28 april 2017 chairman: councillor a redpath aldermen ... · 4.1.4 letter from the department for...

28 April 2017

Chairman: Councillor A Redpath Vice Chairman: Councillor N Anderson Aldermen: Alderman D Drysdale, Alderman G Rice MBE, Alderman J

Dillon MBE JP Councillors: Councillor R Beckett, Councillor A Girvin, Councillor U

Mackin, Councillor L Poots, Councillor M Tolerton The Monthly Meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, on Monday 8 May 2017 at 2.00 pm, for the transaction of business on the undernoted Agenda. Please note that lunch will be available in The Members Suite from 1.30 pm. Refreshments will also be available in The Members Suite during the adjournment of the meeting at 5.30 pm. You are requested to attend. DR THERESA DONALDSON Chief Executive

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes

3.1 Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 3 April 2017

4. Report from the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control

4.1 Report from the Planning Manager

4.1.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined

(1) LA05/2015/0178/F – Major Application - Change of use and

extension of unit 2 from boat and motorhome showroom and subdivision and part change of use of unit 1 from trade showroom to bulky goods retail warehouse including internal alterations, minor elevational changes and associated site works (retrospective application) (Additional Information) at Unit 1 & 2 Cyril Johnston & Co Ltd 127 Ballynahinch Road Carryduff.

(2) LA05/2015/0338/F – Major Application – The development of

219 houses, comprising 90 no. 3 & 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129 no. 3 & 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space (amended number of houses and site layout) on lands to the north of 21 Knockbracken Road, Belfast and adjoining Brackenhill Crescent and Brackenhill Avenue to the east, Laurelgrove Avenue, Laurelgrove Crescent and Laurelgrove Dale to the north and Croft Hill, Brooke Hall Avenue and Brooke Hall Heights to the west.

(3) LA05/2016/1245/F – Major Application - Proposed demolition of

existing buildings and construction of mixed use development of 2514 m2 retail sales area, 185 m2 office units, ancillary accommodation, 20 no apartments ( 4 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) and associated car parking and landscaping at Carryduff Shopping Centre, Church Road, Carryduff.

(4) LA05/2016/0612/RM – Major Application - Development of

community treatment and care centre, parking including basement and multi storey levels, access arrangements and other associated operational development. Lands at Lagan Valley Hospital, Hillsborough Road Lisburn.

(5) LA05/2016/1062/O – Major Application - Residential development of 85 houses with associated open space and road access junction (Amended site location) on Lands between 20 and 26 Comber Road Carryduff.

(6) LA05/2016/0542/F – Local Application (Judicial Review decision

quashed) – Proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years) (Additional information) on lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn.

(7) LA05/2016/0174/F – Local Application (Called In) - Re siting of

approved dwelling and garage previously approved under S/2013/0044/F. Incorporating realigned private road, 60m west of 92 Carnreagh, Hillsborough and rear of No 10 Farriers Green, Hillsborough.

(8) LA05/2016/0518/F – Local Application (Called In) -

Retrospective amendment to part of housing development approved under S/2011/0383/F to facilitate amended house types and reduced number of dwellings from 8 no to 6 no. at Nos 2,4,& 6 Ballantine Way and site nos 462,463, and 468 Ballantine Garden Village, approximately 100 metres south of Hillhall Road, Lisburn.

(9) LA05/2016/1195/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed

development of a chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under CTY6 – Personal and domestic circumstances on land adjacent to no. 5 Megarrystown Road, Moira.

(10) LA05/2015/0111/O – Local Application (Called In) - Erection of

1 No. Dwelling and Garage, Adjacent to No. 284 Ballynahinch Road, Annahilt, Hillsborough.

4.1.2 Local Development Plan: Response to Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council and Belfast City Council Preferred Options Papers.

4.1.3 Letter from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in respect of

Caravan Site Licence Exemption Certificate. 4.1.4 Letter from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) in relation to

Notifications for Listed Buildings 4.1.5 Letter from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) enclosing

Copies of Living Places.

4.1.6 Development Management – Appeals Decisions 24 April 2017

4.1.7 Development Management – Live Appeals 24 April 2017 4.1.8 Development Management – Proposal of Application Notices

(PANS) 4.1.9 Development Management – Year End - Statistics

4.2 Planning Reform in NI: Progress, Economic Development and Forward Strategy

4.3 Long-Term Water Strategy – Actions for Local Councils

4.4 Budget Report – Planning Unit

5 Confidential Report

Members are requested to access the Confidential Report on Share-point under the Confidential Folder – Planning Committee

5.1 Enforcement - Cases with Court Proceedings for May 2017

Confidential for reason of information relating to any individual; information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; and information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

5.2 Rolling Year Absence Figures for the Planning Unit.

Confidential as it is information relating to an individual.

6. Any Other Business

--ooOOoo-- To: Members of Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

PC 03 04 2017

306

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Offices, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn on Monday 3 April 2017 at 2.00 pm

PRESENT:

Councillor A Redpath (Chairman) Councillor N Anderson (Vice-Chairman) Aldermen J Dillon MBE JP, D Drysdale, G Rice MBE Councillors T Beckett, A Girvin, U Mackin, L Poots

OTHER MEMBERS: IN ATTENDANCE:

The Right Worshipful the Mayor, Councillor R B Bloomfield Aldermen W Leathem, J Tinsley Councillors B Hanvey, J Craig, B Mallon, V Kamble Lead Head of Planning & Building Control Principal Planning Officers (RH and LJ) Senior Planning Officers (RT, AS and MB) Committee Secretary Attendance Clerk

Cleaver Fulton & Rankin Kate McCusker (Legal Advisor)

Commencement of Meeting The Chairman, Councillor A Redpath, welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Introductions were made by the Chairman and some Housekeeping and Evacuation announcements were made by the Lead Head of Service (Planning & Building Control). 1. Apologies

Apologies for non-attendance at the Meeting were accepted and recorded on behalf of Councillor M Tolerton.

2. Declarations of Interest

The Chairman sought Declarations of Interest from Members and reminded them to complete the supporting forms which had been left at each desk. The following Declarations of Interest were made:

PC 03 04 2017

307

2. Declarations of Interest (Contd)

During the course of the meeting, Councillor N Anderson stated that he would be declaring an interest in Y/2015/0002/F and would be making representations in support of the application and therefore he would be withdrawing from the meeting during the determination of that application.

3. Minutes

It was proposed by Alderman G Rice seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that the following Minutes be signed.

Minutes of Meeting of Planning Committee held on Monday 6 March 2017.

4. Report from the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control

It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below:-

4.1 Report from the Planning Manager

It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Planning Manager be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below:-

Items for Decision

4.1.1 Schedule of Applications:

The Chairman reminded Members that they needed to be present for the entire item. If absent for any part of the discussion they would render themselves unable to vote on the application. The Legal Adviser highlighted paragraphs 46 - 48 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee which, she advised, needed to be borne in mind when determinations were being made.

