retailers Association, 47 Greenfield Road, Mount Merrion, Co. Dublin to
a planning application for development comprising the construction of a petrol filling station
consisting of a four pump petrol filling station; a shop / kiosk (39sqm gross floor area); car wash / jet
wash; underground storage tanks; a forecourt area with canopy; gantry signage; ancillary site works
and landscaping, retaining wall, access and egress provisions, advertising signage (7m2), totem
signage (27m2), provision for air and water, boundary treatment and revised landscaping works
(permitted under reg. Ref. 06/1928). Works include minor modifications to the access road for the
permitted development, including provision of a right hand turning lane and additional road
markings within the site, and all associated site development works at Thomas Street, Bailieborough,
Co. Cavan.

Planning Authority Reg. Ref. 08/1115

th
Date of lodgement: 14 October 2008
th
Five week period for lodging objection: 17 November 2008

Dear Sir/Madam,

We, Marston Planning Consultancy, 24 Terenure Road East, Rathgar, Dublin 6 are instructed by Irish Petrol
Retailers Association, 47 Greenfield Road, Mount Merrion, Co. Dublin to submit the following formal
objection and observations to Cavan County Council in respect of an application for planning permission
lodged by Tesco Ireland Limited on lands at Thomas Street, Bailieborough, Co. Cavan. In accordance with
the statutory regulations we enclose a cheque made payable to Cavan County Council for the appropriate
statutory observation fee of €20.

We confirm that we have inspected the subject site and we have also examined the reports that
accompanied the application. Our grounds of objection and the full reasons and considerations upon which
these are based are set out below.

1. OVERVIEW
The Irish Petrol Retailers Association (IPRA) wish to submit this formal and strong objection against the
above described petrol filling / service station on a number of grounds. The Association is made up of a
number of local traders that currently operate petrol filling / service stations across the country that include a
number of local operators within the local area that will be significantly impacted by the proposed petrol filling
/ service station on a number of pertinent planning grounds.

We respectfully submit that it is clear and unambiguous that the Tesco petrol filling station will result in unfair
competition given the ability of the proposal to draw on a far wider catchment than was indicated in the
Tesco RIA and undercut petrol prices. Furthermore, it is clear that the proposed petrol filling station will
result in a traffic hazard that would result in significant traffic congestion at the already busy access and new
link road as well as within the town centre and Thomas street.

The Planning Authority’s remit in adjudicating on planning applications is confined to the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area. We submit that while the Retail Planning Guidelines states that it is not
the purpose of the planning system to inhibit competition, preserve existing commercial interest or prevent
innovation, it is the purpose of the Planning Authority and the planning system to have regard to the policies
of the Cavan County Development Plan 2008 – 2014 and the impact of the proposal on retail provision to
rural communities that currently rely on access to retailing facilities associated with existing filling stations in
the catchment that the Tesco pfs would draw on. This catchment area is significant in that it will draw on a
predominantly rural population, thus bringing into question the validity of any conclusions made within the
application documents as to the impact of the current scheme.

The subject proposal is clearly inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area due to the resultant increase in traffic congestion that it will generate. Furthermore it is submitted that it
will further reduce retail sales in the established town centre and potentially contaminate ground water as a
result of the poorly drained nature of the general area.

The effect of granting permission in this instance would be to undermine the efficiency of the adopted
development plan and retail strategy provisions for petrol stations and associated convenience stores, as per
sections 6.3.2 of the Cavan County Retail Strategy (CCRS), and section 3.8.6 of the Cavan County
Development Plan (CCDP).

We respectfully submit that the conclusions of the supporting reports submitted by the applicant as part of
the application, do not overcome our client’s and their members concerns in relation to the subject proposal.
The concerns of our clients in this regard are outlined in greater detail later in this submission. We
respectfully submit that the instant proposal, in conjunction with the existing Tesco superstore, constitutes an
overdevelopment of these lands, all of which are entered and exited via the same point onto and off the new
link road. It is respectfully submitted that the subject proposal would in addition have an adverse impact on
the vitality and viability of the town centre, small local shops as well as all petrol stations including those that
have associated local shops in the area

The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the
area including the protection of amenities thereof, and we ask Cavan County Council to refuse approval for
this development.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND ENVIRONS

The subject site of 0.43ha. is located approximately 100m from the junction of Thomas street and Main street
within Bailieborough town centre. The site of the petrol filling station (pfs) is located to the immediate south-
east of the vehicular access road, which forms part of this application, that provides customer access into the
permitted Tesco supermarket of 4,243sqm granted under Reg. Ref. 06/1928. A large surface car park of 331
no. car parking spaces is located on the other side of the access road, extending a distance of 80m to the
permitted supermarket.

