6 January 2011 · Senior Planning Officer under delegated authority
Shoprite Ltd, Derby Road, Peel, Isle Of Man, IM5 1hp
Shoprite (IOM) Ltd applied for express consent to erect advertising signage on their supermarket at Derby Road, Peel, comprising five sets of painted timber signs (1m deep x 4m long) with yellow and green 'Shoprite' text and 'Manx to the Max' logos, lit by illuminated strips, positioned on existing and proposed gables …
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The officer assessed the proposal against General Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, which permits external advertisements in towns if they are of high design and materials standard, rel…
General Policy 6
General Policy 6 permits external advertisements in towns/villages if they are high standard design/materials relating well to the building/site, in keeping with the area, and not causing highway safety hazards. The officer tested the timber signage with illuminated strips against these criteria, finding it appropriate to the building (as extended per prior approval), compliant with the retail area, and acceptable per Highways consultee. No tensions noted as all tests passed.
Time limit
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Approved plans
This approval relates to the erection of signage, Shoprite, Derby Road, Peel as shown by drawings 202, SA 211 Rev B and SA 216 Rev B all received 3rd December 2010.
Do not oppose
No objection. However the plan does show the extent of the site as being incorrect. The eastern portion of the site is a car park owned by Peel Town Commissioners.
Highways Division and Peel Town Commissioners have no objection to the signage proposal, while local residents object due to inaccuracies in site plans and unresolved issues from prior applications.
Key concern: inaccurate site plans showing incorrect land ownership and boundaries compared to prior approval
Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implication
Peel Town Commissioners
No Objectionthe Commissioners have no objection to the proposed signage; However the plan does show the extent of the site as being incorrect. The eastern portion of the site is a car park owned by Peel Town Commissioners.
Mr & Mrs DP Cannon
Objectionthe present plan of the building and surround appears different to the plan conditionally approved under 08/01260/B which is of some concern; ownership of the land presently being claimed by Shoprite on this plan is far in excess of its actual ownership
Conditions requested: applicant is requested to submit a new plan(s) for consideration in order to conclude the requirements of the original planning application, to correctly indicate the land it owns and correctly locate surrounding properties on the plan
Mr & Mrs G. Keith
Conditional No Objectionproviding that the proposed signage is not illuminated in such a way that causes a nuisance to surrounding properties, we do not have an issue with the application; the danger to people exiting the proposed new Main Entrance; None of these proposals have been implemented; we feel we are being side stepped by Shoprite
Conditions requested: we would like to see any new plans that are put forward
The original application for extensions to an existing store, including a northern extension, loading bay closer to dwellings, and parking rearrangements, was refused by the Planning Authority (reasons not explicitly stated). The appellant argued the development would not harm residential amenity, traffic safety, or town centre vitality, supported by noise analysis and Department of Transport no-objection. The inspector accepted noise conclusions generally but found early morning deliveries unacceptable without conditions, visual intrusion from vehicles significant, antisocial behaviour risks high without management, and tree removal an issue, while dismissing traffic safety harms due to lack of evidence. Overall, the inspector concluded the proposal acceptable subject to detailed conditions on deliveries, noise, parking, antisocial behaviour management, and landscaping. The inspector recommended dismissing the appeal but upholding the refusal subject to additional conditions.
Precedent Value
This appeal demonstrates that inspectors will recommend refusal unless detailed mitigation schemes for amenity impacts are conditioned upfront, but technical evidence on noise/traffic can overcome objections. Future applicants should submit comprehensive management plans for parking, security, and operations with police consultation to secure allowances.
Inspector: David Ward