The Chairman advised that there were a number of speakers in attendance making representation on some of the applications and therefore the Schedule of Applications would be taken out of order to enable these applications to be taken first.

(1) LA05/2016/0542/F – Local Application (Judicial Review decision quashed) –

Proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years) (Additional information) on lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn.

The Chairman advised that this application had been removed from the schedule to allow additional information to be considered and clarity sought as appropriate.

PC 03 04 2017

308

(2) LA05/2015/0338/F – Major Application – The development of 219 houses, comprising 90 no. 3 & 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129 no. 3 & 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space (amended number of houses and sit layout) on lands to the north of 21 Knockbracken Road, Belfast and adjoining Brackenhill Crescent and Brackenhill Avenue to the east, Laurelgrove Avenue, Laurelgrove Crescent and Laurelgrove Dale to the north and Croft Hill, Brooke Hall Avenue and Brooke Hall Heights to the west.

The Senior Planning Officer (AS) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report and advised that additional conditions had been recommended by Transport NI and Natural Heritage for inclusion in any decision issued. (Councillor U Mackin arrived at 2.06 pm) At this stage Alderman G Rice said that in her opinion, there had been a distinct lack of Community Consultation in respect of this application and that, in her opinion, it was not Article 40 compliant. The Senior Planning Officer responded that there had been an Article 40 in place for the wider area however, he considered that the obligations were to provide a spine road which had been done, he considered that all obligations had been met. It was proposed by Alderman G Rice, Seconded by Councillor N Anderson and by a majority vote it was agreed to defer the determination of this application for a period of one month for clarification on the matters for deferral to be provided to the Planning Unit.

(3) Y/2015/0002/F – Major Application – Application under Article 28 of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 to vary conditions 1 & 2 of permission Y/2000/0506/F (Appeal ref 2000/A278) (as amended by Permission Y/2010/0292/F) and Y/2000/0130/F (Appeal ref 2000/A277) to allow for the construction of an internal mezzanine and the sale of mixed use comparison goods with no more than 75% of the net sales area used for the sale of clothing, footwear and fashion accessories at Unit 1, Drumkeen Retail Park, Upper Galwally, Belfast.

(The Planning Officer MB left the meeting) (Councillor N Anderson left the meeting at 2.20 pm having declared an interest in this application). The Senior Planning Officer (AS) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report. He advised that additional information had been received in the form of a customer survey. He stated that the postal codes of respondents to the survey had indicated that 50% of those who responded had resided outside the applicant’s target catchment area. The Committee received Ms T Harbinson, Mr G McGhee and Mr M Kelly who wished to speak in opposition to the application highlighting the following:

PC 03 04 2017

309

They supported the recommendation of the Planning Officer Drumkeen Retail Park was outside the District Centre and had a

complimentary role and the control of Forestside was strictly enforced. Approval of this application would be to the detriment of Forestside. Approval of this application would set a precedent as there were many

retailers who would fit this format. Approval would not enhance Forestside. Approval would be contrary to BMAP and would circumvent its

recommendations. Strategic Planning oppose the application for the above reasons as well. The catchment area would include East Belfast. It would be contrary to the SPPS. Other options were available for example at Connswater. Local infrastructure at Connswater would also support it being located

there. This would threaten protected sites. The application for Homebase was similar and the view expressed was

that this application was similar and should be rejected. A question and answer session ensued.

The Committee received Mr E Loughrey, Mr S Beattie QC , Mr G Woods and Mr N Stephens who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

Mr Beattie stated that R2 is the only suitable/appropriate policy which the proposal complies with as the proposal will not undermine the distinctive nature of Belfast City Centre. The proposal is policy compliant.

There is no impact on the city centre, only 6% impact at worst on Forestside comparison excluding Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury Food.

TK Maxx could not locate to an industrial estate. 6% is not harmful on any sites or centres. The vitality of Belfast City

Centre will not be harmed. He was surprised at the absence of policy assessment. Conditions can control the development – this would not set a precedent. The survey was to demonstrate that there would be no impact on

Forestside and people will continue to use Forestside. In relation to alternative sites, Connswater is also a District Centre,

however a Forestside location is preferable. The Tesco site is a greenfield site and is not suitable either.

A question and answer session ensued.

The Committee received Councillor N Anderson who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

He wants the best for the areas under discussion and would not want

them to be impacted. There would be negligible impact and Forestside may actually benefit from

this development.

PC 03 04 2017

310

Recent customer survey would support the above as 98% say they would use Forestside more frequently.

The alternative option at Lowes Industrial Estate is unsuitable. The Carryduff Centre would be unsuitable as there is not enough space. There would be limited impact on Belfast City Centre. The independent retail assessment suggests that to refuse the application

would be unwise. The expert agrees the application complies with policy. He then read out a section of the independent retail expert’s report which

was supportive of the application.


The Committee received Councillor B Mallon who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

Regarding the Regional and local centres, Belfast and Lisburn already had TK Maxx stores. Carryduff was unsuitable as the centre is closed and will eventually be a mixed use scheme. It is a town centre but its future role does not meet the requirements of the end user. Lowes is not an option and there are no other alternatives, the future of Carryduff will not be impacted.

Regarding Drumkeen, the unit has been vacant since 2012 and no rates have been generated, if this application is approved there will be a significant increase in rates income. TK Maxx is committed to Drumkeen and research shows it would benefit Forestside as a shopping destination.

There is a £1.75m investment. It will generate 30/40 full and part time jobs. Research has been carried out and is supportive. He feels this is the correct site for the application.


The Committee received Councillor B Hanvey who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

The site is a good location for the store, as it is an established retail area. The unit has been vacant since 2012 and this has resulted in a loss in rates. There will be a £1.75m investment. It will generate 30/40 full/part-time jobs. The catchment area is growing and there will be a requirement for

increased retail floor space. This application encourages the use of sustainable transport given its

location. There will be no impact on Carryduff, the mixed use is intended for smaller

shops and could not accommodate this development. Other locations alluded to are unsuitable and local residents are already

concerned at traffic at that location. The Tesco site referred to is also unsuitable. There is no alternative site.


PC 03 04 2017

311

At the culmination of further discussion and ensuing debate, the decision was put to a vote and by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions, it was agreed that the recommendation of the Planning Officer would not be upheld.

The Chairman stated that the Professional Officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission had fallen and that a new motion was now under consideration. Section 45 of the 2011 Planning Act states that in dealing with planning applications, the Council must have regard to the local development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

It was then proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by the Chairman Councillor A Redpath and agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application would be:

In the interpretation of the R1 and R2 the Committee differs with the

Planning Officer. The development complies with policy R2. The Committee consider that the sequential test has been met. The Committee consider that this approval would not create a precedent. There would be substantial economic benefit derived

It was agreed that a Section 76 Agreement be obtained to restrict the occupier to T K Maxx.

The Chairman declared the application approved for the reasons stated above.

The Chairman then highlighted that because the application had been recommended for refusal, no conditions had been drafted. Conditions would now need to be discussed and the Committee agreed that the precise wording of conditions be delegated to the Planning Unit.