Existing terrace to the immediate south-west, and Top petrol filling station to the immediate south-east of the subject site
The overall site is bounded by the Tesco supermarket and car park to the north-west; by the under
construction link road and roundabout at the junction of Thomas street and the new link road granted as part
of the Tesco permission, and green fields and some detached residential dwellings to the north-east;
Thomas street, access to residential estate, and a recently upgraded petrol filling station to the south-east;
and by a terrace of four two storey properties, and some undeveloped area, currently partly used as car
parking to the south-west. The site is located some 3.5m below the level of the footpath along Thomas
street.

3. LOCAL SHOPS AND ASSOCIATED PETROL FILLING STATIONS IN THE CATCHMENT

This section considers the role and function of the petrol filling stations located within a 20 minute drive-time
catchment of the proposed Tesco pfs, surveyed as part of this assessment. It is noteworthy that a number of
the petrol filling stations inspected were located in isolated rural areas, where their associated convenience
stores played a vital role in the provision of ‘top up’ local convenience facilities for these communities.

There is a relatively even geographical spread of petrol filling stations located throughout the catchment
area, with obvious concentrations of these facilities within the main towns such as Carrickmacross and
Bailieborough. However, a number of smaller villages within the catchment area are served by a petrol filling
station that sustains the only shop in the village and local area. These as detailed in Appendix B to this
objection include pfs with associated only local shop serving the area in Moynalty, Mountainlodge,
Canningstown, Drung, Rockcorry, Stradone, Carlanstown, Crosskeys, Magheracloone, and Broomfield.

Appendix B sets out a summary of the existing fuel provision within the 20 minute drive-time catchment of
the proposed Tesco pfs, supplied by way of formalised petrol filling stations as well as ‘side of the road’ fuel
pump facilities.

The organisation and siting of the proposed development will impinge upon the arrangements found in the
larger towns and villages and throughout the more ruralised areas surrounding Bailieborough. The existing
petrol filling stations are generally of a high quality and are conveniently located generally on the left hand
side of the road when exiting the various towns and villages. The associated retail stores are of respective
scales that serve on the whole, an almost exclusively small and local catchment.

The proposed Tesco pfs will offer a substantial fuel supply at a location within 20 minutes drive-time of all of
the above surveyed petrol filling stations and side of the road fuel pump facilities. The location of the
proposed Tesco pfs adjacent to the existing large Tesco store is likely to encourage multi-purpose trips for
weekly convenience shopping and cut cost fuel, from within this 20 minute catchment, demise of existing
petrol filling stations and side of the road fuel pump facilities, which in turn will lead to the closure of the local
convenience stores associated with them, which rely on petrol sales figures to remain self-sustaining,
especially within more rural locations, leading to the degradation of rural communities contrary to the Retail
Planning Guidelines.

The pfs in the villages and areas listed above provide the primary local shop serving each of these
settlements and their surrounding community. They therefore provide a crucial local resource to all members
of the community, especially those that do not have access to a private car, and the elderly.

4. PLANNING HISTORY
The subject site and its immediate environs has been the subject of a number of recent permissions, which
are listed below:

Reg. Ref. 04/72

This application for the development of 104 residential units and a crèche on the subject and adjacent Tesco
th
supermarket site was granted permission by the Planning Authority, with conditions, on the 27 April 2004.
The decision has clearly been overtaken by the permission granted to Tesco Ireland Ltd. under Reg. Ref.
06/1928. The permitted site plan indicates an area of public open space to the boundary with Thomas
Street. The non-development of this permission clearly sets an important precedent under which the
permission granted and detailed below under Reg. Ref. 07/1667 must be considered by the Planning
Authority
Reg. Ref. 06/1928
This application for the development of a 4,243sqm Tesco supermarket, with associated 330 car parking
th
spaces received a final grant of permission, subject to 41 conditions, from the Planning Authority on the 18
December 2007. This was following the original decision by the Planning Authority having been appealed to
An Bord Pleanála, and which was subsequently withdrawn. The nature of the decision under Condition 15 of
the permission required that Tesco construct the new relief road between Thomas Street and the Shercock
road, and for it to be handed over to Cavan County Council, prior to the commencement of trading.

Reg. Ref. 07/1667

This application for the demolition of the existing petrol filling station, shop and garage, and the construction
of a mixed use development of 4588sqm comprising of 27 no. residential units, as well as 445m² of office
and 786m² retail, in three blocks ranging in height from three to four storeys, with a new vehicular access to
the site and 5 no. surface car parking spaces with 38 no. parking spaces placed below rear townhouses and
landscaped podium on this site on the opposite side of Thomas street to the subject proposal, was granted
th st
with 41 conditions on the 15 January 2008, with the final grant being issued on the 21 February 2008. W

We respectfully submit that this permission has not been implemented and no commencement notice issued
to the Planning Authority. In this context it is imperative that the Planning Authority assess the current
scheme, as is required under planning law, in the context of the proposal being located opposite an existing
pfs. In this context it would result in a proliferation of pfs in this part of the town, contrary to the proper
planning and sustainable development of the area.

