Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00329/REM Applicant: JM Project Management Limited Proposal: Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address: Field 320653 And Part Field Nos 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.06.2018 _________________________________________________________________ C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions - C 1. The development hereby approved must be commenced before 29th June, 2020. Reason: to comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented approvals and also to accord with the approval in principle granted under 15/00775/A. - C 2. The building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawings 16/2576/105D and 16/2576/106A. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged and there may be no additional floorspace introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or any other means. Reason: the proposal as approved represents less than 500 sq m of retail floorspace which would not require a Retail Impact Assessment to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres: any increase in floor are would be in excess of this and no RIA has been provided. - C 3. The units hereby approved may be used as a shop under Class 1 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order and for no other purpose. Reason: in order to reflect the nature of the planning application and to control the impact of the development on the surrounding area. - C 4. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800 and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive. Reason: to ensure that the living conditions of those living near the site are not adversely affected. - C 5. No development may commence until such times as protective fencing has been erected in positions approved by the Department to protect those existing trees which are to be retained, during contruction. The approved fencing must be retained during the course of construction. Reason: to ensure that the landscaping is effected in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of the amenities of the area. - C 6. Prior to the installation of any pipework between the proposed commercial unit and the junction of the A1 and Old Church Road the applicant must have approved by the Department a method statement demonstrating how the pipework will be installed without interfering with the roots of existing trees and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: the pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are tree roots of trees to be retained and as such, a condition should be imposed if the application is approved, to seek the details of how this pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees. - C 7. Prior to the operation of the retail unit, the car parking spaces to the north shall be laid out and available for use by staff and customers of the units and retained as such thereafter. Reason: to ensure that there is sufficient car parking available to serve the commercial unit. - C 8. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream ad the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat. Reason: to accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990. - C 9. No lighting may be attached to the building nor may lighting associated with the retail unit be installed within the site without the prior permission of the Department. Reason: to protect the character of the area and the living conditions of those in properties in the vicinity. - C 10. No items for sale may be stored or displayed for sale outside of the building and there may be no outside storage of material nor the installation of plant or equipment outside of the building. Reason: to ensure that all parking and access areas are available for their intended purpose and to preserve the visual appearance of the building and to ensure that there is no noise nuisance from heating, ventilation or other plant. - C 11. The retail unit hereby approved may not be open for business after 2200hrs on any day nor before 0700hrs on any day. Reason: to protect the living conditions of those living in nearby residential property. - C 12. The on-site parking, turning and loading areas must be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and remain unobstructed thereafter. Reason: in the interests of highway safety and to ensure that there is sufficient car parking provided to serve the proposed development.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
all of those who submitted written representations are close enough to the site to be considered to be directly affected and whose addresses are the same or similar to those who were afforded interested person status in 15/00775/A and 16/01314/REM:
1, Eyreton Terrace 3, Richmond Terrace 3 and 4, Crosby Terrace 1, 3, 5 and 6, Eyremont Terrace, 7, 6, 9, 17, 18 and 19 , Eyreton Park and the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND A NUMBER OF LOCAL OBJECTORS
1.1 The site is part of field 320653 which lies to the south west of the junction of the A1 Main Road through Crosby and the north-south intersection of Eyreton Road (A23) and Old Church Road (B35). The site represents the area of an earlier approval in principle for 28 residential dwellings and provision of retail space addressing matters of siting and means of access. Reserved matters approval has been granted for all of the houses but refused for the retail unit (16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM) - see Planning History below. - 1.2 The site slopes downward from north east to south west. The north eastern boundary of the site is formed by a low hedge which until recently had a row of trees along it although many of these have now been felled to facilitate the development which has been approved here. Opposite this, on the other side of the main road, is 1-6, Eyremont Terrace, 1, Crosby Terrace and on the corner of Main Road and Eyreton Road is a pair of semi-detached houses Crosby House and Eyrebrook. To the south east of the site is a tree-lined watercourse beyond which are public toilets, a children's playground, a bowling club, Marown Millennium Hall, a BMX track and a sports pitch. On the other sides of the site are open, agricultural fields. - 1.3 The site includes a linear section which links to the long distance Heritage Trail footpath which is outwith the applicant's ownership. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 This current application is for the detailed matters reserved from 15/00775/A which approved the principle and siting of a retail unit on the site, in a slightly different position - the building and the delivery yard being handed, resulting in the building being around 5.5m further to the south east. Whilst different, it is not considered to be so significantly different from the siting shown in the application in principle to not be capable of being considered as a reserved matters application. The matters now to be considered therefore are the design and appearance of the building, including its height and the proposed car parking which is 5 spaces less than was shown in the application in principle. The proposed building is rectangular in shape and has a footprint of 31.6m by 15.6m giving a floor area of 493 sq m. There is a set of stairs in the south eastern part of the building, which leads to a first floor area of a further 5 sq m and a balcony 1.9m wide and extending around the south eastern elevation by 7m and around the front elevation by 13.5m. - 2.2 The unit is identical to one proposed as part of 16/01314/REM - see Planning History - but without the internal mezzanine level of office space which was included in that application. The proposal is a very similar footprint (0.7m longer and 0.1m wider) but different in position to what was shown in the approval in principle 15/00775/A - the building and the yard being handed in the original application. The external finishes of the building will be fair faced brickwork on the rear and the side facing the yard to the north west and Manx stonework on the walled area of the front alongside large areas of glazing and on the south eastern gable there will be stonework, wood effect boarding and glazing. The roof will be finished in natural or simulated slates. - 2.3 The building is internally arranged to have two retail areas of 92 sq m and 273 sq m nett floorspace and to the side of the larger retail area will be a storage area, manager's office, staff room and three toilets in a further 90 sq m. The total retail floorspace is 365 sq m, measured internally. - 2.4 To the north west of the building is a service yard finished in concrete and with a 3m high wall around it, bounding plots 21, 27 and 28 of the housing development already approved. - 2.5 Opposite the retail unit is a row of 22 parking spaces with dimensions of 5m by 2.4m. Directly in front of the unit are a further 11 spaces including two marked as suitable for disabled users all of which are 4.8m long. There will be 6m separating the two banks of spaces. - 2.6 The applicant has provided some supporting information with the application, citing the reasons for refusal and suggesting that, "he [the inspector] was careful not to refuse the building on any other grounds except for the office portion of the proposal and specifically refers to the limit of 500 sq ms as a reason for this". He surmises that the inspector considered approving the application with a condition removing the office floor space (the inspector's paragraph 66) and as such, this indicates that the application would have been acceptable without that element. He explains that the reference to 4,500 sq ft in the application in principle related to the retail floorspace only and did not refer to any storage or other ancillary space such as is shown on the current plans. He clarifies that the current application provides only 372 sq m of floor space and that the approval in principle drawing is clearly for a building with a footprint of more than 418 sq m. - 2.7 He explains that the balcony is a means of creating a covered canopy over the entrance and to add interest to the front elevation. He does not consider that it will be used other than for the "odd function as part of the retail unit" depending upon who takes the small unit and could also be used for maintenance, an incidental use. - 2.8 Finally, he explains that the height of the building is to enable it to be seen from the main road as most of the frontage will be screened with trees except for the entrance to the site and in his view, a smaller building would appear out of place amongst taller, two storey buildings.
3.1 The site of the proposed retail unit is designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Residential. Proposed residential designation can include non-residential development where this is complementary to a residential area, such as shops, churches and amenities which contribute to the sustainability of a settlement. These facilities are referred to in the Strategic Plan as follows: "10.6 Neighbourhood Centres
Community Policy 2: New community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users, and should where possible re-use existing vacant or underused buildings.
current or an alternative community use. Developers will be expected to demonstrate that the potential to use the site or building for other community uses has been investigated.
10.8 Retention of Existing Local Shops and Public Houses The loss of facilities such as neighbourhood shops in towns and or village shops and public houses reduces customer choice and can also necessitate people travelling further to meet their needs. This is a particular problem in rural areas where village shops, post offices and public houses can be central to village life. It would be preferable to retain viable facilities, or those that can be made viable and where a change of use or re-development is proposed developers will be expected to show evidence of attempts to market the property as a business in these areas.
Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable."