It was proposed by the Chairman, Councillor A Redpath, seconded by Alderman

D Drysdale and agreed that, whilst the Committee considered that this application would not significantly prejudice the implementation of the local development plan’s objectives and policies, it should be referred to the Department of Infrastructure because previous applications, which were not referred to the Department by the Committee, have been referred to the Department at a later date by other persons outside of the Council, therefore, in order to give the applicant certainty on timescales etc, the application should be referred.

Adjournment of Meeting The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 3.45pm Resumption of Meeting The Chairman declared the meeting resumed at 4.05 pm (Councillor N Anderson returned to the Chamber at 4.05 pm)

PC 03 04 2017

312

(4) LA05/2016/0414/O – Local Application (Previously deferred) – Dwelling on a farm (amended plans) on lands opposite 11 Kilcorig Road, Lisburn.

The Chairman advised that this application had been withdrawn by the Agent.

(5) LA05/2016/0676/F – Local Application (previously deferred) – An infill site for

2 no. two storey detached dwellings, associated garages and landscaping (Design and Statement received/amended site layout plan) on a site between 245 and 251 Hillhall Road, Lisburn

The Senior Planning Officer (AS) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report advising that it had been previously deferred pending the provision of additional information. He also advised that an additional Letter of Objection had been received. The Committee received Mr Declan Diamond who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

Information had been provided to address the issues raised previously. He had found that Planning Officers were reluctant to enter into

discussions and were difficult to work with. He felt he would be able to demonstrate that the buildings were separate

and that both fronted the main road and a topological survey had been provided to demonstrate this.

Significant design changes had been incorporated to make the dwellings more compliant and suitable for the surrounding area.

He had offered to replace the hipped roof but no response had been received from planners.

Planting was now in place to reduce the size of the site. He outlined why a third dwelling could not be incorporated into the site and

provided some examples of similar applications which had been approved and which created a precedent


The Committee received Mr Edwin Poots MLA who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

He welcomed the additional photographs being shown. There were clearly two separate dwellings fronting the road. There was a high garden wall but clearly two separate buildings. The topographical survey demonstrated the two buildings were lower so

the scale and size issues were non-issues. LVRP was not an issue and neither were the roads issues raised if others

are met. A garden wall surrounding two buildings does not make it one building. These were infill dwellings and met policy requirements.


PC 03 04 2017

313



It was then proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by Alderman G Rice and by a majority of 5:3 with 1 abstention it was agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application would be:

That in the opinion of the Committee, the site met the infill policy

requirements.


The Chairman then highlighted that because the application had been recommended for refusal, no conditions had been drafted. Conditions would now need to be discussed and it was agreed by the Committee that the precise wording of conditions be delegated to the Planning Unit.

(6) LA05/2016/0692/O – Local Application (Called in) – Infill dwelling and garage

on land adjacent to 128 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, Belfast.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report. The Committee received Mr Richard Burnside who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

The only reason for refusal was one of access. Transport NI had issues as this is a protected route. The stretch of road was 150m long and approval for other dwellings has

been granted which creates inconsistency. The application proposes to use an existing agricultural access which has

been used for agricultural traffic on a daily basis, the use of this as access to the property would improve on the status quo.

Based on precedent in the area, this application should be approved. A question and answer session ensued.

The Committee received Mr Robbie Butler MLA who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

This is purely about vehicular access. He highlighted road safety stating that there already was a vehicular

access, albeit for farming.

PC 03 04 2017

314

He felt this would improve road safety and urged better use to be made of pre-planning discussions within the planning process.



Vehicular access is there, there are no alternatives so the criteria is met The application should be approved.


The Committee received Councillor J Craig who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

PPS21 is met. The issue is AMP3 and whether this qualifies. He read out Section (d) of AMP3 which he felt would allow the application

to proceed. Spays installed would improve road safety. There would be no major increase in traffic. A precedent was set in March with a similar approval.




It was then proposed by Councillor N Anderson, seconded by the Chairman, Councillor A Redpath and by a majority of 9:0 with 0 abstentions it was agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application would be:

That there was already a vehicular access in place and that the

Committee consider that road safety would be improved by the application being approved. The proposal was therefore considered to be compliant with Policy AMP3.


The Chairman then highlighted that because the application had been recommended for refusal, no conditions had been drafted. Conditions would now need to be discussed and it was agreed that the precise wording of conditions be delegated to the Planning Unit.

PC 03 04 2017

315

Adjournment of Meeting The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 5.34pm advising that

refreshments were available in the Members’ Suite. Resumption of Meeting The Chairman declared the meeting resumed at 6.15 pm.

(8) LA05/2015/0815/F – Local Application (Called in) – Erection of one no. dwelling and all associated site works on lands adjacent to 23 Culcavy Road, Hillsborough.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report. The Committee received Mr Conor Hughes who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

He considered that the application did meet CTY2. The cluster was outside a farm, there were three dwellings and a barn,

one of which was a replacement dwelling. It was visible from various viewpoints which were outlined. It was a well known historical landmark – both Culcavy House and the

Millpond were widely known in the area. It provides enclosure and would be surrounded by development on all

sides. Recent changes made to the occupancy requirements of local cottages

was a material consideration. He urged approval



He outlined the history of the millpond which he considered made it a focal point.

He advised of locations from where the buildings were a visible entity. The adjacent Golf-club resort had obtained approval. There were strong domestic reasons why this could be approved.



The Chairman stated that the Professional Officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission had fallen and that a new motion was now under consideration. Section 45 of the 2011 Planning Act states that in dealing with

PC 03 04 2017

316

planning applications, the Council must have regard to the local development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

It was then proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by Councillor N Anderson and agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application would be:

That the Committee consider that the focal point required by the policy is

met by the mill pond and therefore it meets the requirements of CTY2. That the Committee do not believe that the style of the development is

suburban nor that it would ruin rural character.



(9) LA05/2016/0627/F – Local Application (Called in) – Two no. proposed dwellings on land 50m West of 4 Back Road, Drumbo.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report. The Committee received Mr Chris Cassidy who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

The Council needs to ensure that there is a supply of housing land – this is not the case in Drumbo where no land has been made available

This has resulted in significant losses – shop, post-office, school have all had to close.

This will not set a precedent as the set of circumstances will not be replicated elsewhere.

This is not an area of outstanding natural beauty. There are no objections to the scheme.



Drumbo has not been well served by development. This has significantly impacted the village – loss of shop, post-office and

school. The need for housing is clearly evident. He explained the lay-out of the village. This development would not do demonstrable harm and would actually

benefit the village.

PC 03 04 2017

317




It was then proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by Councillor U Mackin and agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application would be:

That the application meets the requirement of CTY2a That there is a clear housing need in the area. The area was previously zoned for housing and this application would not

be detrimental to the area.



(7) LA05/2016/1195/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed development of a chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under BTY6 – Personal and domestic circumstances on land adjacent to no. 5 Megarrystown Road, Moira.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report. The Committee received Mr Brian Crawford who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

A letter he had sent to the Planning Unit had clearly stated the age of the parents referred to and the gentleman’s diagnosis.