Reg. Ref. 05/1546

th
This application for 92 residential units was granted with conditions on the 28 April 2006. The permission is
located on the lands to the north-east of the permitted link road. The permission access’s directly adjacent to
the north-east and within10m of the proposed roundabout. The permission has currently not been
implemented.

5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The subject proposal consists of the construction of a petrol filling / service station (pfs) comprising four
islands, a shop / kiosk (39sqm gross floor area), a car wash / jet wash, underground storage tanks, a
forecourt area with large canopy (297sqm), signage on the canopy and kiosk, and totem sign, and
associated site development works. The development also includes the reconfiguration of the access road
to the Tesco supermarket, which it will share, to provide for an exit lane from the pfs between the two main
carriageways of traffic at this point, as well as additional landscaping proposed to the Thomas Street, and
link road elevations.

The proposal provides for a one way system through the pfs by entering the scheme some 15m from the
access of the link road, and exiting on the western side of the development. The development will result in
the permitted pedestrian crossing being located to the west of the proposed exit from the pfs and would
therefore clearly result in a traffic hazard.

6. MAIN GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

The full grounds of objection together with the arguments, reasons and considerations upon which these are
based are set out below. For clarity and ease of reference we propose to deal with each individual element
of the grounds for our client's objection and outline our response to each in turn.

Contrary to the Retail Planning Guidelines

The proposal will result in development that will have a negative impact on shops in small towns and rural
area contrary to section 90-94 of the Retail Planning Guidelines (RPG). The Guidelines at paragraph 96
recognise that petrol filling stations can provide a wide range of retail goods in an associated shop and that
“In rural areas, some function as the local shop or small supermarket”. In this context the Planning Authority
is required to take into consideration section 90-92 of the Guidelines.

This states in terms of the potential damaging impact the closure of a single outlet can have on a rural
community and states:
 “The closure of a single outlet may represent a general decline in local businesses in rural areas.
Local economic self sufficiency is weakened by this process and it forces those living in rural areas to
rely increasingly on urban centres for goods and services.”

The Guidelines go on to state:

“Planning policies should be supportive of local facilities in small towns and villages which provide an
effective and valuable service to the local community.”

However, most pertinently the Guidelines state (paragraphs 93-94) that the village shop, which is often
associated with and sustained by a petrol filling station in rural Ireland, “play a vital economic and social role
in rural areas, and is important for essential day-to-day needs, particularly for the elderly, disabled and those
with no access to a car or poorly served by public transport”. The Guidelines state that the loss of a village
shop can have an impact on the community, and therefore should be addressed by Planning Authorities
when assessing new retail development proposals.

The applicants have clearly failed to address this issue in their application. Furthermore, as will be outlined
in the next part of this objection, the proposal will have a material and significant negative impact on the retail
provision of the most vulnerable parts of the community completely contrary to sections 90-95 of the Retail
Planning Guidelines and is therefore not in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development
of the area, nor in the interest of the common good.

Retail impact
It is our respectful submission that the applicants have failed to provide any reasonable grounds that would
allow the Planning Authority to grant permission for the subject proposal. We respectfully contend that the
submitted documents do not demonstrate the true impact of the subject proposal on the local petrol filling
stations and local stores within the catchment area and the materially negative impact that the proposal will
have on petrol retailers and that of the vitality and viability of rural communities, which have already been
substantially degraded.

We respectfully submit that petrol filling stations often provide the primary shop serving rural communities
within the catchment of the Tesco pfs. We note that no evidence is provided as to the capacity of the
proposed pfs. From evidence of other such operations it would appear likely that the pfs will have capacity to
store some 240,000 litres of fuel.

We respectfully submit that large supermarkets have the ability to form strong alliances with large petrol
companies and offer cheaper petrol sales, and by encouraging the linking of trips to the Tesco supermarket
and associated pfs (as evidenced by the ongoing policy of providing a further 5c discount per litre on petrol
when a patron spends €50 or more at an associated Tesco supermarket). The potential for this has been
materially increased in recent weeks by the offer by Tesco that if you spend over €99 in their store you will
be avail of petrol or diesel at 99c per litre. This is the equivalent of over 15c off per litre at current prices.
We submit that this amounts to a significant saving that would draw on a far larger catchment, generate extra
traffic and longer journey times contrary to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.