3.2 Control is recommended in the Plan to ensure that the more significant retail developments are directed towards existing town centres, as follows:
"9.4.3 Exceptions to this general policy have been identified in paragraph 9.2.6. In addition, there are community benefits associated with neighbourhood shops (see paragraph 10.6.1). The following general policy is therefore appropriate:
(1) Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) is defined in Appendix 1
3.3 Crosby is defined within the Island's settlement hierarchy in the Strategic Plan as a "village" where the following guidance is provided:
Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.
These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine and Strang.
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
3.4 Above the villages in the settlement hierarchy are Service Villages. Service Centres then Douglas which will be the main location for employment, housing and services. - 3.5 General Policy 2 states that "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
3.6 Transport Policy 7 states, "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. Appendix 7 requires neighbourhood shops to have "Spaces for staff, customers, and service vehicles". PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Planning approval was granted to the principle of development under 15/00775/A including the siting of the buildings and the means of access. This approved the principle of 28 dwellings and a retail unit. The plans submitted with that showed a building with a footprint of 30.873m by 15.5 m - 478.53 sq m measured externally. Despite this, the accompanying information submitted indicated that the retail unit was to have a floor area of 4,500 sq ft - 418 sq m. The inspector makes no reference to the floor area in her assessment of the application other than to reiterate the reference to the 418 sq m. That application was approved without any further constraints or controls over the floor area of the retail unit. 16/01314/REM - initial decision - 4.2 The application for the reserved matters of the retail unit, 16/01314/REM was refused by the Planning Committee on 11th November, 2017 for the reasons that:
4.4 The decision was challenged to appeal by the applicant and the decision on appeal was split, the 21 dwellings being approved and the retail unit refused for the following reasons:
4.5 The inspector makes the following comments about the proposed retail unit: "Scale and visual impact of the retail building
REPRESENTATIONS Local Authority
5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the plans are deficient for want of a scale and the precise dimensions of the building are critical in terms of the need for a RIA and BP9. They maintain that the design of the building is not acceptable and whilst the earlier application referred to a neighbourhood shop, this looks more like an out of town facility and has an industrial character and is more than a little overbearing. Whilst they note the applicant's suggestion that the only reason for refusal of the earlier application was the floor area, this is a red herring and the most recent comment on the design is that of the PC: the applicant must not presume what was in the inspector's mind and they are of the view that the inspector did not consider the merits of the design. Unless a condition were attached, a mezzanine floor could be added, particularly as there is already a staircase included in the application. The balcony is "entirely unacceptable". They recommend that the application is refused for the same reasons as given by the Planning Committee in the case of the earlier application (19.04.18, 21.06.18). Local residents in favour of the application
provision, including public art, which is necessary and directly associated with the development proposed.
10.04.18 and 11.05.18). Government Departments
5.4 Highway Services commented initially on 05.04.18 but following the submission of a plan illustrating the access and manoeuvring details of large vehicles, raise no objection, subject to conditions requiring that the detailed highway design of the site access routes, and the adjacent highway improvements on Peel Road are to be agreed in writing prior to the construction of the development and built in accordance with the approved details, that the on site parking, turning and loading areas are to be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and unobstructed thereafter, and the visibility splays at the site junction are to be provided prior to construction and retained as such thereafter (04.06.18 and 15.06.18). - 5.5 It should be noted that the approval in principle, on which this REM application relies, was subject to a number of conditions, including the following:
5.6 These conditions need not be repeated in any decision in respect of the REM applications and continue to apply to the development throughout its implementation. The details of the crossing and bus lay-by and timetable for their implementation were submitted as part of the applications for 16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM and were approved. It is understood that further approval is required from the Department of Infrastructure, under the Highway Act As such, the remaining, outstanding condition to be applied in this case is:
"the on site parking, turning and loading areas are to be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the development and maintained and unobstructed thereafter".
6.1 The material considerations in this case are:
the provisions of the development plan: in this case The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and the provisions of the Strategic Plan, particularly those policies highlighted in Section 3 above and decisions on the previous applications 15/00775/A and 16/01314/REM
6.2 Whilst the decisions of the Planning Committee are important in reflecting the views of those members at that time, where these views differ from the conclusions and decision of the Minister in respect of the same application, the latter takes precedence along with the views of the inspector where they are consistent with that decision.