Ms Thompson needs to be close to her parents and they currently reside in Antrim.

As a single parent she also has caring responsibilities at home. The conversion of the garage was considered but it was decided that it

would not be a suitable alternative. There will be no impact on rural character, the development would be rural

in nature and this could be considered at the full planning permission stage – this is for outline permission only.

PC 03 04 2017

318

A question and answer session ensued during which questions were asked about the nature of the applicant’s father’s illness. At the culmination of the discussion it was proposed by Councillor U Mackin, seconded by Councillor T Beckett and agreed that the determination of this application be deferred pending additional medical information being provided.

Items for Noting It was proposed by Councillor N Anderson, seconded by Councillor R T Beckett and agreed that items 4.1.2 – 4.1.5 of the Planning Manager’s Report be noted subject to any decisions recorded below:- 4.1.2 Department for Infrastructure (Dfl) in February 2017 on Hazardous

Substances Controls. It was agreed that the Committee note information circulated within the above Development Management Practice Note. 4.1.3 Tourism NI – Letter explaining approach to Planning Consultation

requests.

It was agreed that the Committee note the contents of the circulated copy of correspondence dated 15 March 2017 from Tourism NI.

4.1.4 Development Management – Appeal Decisions 23 March 2017

It was agreed that the Committee note information circulated in relation to the following Planning Appeals Decisions: (a) Planning Appeals Decision dated 6 March 2017 for planning application

Y/2015/0079/F. The appeal was dismissed. (b) Planning Appeals Decision dated 10 March 2017 for planning application

reference LA05/2016/0371/F. The appeal was allowed with full planning permission being granted, subject to conditions.

(c) Planning Appeals Decision dated 14 March 2017 for planning application S/2014/0895/F. The appeal was dismissed.

(d) Planning Appeals Decision dated 15 March 2017 for planning application LA05/2015/0770/F. The appeal was dismissed.

4.1.5 Development Management – Live appeals 23 March 2017 It was agreed that the Committee note the information circulated in respect of Appeals received as at 23 March 2017.

PC 03 04 2017

319

4.2. Conference – Rebuilding Ireland : An integrated Approach Through Local Government It was proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by Alderman G Rice and agreed that the Chairman and/or Vice Chairman together with two Officers attend the above conference which has been organised by The All-Island Local Authority Forum and will take place in Dunboyne Castle, Co Meath on Thursday 27 April 2017. 4.3 Northern Ireland Planning Statistics 2016/17 – Third Quarterly Statistical Bulletin It was proposed by Alderman G Rice, seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that Members note information circulated in respect of the above information and were provided with a link to access the Report online. During the above item, Councillor N Anderson left the meeting at 7.41 pm. 4.4 Budget Report – Planning Unit It was agreed that the Committee note information provided on the Budget Report for the Planning Unit for the year to 31 March 2017 as at 28 February 2017. 5. Confidential Report from the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control It was agreed that the reports and recommendations of the Confidential Report of the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below. (The Legal Advisor left the meeting at 7.38 pm). The Chairman advised that the following items would be discussed ‘in Committee’ for the reasons indicated: ‘In Committee’ It was proposed by Alderman D Drysdale, seconded by Alderman G Rice and agreed that the items in the Confidential Report be considered ‘In Committee’, in the absence of press and public being present. 5.1.1 Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings in April 2017. It was noted that this item was confidential for reason of information relating to any individual; information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; and information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. Having been provided with information on Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings in April 2017, it was agreed that the information provided within the Report should be noted.

PC 03 04 2017

320

5.1.2 Rolling Year Absence Figures for the Planning Unit It was noted that this item was confidential for reason of information relating to any individual. Having been provided with information on rolling year absence figures for the Planning unit, it was agreed that the information be noted. Resumption of Normal Business It was proposed by Councillor A Girvin seconded by Alderman G Rice and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed. 7. Any Other Business

(i) Forthcoming Events

Lead Head of Planning and Building Control The Lead Head of Planning and Building Control advised of the following two events: (a) An invitation from Mid Ulster District Council to take part in the setting up of a forum

which will meet to consider Lough Neagh on 27 April 2017 at 10.30 am. It was agreed that the Chairman Councillor A Redpath and Councillor R T Beckett, or their nominees attend the above event as they represented the area.

(b) NILGA Planning Working Group event on 17 May 2017 at Riddell Hall. It was agreed that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or their nominees attend the above event or any other member who would like to attend.

(ii) Speakers at Planning Committee Meetings

Councillor T Beckett Councillor R T Beckett requested that, in future, speakers at Committee meetings be seated at the front of the Council Chamber to facilitate discussion. It was agreed that this would be the procedure moving forward. There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 7.50 pm.

____________________________________ CHAIRMAN / MAYOR

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 MAY 2017 REPORT BY THE LEAD HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to set out for Members’ consideration a number of Planning Matters. The following decisions are required: 1. To consider the report by the Planning Manager 2. To agree that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, or their

nominees, attend the seminar “Planning Reform in NI: Progress, Economic Development and Forward Strategy”

3. To note information in relation to the Long-Term Water Strategy – Actions for Local Councils Consultation

4. To note information regarding the budget report for the Planning Unit ITEMS FOR DECISION 1. REPORT BY THE PLANNING MANAGER

Attached at APPENDIX 1 is a report by the Planning Manager.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee considers the Planning Manager’s report.

2. PLANNING REFORM IN NI : PROGRESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

FORWARD STRATEGY

Attached at APPENDIX 2 is a copy of details of the above seminar which is taking place on Thursday, 7 December 2017 in Central Belfast.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, or their nominees, attend the above conference.

ITEM FOR NOTING 3. LONG-TERM WATER STRATEGY – ACTIONS FOR LOCAL COUNCILS

Information regarding the Long-Term Water Strategy was tabled at the meeting of the Environmental Services Committee in December 2016 (APPENDIX 3 refers). A further consultation with regard to elements within the Strategy has been received. A Working Group comprising officers from several Service Units has been established to discuss the issues raised and to provide a joint response to the Consultation. The response to the Consultation has been approved at the Environmental Services Committee and is attached as APPENDIX 4. Recommendation It is recommended that Members note the response in relation to the Long-Term Water Strategy – Actions for Local Councils Consultation.

4. BUDGET REPORT – PLANNING UNIT

Members should note that, due to year end adjustments, the Summary Budget Report for the Planning Unit will not be available until the accounts have been finalised.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note this information.

IAN WILSON LEAD HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL 25 April 2017

1

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 MAY 2017 REPORT BY THE PLANNING MANAGER PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to set out for Member’s consideration a number of recommendations specifically relating to the operation of the new Council. The following decisions are required: 1. To consider the Schedule of Applications to be determined.

2. To consider and agree the response to:

(a) Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council Preferred Options Paper (closing date 12 April 2017); and

(b) Belfast City Council Preferred Options Paper (closing date 20 April

2017).