We respectfully submit that the opening of a Tesco pfs at this location will result in a material reduction in
petrol sales at local pfs. Given the nature of the existing petrol filling stations which operate under constant
pressure to maintain their share of the market and their own viability, such a reduction in sales levels would
be materially detrimental to the survival of many of the pfs's and their associated shops.

We respectfully submit that the linking of the existing Tesco supermarket with the proposed pfs by
association alone, will ensure that this proposal will draw on a wider catchment that is reflective of the rural
catchment with a low population density, and figures (Bailieborough currently has a population of less than
2,000) and the significant distance to any major centre, and the lack of any settlements with commensurate
retail facilities to the immediate north, south, and west.

This results in both a larger population on which the application will draw on, and more importantly, a far
higher number of pfs's and therefore local stores that the proposal will impact upon. This will result in the
proposal competing directly with the existing pfs’s that sustain local shops in rural areas, and those in
Bailieborough itself.
The Retail Planning Guidelines clearly legislate against proposals that will negatively impact upon the vital
economic and social role of shops in rural areas. The Guidelines clearly recognise their important role in
providing the essential needs of the elderly, disabled and those with no access to a car or poorly served by
public transport. Its loss can have an impact on the community. The Guidelines requires that the implications
for village shops should therefore be addressed when planning authorities are assessing new retail
development proposals in nearby towns. Whilst the retail element of the subject proposal is small, the
principle established by this national policy guideline should clearly be conformed to in the assessment of
this application.

We respectfully submit that there is clear and unequivocal links between the opening of a Tesco petrol filling
station and the closure of other competing pfs's, and as a result their associated retail facilities. There are
clearly shops that serve their local community within villages and rural areas of the catchment that would if
the pfs closed, result in the closure of the shop.

The likelihood of potentially linked trips must be considered to be substantial. It is reasonable to assume
therefore, that the associated pfs will have a significant and disproportionately larger draw, regardless of the
size of the forecourt shop associated with the pfs itself, and will compete directly with, and at a level above,
the existing pfs's in the area due to the intensity of services and lower prices provided at this single location.

Similar circumstances have been noted across the country following the opening of Tesco petrol filling
stations which have the capacity to impact on the viability of other local pfs's. Such an example is the closure
of a number of petrol filling stations within 1km of the Dundrum Tesco pfs associated with a Tesco
supermarket in Dublin, within one year of its opening. It is important to note that a number had large
associated shops attached to them that have all ceased trading.

Approximately 20 minute
catchment

Map indicating the approximate 20 minute catchment of the Tesco petrol filling station and associate supermarket

We respectfully submit that this proposal will clearly have a detrimental impact on the provision of services to
more isolated areas of the countryside that will likely result in the closure of associated shops to existing
pfs's in the rural area. Such a pattern of closure is clearly contrary to the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area where existing smaller shops and services provide an important role in rural areas
that should be protected.
It is further submitted that linked shopping trips to the pfs, Tesco supermarket, retail warehousing and
adjacent new proposal, will all lead to the further degradation of the existing town centre clearly contrary to
the policies of the County Development Plan and that of the Bailieborough Local Area Plan.

We request the Council to conclude therefore that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of sections 90-95
of the Retail Planning Guidelines and therefore not in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area nor in the interest of the common good.

Contrary to zoning objective and proper planning and sustainable development

The subject site is zoned for town core uses (and not mixed uses as is stated by the applicants agent), with
the adjacent lands identified for a relief / link road under the County Development Plan. A Master-plan has
been prepared for the lands to the west of the site, to facilitate the co-ordinated approach to redevelopment,
access and renewal of this backland area. The plan includes for a number of specific objectives for the
overall lands none of which impact upon the subject proposal.

We respectfully request the Planning Authority to dismiss all comments from the applicants in relation to the
former County Development Plan as being irrelevant under current legislation to which the current County
th
Development Plan, adopted on the 13 October 2008 applies and provides the only land use guide to the
future development of these lands.

We respectfully submit that the current proposal is clearly contrary to section 3.8.6 of the County
Development Plan, which recognises that shops associated with pfs provide an important role especially in
servicing more rural communities. The proposed location of the pfs within lands zoned for town core uses,
clearly predicates against the primary town centre uses that the zoning is envisaged for. We submit that
such uses should not be permissible where they conflict with the overall zoning objectives for the immediate
and surrounding area, and where they are contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of
the area.

Section 10.14.2 of the County Development Plan as adopted from the County Retail Strategy clearly outlines
some key development standards that need to be applied in the assessment of the proposal in terms of its
location, design and form.