6.3 The principle of the provision of a retail unit here is not in dispute due to the provisions of the Development Plan which allow such facilities and the fact that such a use was approved in principle under 15/00775/A. The issues in this case are the size of the unit having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and the previous decisions on the site and the physical impact of the proposed development, also having regard to the same material considerations. Size of the unit - 6.4 The unit constitutes 498 sq m of floorspace including the internal balcony, measured externally. The external balcony would not usually be considered to constitute calculable floorspace and this is certainly not retail space. The impact of the balcony is considered to be related to its physical impact rather than the inclusion of its floorspace. This amount is less than 500 sq m and as such, a RIA is not required under the provisions of the Strategic Plan. The fact that it is slightly less than this is not relevant to this deliberation: there is a threshold and the proposal falls below that. - 6.5 This amount is more than 418 sq m referred to in the approval in principle. However, nowhere in that application did it qualify whether this amount was gross or nett and indeed this amount related to a building which had a footprint almost identical to what is shown here (see paragraph 2.2). The building did not represent one with only 418 sq m of gross floor space. This difference is not discussed within the application process of 15/00775/A. - 6.6 The inspector considering 16/01314/REM refers to the size of the unit, in that case it incorporated an upper office area and constituted a total of 594 sq m. He considered this to be not only out of the scope of the approval in principle but being of a scale which was significantly more than the 418 sq m referred to in the approval in principle but also of a scale which would require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment and one was not provided. He does not discuss the merits of a building of that scale and his recommendation for refusal is simply based upon the fact that the floor area exceeded the amount which can be considered without a RIA and that it incorporated office space which was not provided for in the approval in principle or in the Strategic Plan. - 6.7 There is clearly a discrepancy between the 418 sq m referred to by the applicant in the application in principle and what was shown and approved on the plans accompanying that application. 15/00775/A approved the siting of the buildings and as such included a reference to the footprint shown in the drawings. This is made very clear by the inspector considering 16/01314/REM where he states:
6.8 The reference to scale in the inspector's paragraph 59 cannot refer to footprint given his comments in the previous paragraph that "the reserved matters are the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings, internal layout and landscaping". Scale must then refer to the height of the building and the inclusion of upper flooring, resulting in additional overall floorspace. - 6.9 The Strategic Plan makes reference to the benefit to local communities of local facilities where that new community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users and should where possible, re-use existing vacant or underused buildings (Community Policy 2). The opportunity could have been taken at the Crosby Wholesalers site when that operation ceased to trade. However, that site now has permission for use as storage facilities (12/01367/C). - 6.10 The proposed retail unit is certainly larger than the small village shop that used to be located on the main road to the west of the Crosby Wholesalers site. It is also larger than the Spar shop at Union Mills (163 sq m - 16m by 9m) and the shop off Clybane Rise in Farmhill (220 sq m - 20m by 11m). It is similar to the footprint of the Anagh Coar general stores - 25m by 13m (334 sq m and single storey) which has a chemist and doctor's surgery alongside which has a footprint of 276 sq m and two storey. The proposed development's two retail units combined is slightly larger than the Anagh Stores facility albeit that that is single storey and not as tall internally or externally, as that now proposed. One of the objection letters to another application on this site, 17/00852/B, quotes from the Institute of Grocery Distribution that convenience stores are considered to be stores with a sales area of less than 3,000 sq ft (278 sq m) with small supermarkets being defined as food-focused stores with sales areas of 325,00 sq ft: the proposed retail units have sales areas of 93 sq m and 273 sq m or thereabouts (measured externally). - 6.11 Whilst the Strategic Plan suggests that neighbourhood shops will generally be expected to be no more than 100 sq m of floor space, in this case, the shop facility is not intended to serve only the new development but all of the village of Crosby and possibly Glen Vine. The site is well placed to serve passing traffic on what is one of the Island's busiest principal distributor roads. As such, it is not considered that the size of the shop unit itself is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan nor has it been demonstrated how such a size would be detrimental to the amenities of the village. Whilst it is suggested that the shop will not reduce, but will add to dependence upon the private motor vehicle by customers, at the present time, all of Crosby's population have to go outside the village for all of their shopping as is noted by some of those who have written in in support of the scheme. If only one local resident shops here by foot, this will have improved the sustainability of the settlement and it is relevant that six local residents (all of Eyreton Park) have written in, in support of the application (see Section 5 above). The retail unit will also provide local employment which is generally lacking within the village. Visual impact