3. To note the letter from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) regarding a Caravan Exemption Certificate.

4. To note a letter from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) regarding a

legislative change in respect of Listed Building Notifications.

5. To note the letter from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) enclosing copies of Living Places.

6. To note the Planning Appeals Commission decisions as at 24 April 2017. 7. To note the live appeals as at 24 April 2017.

8. To note details in relation to recent Proposal of Application Notices (PANS).

9. To note the Development Management information in respect of Year End

Statistics (March 2016 – April 2017). ITEMS FOR DECISION

1. SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED 1.1 LA05/2015/0178/F – Major Application - Change of use and extension of unit 2 from

boat and motorhome showroom and subdivision and part change of use of unit 1 from trade showroom to bulky goods retail warehouse including internal alterations, minor elevational changes and associated site works (retrospective application) (Additional

APPENDIX 1

2

Information) at Unit 1 & 2 Cyril Johnston & Co Ltd 127 Ballynahinch Road Carryduff. Attached at APPENDIX 1.1PM is a copy of the original report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.2 LA05/2015/0338/F – Major Application – The development of 219 houses,

comprising 90 no. 3 & 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129 no. 3 & 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space (amended number of houses and site layout) on lands to the north of 21 Knockbracken Road, Belfast and adjoining Brackenhill Crescent and Brackenhill Avenue to the east, Laurelgrove Avenue, Laurelgrove Crescent and Laurelgrove Dale to the north and Croft Hill, Brooke Hall Avenue and Brooke Hall Heights to the west. Attached at APPENDIX 1.2(a)PM is an Addendum report detailing consideration of matters associated with deferral. Attached at APPENDIX 1.2(b) PM is a copy of the initial report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.3 LA05/2016/1245/F – Major Application - Proposed demolition of existing

buildings and construction of mixed use development of 2514 m2 retail sales area, 185 m2 office units, ancillary accommodation, 20 no apartments ( 4 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) and associated car parking and landscaping at Carryduff Shopping Centre, Church Road, Carryduff. Attached at APPENDIX 1.3PM is a copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.


1.4 LA05/2016/0612/RM – Major Application - Development of Community

Treatment and Care Centre, parking including basement and multi storey levels, access arrangements and other associated operational development. Lands at Lagan Valley Hospital, Hillsborough Road Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.4PM is a copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.

3


1.5 LA05/2016/1062/O – Major Application - Residential development of 85 houses

with associated open space and road access junction (Amended site location) on Lands between 20 and 26 Comber Road Carryduff. Attached at APPENDIX 1.5PM is a copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.


1.6 LA05/2016/0542/F – Local Application (Judicial Review decision quashed) –

Proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years) (Additional information) on lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.6(a)PM is a third addendum report detailing consideration of late representations. Earlier addendum report are attached at APPENDIX 1.6(b)PM and APPENDIX 1.6(c)PM with the original report together with a location map in relation to this application attached at APPENDIX 1.6(d)PM.


1.7 LA05/2016/0174/F – Local Application (Called In) - Re siting of approved dwelling and garage previously approved under S/2013/0044/F. Incorporating realigned private road, 60m west of 92 Carnreagh, Hillsborough and rear of No 10 Farriers Green, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.7PM is a copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.8 LA05/2016/0518/F – Local Application (Called In) - Retrospective amendment to part of housing development approved under S/2011/0383/F to facilitate amended house types and reduced number of dwellings from 8 no to 6 no. at Nos 2,4,& 6

4

Ballantine Way and site nos 462,463, and 468 Ballantine Garden Village, approximately 100 metres south of Hillhall Road, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.8 PM is a copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.9 LA05/2016/1195/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed development of a

chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under CTY6 – Personal and domestic circumstances on land adjacent to no. 5 Megarrystown Road, Moira. Attached at APPENDIX 1.9(a)PM is an addendum report which demonstrates consideration of additional information. Attached at APPENDIX 1.9(b)PM is copy of the initial report together with a location map in relation to this application.


1.10 LA05/2015/0111/O – Local Application (Called In) - Erection of 1 No. Dwelling

and Garage, Adjacent to No. 284 Ballynahinch Road, Annahilt, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.10PM is copy of the report together with a location map in relation to this application.


2. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: RESPONSE TO ANTRIM & NEWTOWNABBEY

BOROUGH COUNCIL AND BELFAST CITY COUNCIL PREFERRED OPTIONS PAPERS

Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council consulted with the Council on its

Preferred Option Paper which was launched on the 18 January 2017 for a 12 week consultation period ending on 12 April 2017. Attached at APPENDIX 2(a)PM is the Planning Unit Report and letter which issued from the Council on 10 April 2017 in relation to the issues and options contained within the public consultation document.

Belfast City Council consulted with the Council on its Preferred Options Paper which was launched on the 26 January 2017 for a 12 week consultation period

5

ending on 20 April 2017. Attached at APPENDIX 2(b)PM is the Planning Unit Report and letter which issued from the Council on 20 April 2017 in relation to the issues and options contained within the public consultation document.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee considers and agrees the responses to

both Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council and Belfast City Council respectively in relation to their Preferred Options Papers.

ITEMS FOR NOTING

3. LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (DfI) IN RESPECT OF CARAVAN SITE LICENCE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE

Attached at APPENDIX 3PM is a letter from the Department of Infrastructure dated 6 April 2017. This letter advises that the Irish Motors Caravanners’ Club has been granted a caravan site licence exemption certificate. Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the content of the letter from the Department for Infrastructure.

4. LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (DfI) IN RELATION TO NOTIFICATIONS FOR LISTED BUILDINGS

Attached at APPENDIX 4PM is a letter from the Department for Infrastructure to advise that the Department has issued a direction under Section 90 of the Planning (NI) Act 2011 which removes the requirement for councils to notify the Department of listed building consents in instances where the advice of the statutory consultee is followed.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the contents of this letter.

5. LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (DfI)

ENCLOSING COPIES OF LIVING PLACES Attached at APPENDIX 5PM is a letter from the Department of Infrastructure dated 20 April 2017. The letter makes reference to the work of the Strategic Design Group in delivering the development of the Living Places Urban Stewardship and Design Guide. A hard copy of the document has been provided. Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the contents of this letter.

6

6. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Appeals decisions 24 April 2017

Attached at APPENDIX 6PM is an appeal decision in respect of a proposed Certificate of Lawfulness for the construction of a new access to a farm (LA05/2016/0580/LDP). The appeal was dismissed.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the Development Management Information in respect of Appeal Decisions.

7. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Live appeals 24 April 2017

Attached at APPENDIX 7PM are details of Appeals received as of 24 April 2017. Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the information in relation to Appeals.

8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Proposal of Application Notices (PANS)

Attached at APPENDIX 8PM are details of PANs received since 1 March 2017. Section 27 of the 2011 Planning Act requires that a prospective applicant, prior to submitting a major application, must give notice to the appropriate Council that an application for planning permission for the development is to be submitted Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee note the information in relation to Proposals of Application Notices (PANs).

9. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Year End – Statistics

Attached at APPENDIX 9PM is information on Development Management Statistics for the year end April 2016 – March 2017. Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee notes the information in respect of the year end Development Management Statistics.

BARBARA ELLIOTT PLANNING MANAGER 26 April 2017

1

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee Meeting

8 May 2017

Committee Interest Major Application

Application Reference LA05/2015/0178/F

Date of Application 22 April 2015

District Electoral Area Castlereagh South

Proposal Description Change of use and extension of Unit 2 from boat and motorhome showroom and subdivision and part change of use of Unit 1 from trade showroom to bulky goods retail warehouse including internal alterations, minor elevational changes and associated site works (retrospective application)

Location Unit 1 and 2, 127 Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff, Belfast

Applicant/Agent Cyril Johnston & Co Ltd/Turley

Representations Nil

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a major planning application in accordance

with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the area of the site exceeds 1 hectare.

2. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse.

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The proposed site is located to the west of Ballynahinch Road, Carryduff and is

formed from floorspace, denoted on submitted plans as part of Unit 1 and all of Unit 2 within the existing buildings and associated lands for car parking on this site.

APPENDIX 1.1PM

2

4. The buildings are located within the Cyril Johnston Complex, a business

described as providing equipment for rent and hire including building, agricultural and horticulture machinery. Cyril Johnston’s also appear to provide a range of caravan, boating and other associated bulky sales which do not fall within any particular use class. Woodlawn Garden Centre occupies a unit within the overall complex and Keith Kane Hairdressers occupies the front portion of floorspace within Unit 1.

5. The application site and lands to its south and west are zoned for Class B

employment uses. To the north lands are residential whilst to the east, on the opposite side of the road, land are agricultural in nature and lie outside the settlement limit of Carryduff.

Proposed Development

6. Full planning permission is sought for a change of use and extension of Unit 2 from boat and motorhome showroom and subdivision and part change of use of Unit 1 from trade showroom to bulky goods retail warehouse.

Relevant Planning History

7. The relevant planning history includes the following:

Application Reference

Description of Proposal Decision

Y/1979/0122 Farm Machinery Store Approval

Y/1989/0246 Extension to open sided display and storage premises

Approval

Y/1991/0366 Extension to existing storage facilities Approval

Y/1994/0406 Site for plant hire shop. Approval

Y/1998/0454 Proposed development of 13 no. light industrial units

Approval

Y/2004/0690/F Proposed change position of light industrial unit No. 8 to replace part of unit No. 7 & all of units 8 & 9 from original plan Y/1998/0454.

Approval

Y/2005/0493/F Extension to existing Hire Centre for storage of machinery plus additional car parking and improvements to site to include additional landscaping

Approval

Y/2005/0356/F Garden Centre and ancillary works Approval

Y/2008/0505/F Erection of trade showroom, parts store, machinery workshops , hire centre, ancillary

Approval

3



office accommodation including car parking and ancillary site works

Y/2010/0358/F Replacement lawnmower showroom and extension to existing garden centre

Approval

Y/2011/0047/F Relocation (replacement) of Cyril Johnston and Co Ltd existing operation centre to a new 2 storey office block extension to existing unit

Approval

Y/2014/0348/F, Change of use to bulky goods retail unit, internal + external alterations

Withdrawn

LA05/2015/0079/F – Change of use from vacant trade showroom with associated car parking to hairdressing salon and millinery manufacture

Approval

Planning Policy Context

8. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 - Planning and Economic

Development

Consultations

9. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response

Transport NI No objection, suggested condition to secure car parking provision and circulation within the site.

NI Water No objection, information on connection requirements to existing water infrastructure.

Environmental Health No objection, information on connection requirements to existing water infrastructure.

Representations

10. There have been no representations received in respect of this proposal.

4

Consideration and Assessment

11. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application

are: BMAP Zoning Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 Public Inquiry Principle of Development Town Centres and Retailing Planning and Economic Development Justification of Site Selection

BMAP Zoning

12. The site lies within the Metropolitan Development Limit (Carryduff) and

Designation CF 07 – Cyril Johnston Co Ltd, which is zoned as existing employment land within the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. The land to the south and west of the site is also zoned for employment under Designation CF 05 within BMAP.

13. CF07 is zoned to accommodate Industrial and Business uses that fall within Class B1(c), B2, B3 and B4 of the Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015, These uses equate to Research & Development, Light Industrial, General Industrial and Storage & Distribution.

14. This application however seeks retrospective permission to locate a retailing

business which is defined in the 2015 Use Classes Order as falling within Class A1 (Retail) and is thus contrary to the BMAP zoning.

15. It is important to note the proposal seeks a change of use and extension from a

boat and motorhome showroom (Unit 2) and subdivision and part change of use from trade showroom (Unit 1), however there is no planning history of a boat and motorhome showroom having ever been granted planning permission.

Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035

16. The revised Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 was published in 2010. It is the spatial strategy of the Stormont Executive and it seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and while not a bidding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

17. Policy RG1 of the RDS requires an adequate and available supply of employment lands to ensure sustainable economic growth. RG1 requires protection of land zoned for economic use as it provides a valuable resource for local and external investment, thereby contributing to the aims of the PfG.

5

18. Regional Policy directs that the protection of such zonings should ensure that a variety of suitable sites exist across Northern Ireland to facilitate economic growth.

Public Inquiry

19. In July 2011 the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) published its report on the Public Local Inquiry held to consider objections to the draft BMAP. Part 2 of that report dealt with objections within the Castlereagh area. This zoned land (CF07) is considered at Page 71 of the report which made the following comment:

‘Given the overall planned expansion for housing in Carryduff, we consider that any significant reduction in employment zonings could undermine the objective of supporting a balanced spatial pattern of land uses. Zoning CF07 will support and sustain the existing community and support the proposed housing growth whilst offering a greater choice and variety in terms of site selection for potential investors and indigenous businesses throughout the plan period. We also note that Invest NI confirmed their support for zoning CF07 as it provides choice and flexibility for emerging businesses promoting inward investment and indigenous businesses. Further loss of employment land would be unacceptable.’

20. In light of this, assessment of this proposal raises a number of specific planning

policy issues, outlined as follows.

Principle of Development

21. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) was published in September 2015. It states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

22. The SPPS states planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

23. The application when considered against the policies and objectives of BMAP

runs contrary to its standing as the Local Development Plan (LDP). It is therefore contended that this development would, if permitted cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance as it would result in the loss of land and buildings zoned for Class B employment uses.

6

Planning and Economic Development

24. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 – Planning and Economic Development sets out planning policies for economic development uses and indicates how growth associated with such uses can be accommodated and promoted in development plans.

25. Policy PED7 of PPS4 – Retention of Zoned Land and Economic Development Uses states that development that would result in the loss of land or buildings zoned for economic development use in a development plan (either existing areas or new allocations) to other uses will not be permitted, unless the zoned land has been substantially developed for alternative uses.