“New petrol stations and refurbished existing stations will be required to have a high standard of
overall design and architectural layout to ensure an attractive development that integrates with and
complements or enhances its surroundings. The forecourt canopy should be integrated into the
overall design and sited so that it does not dominate the surrounding buildings.”

Contrary to the assertion of the applicants agent, the proposal is clearly not in compliant with this criteria,
particularly when the true context of the development standards are reviewed which requires the proposal to
be located on the periphery of the town.

Furthermore, we submit that given the sites location at a key corner site of the extended town core zoning,
particularly when entering the town along the Kingscourt Road, the subject proposal, provides for a weak
frontage and a poor urban form along this part of Thomas Street. We submit that the site offers the
opportunity to create a strong urban form at this key location that the current scheme clearly fails to address.

We submit the proposal due to its design would be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity of this area at
this prominent location as one approaches the town centre from the Kingscourt direction. The impact of
which would be to devalue and detract from properties in the area, as well as being detrimental at this key
focal point to its tourism function. The proposal fails to meet the requirements of the preferred location for
such facilities as set out in section 4.3.2 of the Local Area Plan in that it is not on the nearside of the road on
the way out of town. As such we request the Planning authority to refuse permission for the development
based on its poor urban form that it will be create at this key corner site that would predicate against the town
core zoning and the surrounding residential amenities of adjacent properties, as well as resulting in the
proliferation of pfs at this location.
Traffic impact
We respectfully submit that the Transport Statement carried out by Waterman Boreham, which accompanies
the subject planning application is materially flawed on a number of levels. As a result, we contend that the
findings set out therein within Appendix B of their Report do not demonstrate the true impact of the subject
proposal on traffic generation and therefore the potential of the proposal to result in a traffic hazard.

The subject site is only accessible by way of a single roundabout off the Kingscourt Road and under
construction link road. Given the proposed change in the nature and form of the subject lands, it is submitted
that this has the potential to result in a significant traffic hazard, with traffic potentially queuing back from the
site entrance to the new roundabout. Any increase in traffic volumes along this road will have negative
implications for road safety in this area and potential for pedestrian / traffic conflicts.

It is submitted that the subject development will generate significant additional traffic congestion, especially
during the main late afternoon and evening peak hours when the petrol filling / service station and other
surrounding land uses will be at their busiest. The result of which will be to create a traffic hazard that would
be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. We respectfully submit that on
a site visit it was clear that some traffic congestion already happens in the area.

The inappropriate location of the pfs is clearly illustrated by the requirement for traffic exiting the pfs to cut
across traffic entering the supermarket, as well as the restricted single carriageway width of the entrance
laneway into the pfs. Both these have the potential to result in the creation of a traffic due to queuing onto
the main traffic flow entering the supermarket, that could result in the capacity of the link road also being
significantly restricted. The potential for a traffic hazard is compounded by the number of permitted and
existing developments that will be accessing onto or close to the proposed new roundabout. Furthermore,
the opening of the exit from the pfs will result in the pedestrian crossing that was originally proposed as part
of the original application to provide a pedestrian link into the town centre, being isolated to the west of this
exit requiring pedestrians to cross the exit. This requirement will clearly result in a traffic hazard to
pedestrians.

While it is recognised that the stores from the TRICS database used by Waterman Boreham included pfs,
the conclusions reached must clearly be questioned in terms of their validity as a reasoned assessment of
the traffic impact potential of the proposal. No clear breakdown of the traffic levels that will be generated by
the current proposal is provided.

We respectfully submit that no correlation for the increased attractiveness of a Tesco petrol filling / service
station due to price and the ability to undertake a single trip to undertake the weekly shop and filling up the
car with petrol is provided for in the Transport Statement prepared by the consulting engineers. Experience
elsewhere has clearly established that these two issues materially and fundamentally increase the level of
patronage at a petrol filling / service station compared to other similar outlets.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the TRICS database used includes traffic generated by retail developments
associated with petrol filling stations, the mere extrapolation of the 100sqm as a percentage of the overall
retail floorspace to provide the level of traffic that will be generated by the proposal is misleading and
inaccurate. The location of the pfs in association with the retail will increase the use of the pfs beyond that
normally expected. This will result in additional queuing that will be further increased due to the more
favourable prices offered, especially in the current economic climate of high fuel prices and economic
downturn.

We respectfully request the Planning Authority to disregard the figures used to extrapolate the traffic
generation figures in the Transport Statement as these are standardized TRICS figures for 100sqm of retail
and do not take into account the fact that the subject application comprises a Tesco pfs, which will be
associated with an existing Tesco supermarket. We submit that the Traffic Statement is a clear under
estimation of the traffic that will be generated by the proposal and we request that its conclusions should be
disregarded in this instance.