6.12 The Commissioners suggest that the inspector did not have regard to the merits of the design. The inspector comments briefly on the impact of the building, stating, "However, I do not accept that the proposed retail building would look out of place. Its apparent bulk and height would be mitigated by the fact that it would be located in a relatively low-lying part of the appeal site. And its blank rear wall would be partially screened by landscaping, which would soften its visual impact." - 6.13 In addition, the Planning Committee when considering 16/01314/B were divided on their view of the design of the building, some making positive comments and others not. The reference in their reasons for refusal for the retail unit include their concern that its height and mass would result in a building which was out of character with the village. This was not reiterated in the inspector's conclusions nor the final reasons for refusal of that application. - 6.14 In respect of the balcony, the inspector makes no adverse comment about the impact of this and dismisses concerns that it would give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking of the play area. - 6.15 In respect of car parking, the proposed 33 spaces result in a ratio, according to Highway Services, of 1 space per 15 sq m of floor space which is a simlar ratio to that in UK retail developments. They have no objection to this. The Strategic Plan requires only sufficient spaces for staff, deliveries and customers and the application is considered to comply with this.
7.1 The principle of a retail unit here has been accepted in the approval in principle which showed a building in a similar position to that now shown and with a very similar footprint. The inspector considering 16/01314/REM recommended refusal of the application on the basis that the proposal included office floorspace and that the overall floor area exceeded 500 sqm and there was no retail impact assessment. He made no negative observations on the appearance or visual impact of the building or the fact that the building is in a slightly different position to that of the application in principle. What is now proposed provides less than 500 sq m of retail floor space as measured externally, the arrangement provides units which are smaller than the IGD guidance for convenience stores, although more than the 100 sq m described in the Strategic Plan as a neighbourhood shop. It is considered that the proposal addresses the issues raised in 16/01314/REM and is recommended for approval.
7.2 Conditions have been suggested which control opening hours of the unit, these being 0900hrs to 1800hrs. Such hours are considered unduly restrictive and would not take into account people wishing to buy an early morning newspaper, milk or such provisions and such hours would be significantly shorter than other convenience shops: Strang Stores operate from 0615 to 2100hrs, Union Mills Spar opens at 0700hrs and closes at 2200hrs and the Anagh Coar Spar opens at 0700hrs and closes at 2300hrs. As such, if opening hours are required to be controlled, it is suggested that these be 0700hrs to 2200hrs.
7.3 Conditions have also been suggested which control the sale of alcohol: the planning process is not involved in such matters which are dealt with by the Licensing Court. - 7.4 Conditions have been suggested which switch off reversing sirens: this is considered unsafe and inappropriate for a planning condition. The Crosby Hotel is not understood to be subject to such conditions and involves deliveries from large vehicles. - 7.5 Conditions have been suggested controlling the times of deliveries to between 0900hrs and 1700hrs Monday to Fridays only. Again the hotel across the road is not subject to such controls and it would be difficult to effectively enforce. - 7.6 Conditions have been suggested to restrict the display of goods for sale to within the shop only. The computer generated image shows a stand of flowers, presumably for sale, as the
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed :…………………………………….. Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Application No. : 18/00329/REM Applicant : JM Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters application for the construction of retail unit
with associated parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address : Field 320653 And Part Field Nos 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 2nd July, 2018 contrary to the recommendation of the officer, for the reasons that:
It is not considered that there is justification for the inclusion of the internal staircase and also, it is considered that its inclusion increases the likelihood of the provision of additional floorspace at the upper level which would be contrary to the provisions of the approval in principle and Business Policy 9 and Department for Enterprise’s Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy.
The size of the unit, which is larger than that approved in the approval in principle is considered unacceptable given the rural location of the site and Business Policy 9.
The proposal would result in significant increase of traffic in the estate to the detriment of the living conditions of those in the new estate as well as those living close to and opposite the site.
The size and particularly the height of the building is considered out of keeping with the rural nature of the site.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