26. The policy also states that retailing will not be permitted except where justified as acceptable ancillary development to an existing use. It is contended that the proposal is not ancillary to any existing operation on the Cyril Johnston site.

27. The planning history associated with the Cyril Johnston site, indicated at

Paragraph 7 above, clearly demonstrates that the predominant and established uses include storage, distribution and sale, hire and repair of plant and machinery. It is contended that such uses are appropriate to the Class B uses which this zoning protects and promotes.

28. Class A1 retail uses currently operating in this employment zoning are

comprised of Woodlawn Garden Centre and Keith Kane Hairdressing Salon. Woodlawn Garden Centre was granted approval in one of the buildings fronting Ballynahinch Road in 2006, prior to the publication of the current LDP and the SPPS. The Keith Kane application was presented to the Planning Committee as a refusal in December 2015. That recommendation was overturned due to ‘the economic benefits of the development through the creation of new jobs or possible loss of local employment’.

29. Both of these A1 retailing operations are at odds with the land use zoning within

the current LDP, but nevertheless have gained approval. This proposal seeks to further develop A1 retailing and the material weight of the earlier approvals must be balanced against the defined land use zoning within the LDP when making a decision on this proposal.

30. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) must be considered.

Paragraph 6.84 states that in ‘towns planning decisions must, to a large extent, be informed by the provisions made for economic development through the LDP process.’

31. Paragraph 6.89 states ‘It is important that economic development land and

buildings which are well located and suited to such purposes are retained so as to ensure a sufficient ongoing supply. Accordingly, planning permission should not normally be granted for proposals that would result in the loss of land zoned for economic development use.’ However, Paragraph 6.89 goes on to state; ‘councils may wish to retain flexibility to consider alternative proposals that offer community, environmental or other benefits, that are considered to outweigh the loss of land for economic development use.’

7

32. This flexibility of approach allowed by the SPPS must be considered, and in doing so the following two points should be noted;

33. Firstly, although only published in April 2017, the Council’s Preferred Options

Paper (PoP) offers three alternative options for existing employment land within the emerging LDP. The preferred option (Option 5A) seeks to maintain the current level of zoned employment land to ensure ongoing supply over the LDP period (up to 2030). A further option (Option 5B) however would consider re-designation of existing employment lands for alternative uses, however the PoP cautions that this should be soundly based on evidence reasoning or justification. It is contended that this proposal diminishes the supply of existing employment lands which the Council’s preferred option seeks to retain.

34. Secondly, in addition to the policy provisions of BMAP, the RDS, PPS4, the

SPPS and views of the PAC, the current position for protection of existing employment lands is contained in the Department’s published Planning Advice Note of the 16 November 2015, the Implementation of Planning Policy for the Retention of Zoned Land and Economic Development Uses.

35. The purpose of that advice note is to ensure an effective and consistent approach to implementing regional planning policy when determining planning applications.

36. It states that in cases whereby planning applications involve a departure from a

development plan zoning, planning officers should be fully satisfied that it has been clearly demonstrated how the special circumstances of a particular case outweigh the preferred option for retaining the land for economic development uses (Paragraph 16). In making judgements on a particular case, or the loss of economic development land, matters for consideration include, amongst others; why a site is no longer required, or suitable for economic development use and; evidence of the availability of alternative sites in the locality, either for economic development use or this proposed retailing use.

37. It is contended that the proposal is contrary to the LDP, the emerging PoP and

the Department’s guidance note which seeks a consistent approach to regional planning policy. These matters are considered to outweigh the SPPS’s flexibility approach, as expanded upon in the following sections. Town Centres and Retailing

38. Paragraph 6.273 of the SPPS states that planning authorities must adopt a

town centre first approach for retail and main town centre uses. It is therefore material upon Committee that this option is fully considered and weighted in its decision.

39. Paragraph 6.281 requires applications for main town centre uses to be considered in the following order of preference; town centres, edge of centres and out of centre locations (accessible by a choice of good transport modes). In seeking an appropriate location in this order of preference the applicant must consider all of the proposal’s catchment.

8

40. Paragraph 6.280 requires a sequential test be applied for a main town centre use that is not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up to date LDP. Where it is established that an alternative sequentially preferable site or sites exist within a proposals whole catchment, an application which proposes development on a less sequentially preferred site should be refused. In other words, and taking note that the proposal is already trading without planning permission, an applicant should demonstrate availability, or otherwise, of other suitable sites within the catchment of this retailing business.

41. In this regard the applicant has submitted supporting information that raises the

following matters; Supporting Statement – Justification of Site Selection

42. The supporting documents put forward a reasoning for this operation at this location. Supporting documents submitted post publication of the SPPS offer a reasoning why the preferential order of sequential site selection has failed to identify suitable alternatives.

43. In the supporting statement of the 12 May 2015 the applicant advises this

proposal functions as a retail warehouse with surface level car parking in proximity, good access and servicing arrangements for delivery vehicles to the rear.

44. The statement contends the units at Cyril Johnston already operate within an

A1 retailing function and this proposal therefore benefits in this regard. Permission was granted over the area of Unit 1 for an extension to the Woodlawn Garden Centre in May 2011, including a replacement lawnmower showroom. The applicant considers this to be a further indication that whilst horticultural machinery and accessories have been sold from these units for circa 40 years, new forms of retailing have been introduced to the site over the past 10 years.

45. On the basis of existing uses on the site the applicant does not consider it to be

reflective of an area of existing employment as zoned within BMAP. The applicant contends that in reality the balance of operational floorspace within the overall development is clearly weighted towards the display of goods for retail sale to the public.

46. The applicant compares the Cyril Johnston site with other existing employment

zones in Carryduff and considers it is not reflective of a conventional employment zoning. Whilst the applicant doesn’t justify its loss as defined existing employment lands, it is stated that the scale of the units are unsuitable for Class B2 or B3 uses as they are glass fronted with pedestrian walkways. Further, Class B2 or B3 uses could conflict with the established restaurant use within the Woodlawn Garden Centre.

47. The statement considers there are 17 hectares of undeveloped employment

lands zoned in Carryduff, this proposal represents 0.1 hectares or 0.4% of all of the existing and zoned employment land in Carryduff.

9

48. A needs assessment was submitted in November 2015, it summarised that Carryduff town centre is limited to convenience top-up shopping within a small number of comparison stores and Lowes Industrial Estate is not suitable for the proposed use. There are no pending, or live, applications for bulky goods retail within the town centre or the wider settlement. This application will see the occupation of two vacant units, employ three people and complement the existing offer at the Cyril Johnston complex and Carryduff as a whole.

49. A briefing statement of April 2016 dismissed the availability of sequentially

preferable sites within Carryduff, Saintfield, Temple, Ballygowan, Moneyreagh, Newtownbreda or Forestside/Drumkeen.

50. Upon request from Planning Unit the sequential assessment was updated in

February 2017 and extended to include Lisburn City Centre, as the previous assessment was deemed to have been too tightly drawn to a radius of 5 miles from Carryduff.