We respectfully submit that the unreliability of these base figures must therefore lead to a material question
mark over the potential for queuing at and across to the site access that could impede vehicular access into
and out of the overall retail development. The potential for this traffic hazard is further enhanced by the lack
of queuing space within the pfs itself where capacity for only 5 or so cars exists, as well as the queuing
distance to the roundabout itself.
The proposed pfs, which is likely to be operated by Tesco, will be able to provide fuel at a heavily discounted
price to competitors, as already seen around the country. Tesco price reductions drastically increase the
trade draw of a Tesco or associated pfs and the associated Tesco supermarket. This will culminate in a
greater concentration of use / traffic generation, than an average pfs of the same size and pump number.

We respectfully submit that the proposal would lead to a significant traffic hazard that would be seriously
injurious to the proper planning and development of the area. The result of this would be the likely to be
further backing up of traffic to the link road and onto the new roundabout. For these reasons alone the
proposal should be refused.

Planning precedent
We respectfully submit that there is clear and unambiguous precedent set for the determination of the
subject development by the Planning Authority. An Bord Pleanála and Planning Authorities have refused a
number of applications for similar Tesco petrol filling / service stations associated with Tesco supermarkets
around the country, which should act as precedent for the refusal of the subject proposal.

Leitrim County Council Reg. Ref. 07/1000

th
The Council refused permission for a Tesco pfs on the periphery of Carrick on Shannon on the 11 April
2008. The applicants, Tesco Ireland, have subsequently appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala where it
is awaiting a decision in due course. The reasons for refusal, that clearly substantiate the grounds for this
objection, stated:

"1. Having regard to the primacy of the location of the proposed development along the main
entry route to Carrick-on-Shannon, and within the Rosebank Retail Park which, in the main,
contains commercial buildings of a high architectural standard, the proposed development,
which is of a low architectural quality normally typical of a petrol filling station, will have an
adverse visual impact on the visual amenity and character of the immediate area and the town
in general. The development will detract from both the existing and permitted high quality
buildings in the retail park complex, where development opportunities still exist. The proposed
development is therefore deemed to be contrary to the proper planning and development of the
area.
2. The submissions made by the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development
will not have an adverse impact on the provision of services to vulnerable members of the
community, who currently rely on access to retailing facilities associated with existing filling
stations in the hinterlands of Carrick on Shannon. As such the proposal is contrary to the
provisions of sections 90-95 of the Retail Planning Guidelines and therefore not in the interest of
the proper planning and sustainable development of the area nor in the interest of the common
good.
3. The proposed location does not meet the requirements of the preferred location for such
facilities as set out in section 4.3.2 of the Local Area Plan in that it is not on the nearside of the
roadway on the way out of town."

An Bórd Pleanála Ref: PL 28. 209621

The Board refused permission to Tesco Ireland for the construction of a 6 pump petrol filling / service station
th
proximate to an existing Tesco supermarket at Wilton Shopping Centre, Cork on 27 May 2005, following
approval by Cork City Council. Permission was refused following the consideration of traffic implications by
the Board.

As part of the Board’s assessment, the Planning Inspector compared the operation of Tesco filling / service
stations in three other locations, including Deerpark, Killarney, Co. Kerry; Maynooth, Co. Kildare; and
Clarehall, Coolock, Co. Dublin. The layout of these stations was broadly similar to the proposal at Wilton and
that which is proposed at Bailieborough. It is pertinent that the assessment of the operation outlined by the
Inspector will also apply to the subject proposal at Bailieborough.

Page 6 of the Inspector’s Report states as follows: -

“All the stations operated a pay at pump system in addition to payment in the kiosk / shop. In my
observations at varying times of the day they were busy and generally all pumps were in use. I
 observed queuing to use the pumps and on occasion the queue extended outside of the forecourt
and filling station site area. In the case of Maynooth and Killarney this did not present a major
problem as the Tesco developments do not front onto a major road or inconvenience the traffic
entering the main shopping centre.

The site that approximates more closely to the appeal site of the three referred to is the Clarehall
site, which adjoins the Malahide Road, a heavily trafficked regional road. I observed difficulty in
vehicles exiting off the regional site into the Clarehall site and this largely arose from traffic
queuing to enter and use the filling station. I observed that most drivers left their vehicles at the
pumps to pay for the fuel and the queue backed out of the Clarehall site preventing vehicles who
wished to enter the retail section of the site and that many pumps remained used as motorists
were unable to access pumps as patrons after obtaining fuel left their cars at the pump and went
into the kiosk to pay for fuel.

This situation could I consider be easily replicated on the Wilton site given the relative proximity of
the filling station to the main access to the centre from the Sarsfield Road. With the construction
of the Southern Ring road, Sarsfield Road is now the primary access to Wilton and Cork Regional
Hospital for Mid and West Cork. At the time of my inspection before lunch during midweek the
accommodation access lane from the south for traffic entering the Wilton site was full between
signal stages and backing into one of the two main lanes and this would not be considered a
peak period for the use of the centre.

I would have serious reservations in relation to a potential issue of traffic congestion arising from
the specific location of this filling station and its proximity to the Sarsfield Road entrance. I do not
have an objection in principle to a filling station on the site of the Wilton centre but consider that in
its proposed location it would give rise to a traffic hazard and congestion”.

It is notable that queuing occurred outside the site entrance at Wilton causing traffic hazard, as was the case
at Dundrum. We respectfully submit that a similar situation is likely to occur at the proposed development
located on a busy link road and roundabout serving the proposal.

An Bórd Pleanála Ref: PL 66A.202978

The Board refused permission to Tesco Ireland for the construction of a petrol filling / service station with 4-
pump stands, and a kiosk/shop (70sqm), at Port Road, Letterkenny Shopping Centre, Letterkenny, Co.
nd
Donegal on 22 September 2003.

The site was located at the entrance to Letterkenny Shopping Centre, just east of the central area of the
town and was immediately adjacent to Station Roundabout to the west, Port Road, (a National Primary
Road, and main approach route,) to the south, a commercial fuel site to the southeast, a shopping centre car
park to the east and the main bus station to the north. The site comprised a narrow landscaped piece of land
between Port Road and the existing shopping centre access road. The location and layout of this refusal for
permission bears a strong similarity to that of the subject proposal, which is located immediately adjacent to
the link road and roundabout. The refusal of permission by the Board was based on the findings of the
Inspector’s Report, outlined in the following paragraphs.

The Inspector’s Report cited that although there are a number of petrol stations located off National Roads,
in some cases close to roundabouts, “each application does require to be assessed on its own merits, given
the significant individual issues”. The Inspector’s Report made the following comments: -

“The fundamental issue relates to the proximity of the site access and egress points just over
40m and approximately 20m respectively from the adjoining roundabout, leading from a National
Road. At the time of my visit, after 2.00pm on a Wednesday, there was severe traffic congestion
in the area, with long queues from roads linking with the roundabout, in particular the N14 (Port
Road) and R25O to the west. At one stage there were vehicles stopped around most of the
roundabout. In addition the shopping centre access road was very busy; traffic was queuing along
the entire appeal site frontage, and the bus station access on the other side of the road was also
busy. It is appreciated that this visit was during August, holiday time; however on previous
occasions I have noticed the congested nature of these approaches to Station Roundabout” (s.9).
The comment of the Planning Inspector in relation to the refused scheme is also of relevance to the current
scheme.

“I consider the proposal to provide a separate right turning lane to access the site to be good in
principle. However this is less than 20m in length, and I would agree with other parties…..that the
length is clearly inadequate and is likely to lead to traffic backing out onto the roundabout.”
(s.9.0).

The Planning Inspector’s comment in relation to existing petrol stations in the vicinity of the Letterkenny
proposal are also noteworthy: -

“I am aware that there are several existing petrol stations in Letterkenny, one of which is located
off Port Road. Consequently I do not consider that there is a proven need for the proposal that
would override the clear traffic safety concerns” (s.9.0).

We respectfully submit that An Bord Pleanála have clearly set important precedent that where the
assessment of proposed Tesco pfs will result in an unacceptable traffic impact as is the case in this instance
then they should be refused based on good planning principles and the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.

7. CONCLUSION
The proposal will result in the closure of a number of the pfs listed in Appendix B of this objection, a number
of which are associated with local shops that provide the only shop serving communities within the local
area. Such closures will have an adverse negative impact on the provision of retail services to vulnerable
members of the community, who currently rely on access to retailing facilities associated with existing filling
stations in the rural area, and from where there are no public transport links to Bailieborough.

We request the Planning Authority to conclude therefore that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of
sections 90-95 of the Retail Planning Guidelines and therefore not in the interest of the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area nor in the interest of the common good.

We submit that the location and design of the proposed development along a main entry route into
Bailieborough, and at the end of a key vista along Thomas Street will have an adverse visual impact on the
visual amenity and character of the immediate area and the town in general. The development will detract
from both the existing and permitted high quality buildings of the main street at the end of the vista. The
proposed development is therefore deemed to be contrary to the proper planning and development of the
area and the town core zoning objective for the area. The application has failed to address our clients
concerns in terms of it material impact on the viability of petrol filling stations in the local area and their
associated stores, as well as its cumulative negative impact, due to its direct association with the
supermarket, on the town centre.

The proposed development which is accessed from a roundabout and off the new link road, when taken in
conjunction with the proposed internal road layout, would generate congestion, give rise to a serious traffic
hazard and be an obstruction to road users and the free-flow of traffic movements on the surrounding road
network. The proposal is likely to result in a back up of traffic onto the access road in and out of the retail
development as well as onto the link road and roundabout thereby obstructing the free flow of traffic at this
location and endangering public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

For all of the above reasons, to permit the subject development would be contrary to the proper planning and
sustainable development of the area including the protection of amenities thereof. We therefore respectfully
request that Cavan County Council refuse this current application on the grounds set out above.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Marston
MARSTON PLANNING CONSULTANCY
APPENDIX A
The following is a list of members of the Irish Petrol Retailers Association within or close to the catchment
area that will be impact by the proposed Tesco petrol filling / service station as applied for under Reg. Ref .
08/1115.

• Kiernans service station, Cavan town.

• Jacksons service station, Cavan town.
• Jakari Ltd Top service station, Bailiebouragh.
• Jimman Ltd Top service station, Cootehill.
• Laurence Keenan Top Vivo, Shercock.
• American stores, Lisduff.
• James O’Neill, Mullagh.
• EMG Stores Ltd, Mace, Virginia, Co. Cavan.
• Paraic Roe, Texaco, Bailieborough.
• Peter Skelly, Ballyjamesduff.
• Paraic Sheridan, Bailieborough.
• Sean Sharkey, Cavan town.
• Paraic Donohgue, Belturbet.
• Shane Cassidy, Carrickmacross.
APPENDIX B
Distance
Town Address Town / Country Ex B/Boro Owner / Leasee Other Services No of Pumps
Bailieboro Tierworker Country 1 Gerry Sheridan Pub 2
Bailieboro Cavan Road Town 1 Padraig Sheridan 4
Bailieboro Barrack Street Town 0 Roe oils Shop 4
Bailieboro Kingscourt Road Town 0 Peter Rogers 4
Bailieboro Main Street Town 0 Corner Court Shop 2
Shercock Kingscourt Road Town 8 Laurence Keenan Tyre Bay & Shop
Shercock Carrickmacross Road Town 8 ?? Shop
Kingscourt Lower Main Street Town 9 Larry Mc Cormack (Dun A Ri) Shop
Kingscourt Dublin Road Town 9 KCS One Stop Shop
Cootehill Bridge Street Town 10 Harry Mc Mullen Shop
Cootehill Cavan Road Town 10 Leonard Maguire Shop
Cootehill Station Road Town 10 Jim Argue Shop
Cootehill Station Road Town 10 Shop
Mullagh Main Street Town 8 John Monaghan Post Office
Mullagh Bailieboro Road Town 8 Unknown
Moynalty Main Street Village 5 J & D Donner Ltd Shop Only Shop in the area
Mountainlodge Mountainlodge Country 6 George Mc Cabe Shop/ Pub Only Shop in the area
Canningstown Canningstown Country 6 Leo Mc Cabe Shop/ Pub Only Shop in the area
Virginia Bailiebor Road Town 9 John F Smith
Virginia Maghera, Dublin Road Country 10
Drung Cavan Road Country 15 Eamon Denning Shop/ Pub / Post Office Only Shop in the area
Rockcorry Monaghan Road Village 15 Gerry Coyle Shop/Hairdressers/Butcher Only Shop in the area
Stradone Knockanork Country 14 Gerry Gray Shop Only Shop in the area
Kells Drumbaragh Country 16 Hillside Stores Shop
Kells Bective Street Town 16 Mc Keown's
Kells Headfort Place Town 16 Murphy's Filling Station
Carlanstown Staholmog Country 14 Staholmog Filling Station Only Shop in the area
Ballyjamesduff The Pound Town 14 Seamus Mc Daid Shop
Virginia Road 14 Skelly Oils Shop/Retail oil Distributor
Ballybay Monaghan Road Town 19 Val Brennan Shop
Castleblayney Road Town 19 Seamus Mc Adam Garage
Main Street Town 19 Ballybay Tyre Centre Tyre Sales
Oldcastle Kells Road Town 15 Curran Oil
Crosskeys Crosskeys, Virginia Country 14 Sinead Mc Giveney Shop/pub Only Shop in the area
Magheracloone Magheracloone Country 16 Justin O Rourke Post Office, Country Shop Only Shop in the area
Carrickmacross Dundalk Road Town 16 Shane Cassidy Shop
Carrickmacross Ardee Road Town 16 Tir Chonnaill
Carrickmacross Castleblaney Road Town 16 Quinn's Superstore
Broomfield Drumganus Country 22 Raymond Mc Caughey Shop Only Shop in the area