51. A sequential assessment of available retail units in Lisburn was carried out on

the basis of the operator’s requirements, including the need for; Circa 1000 square metres of single level floorspace; Shop frontage to attract passing footfall; Front and rear level access; Rear service access for HGV’s; Surface level parking in proximity to the premises.

52. The assessment contended that the unit at the Cyril Johnston site meets these

requirements and benefits from passing footfall to Woodlawn Garden Centre and Keith Kane International. Nevertheless a sequential assessment of Lisburn City, based on the above requirements was carried out and identified available units.

53. Of the five premises identified to be vacant in Lisburn, the bulk of these were sequentially preferable but were considered not to offer either/or, 1000 square metres of floorspace, customer car parking, servicing arrangements or customer footfall. Unit 1 at Drumkeen Retail Park, a bulky goods warehouse suitable for this proposal, was also unavailable due to its commitment to another established retailer. A suitable unit at Laganbank Retail Park, Lisburn was considered suitable and available for rent but not available for immediate occupation.

Assessment of Planning Policy and Applicant’s Supporting Information

54. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires Council to have regard to the local development plan, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

55. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the local development plan due to the overall zoning of the Cyril Johnston site as an area of existing employment land. The purpose of the LDP and the overarching RDS is the retention of such zoned sites for Class B employment purposes. Whilst PPS4 allows alternative

10

uses to be considered on such a zoned site the basic principle of that policy only allows this if the site has been substantially developed for alternative uses.

56. In this particular case, it is contended the zoned land remains predominantly in

Class B use. Zoning CF 07 encompasses an area of approximately 2.13 hectares. Planning history indicates approvals for A1 retailing occupy no more than approximately 0.8 hectares of existing floorspace, including associated car parking. It is clear therefore that the overall zoning (more than 50% of the site area) has not been substantially developed for alternative uses.

57. The applicant also places emphasis on planning history associated with

Y/2010/0358/F for a replacement lawnmower showroom and extension to existing garden centre. It is important to note that this approval has not been implemented. Furthermore, the existing floorspace contained within Unit’s 3 and 4 are said by the applicant to operate in an A1 retailing function, however there are no associated planning history records to confirm this and no information to substantiate this claim has been forthcoming.

58. The applicant emphasises the precedence set for this proposal by DoE’s

approval of Woodlawn Garden Centre and the Council’s approval of Keith Kane International. The garden centre was assessed against the plan and policies prevailing at that particular time, these are now redundant.

59. Planning Committee should have regard to these retailing approvals, equally

however, Committee should be minded of the circumstances of this proposal and the current planning regime within which a decision is to be made. Particular consideration should be had to the precedence that will occur if A1 retailing proposals are continually approved at this location and the effect these approvals will have on the status of this employment zoning, i.e. the weakening of its zoning as defined in the LDP.

60. As stated in Paragraph 30 above, the SPPS (Paragraph 6.89) does allow

Council flexibility to consider alternative proposal that offer, amongst other things, community benefits. The applicant considers this proposal is a benefit to Carryduff. As such the flexibility of approach should be balanced against the provisions of the LDP, that being the distinctly separate zoning of lands for Class A1 or Class B uses in this plan led system; Council’s own emerging PoP which seeks to protect Class B zoned land and the availability of other A1 retailing opportunities within the whole catchment area of the proposal.

61. The applicant provided a sequential assessment of alternative available sites

for this start up business, initially no sequentially preferable sites within a five mile radius of Carryduff could be identified. The area for consideration of preferable sites was extended to include, but not exclusively, Lisburn City as the SPPS requires an applicant to carry out such an assessment for its whole catchment. As the operator ‘Watson and Brown’ has undertaken regional television advertising and a householder mail drop (to at least addresses in Lisburn) it is considered the catchment of this operator is more widely defined than the initial 5 mile radius around Carryduff.

62. Of those sites identified within Lisburn City, none are deemed appropriate by

the operator, for various reasons, however the reasons stated are not

11

considered to be insurmountable, particularly so given all of the available sites and units have been approved for Class A1 retailing uses. The details of sites identified by the applicant are included within the submitted Sequential Assessment Addendum (January 2017). A table of those available sites are annexed to this report – see ANNEX A.

63. Of the 5 buildings identified in Lisburn, 2 are no longer available. No. 20 Bow

Street has been let to another retailer and Unit 2 Moira Road Retail Park is let to a furniture retailer. Of the 3 remaining buildings No’s 11-13 Graham Gardens is located within the primary retail core, the level of floorspace is to the operator’s requirements and it has surface level car parking in proximity. The applicant however states that it has poor quality servicing arrangements and is not therefore suitable. It is however noted that this building was previously used by a furniture retailer and that the servicing arrangements are not insurmountable.

64. Laganbank Retail Park, Laganbank Road is located within Lisburn City Centre

and has approval for A1 retailing use. Unit B at 930 sqm is suitable for the operator’s requirements with surface level parking and servicing. The unit is available to let, however the applicant contends it is not yet available and therefore does not suit the operator’s requirements. It should be noted however that works at this site are almost complete and availability is unlikely to be too far in the future. This is considered acceptable since the business has been operating at the Cyril Johnston site for almost 2 years without planning permission.

65. Units 3A & 3B Moira Road Retail Park are approved for A1 retailing in an out of

centre location, it has surface level car parking, rear servicing arrangements and the combined floorspace would meet the operator’s requirements. It is dismissed by the applicant because this is a budget retail location that does not fit with the operator’s model and spin off from adjacent uses is limited. A budget furniture retailer is already in occupation at the Park. Planning Unit contend it is a sequentially preferable site, with A1 retailing approval and in accordance with the SPPS. The nature of adjacent retailing is not sufficient justification to locate within a site zoned for Class B uses at the Cyril Johnston site. Planning policy does not have mechanism to isolate and protect competing forms of retailing from one another.

66. The applicant also identified Unit 1 Drumkeen Retail Park, Galwally as a

suitable unit with planning approval for the type of bulky goods retailing the operator undertakes. That unit met with the operator’s requirements for car parking, servicing and floorspace. The unit is comprised of a sales area of 1168 sqm, not the 2198 stated by the applicant. The unit is however unavailable as a letting agreement is in place with TK Maxx, a general A1 retailer.

67. It is contended that when making decisions, the availability of A1 retailing units

is a significant consideration, particularly with the current vacancy levels evident in zoned and/or approved retailing areas. Applications that seek to locate A1 retailing to other zoned land and buildings undermine investor confidence in such retailing areas. Equally the loss of zoned employment land or buildings to retailing uses undermines confidence for Class B investments.

12

68. The Department’s advice note of November 2015, Implementation of Planning Policy for the Retention of Zoned Land and Economic Development Uses, advises that when a departure from a land zoning is proposed planning officers should be satisfied that a clear demonstration is given why the special circumstances of a case outweigh the preferred option of retaining the land for economic use.

69. The applicant’s supporting statements have indicated that these units are not

suitable for industrial uses, largely because of their glass fronts and pedestrian walkways and the precedence set by the presence of Woodlawn Garden Centre and Keith Kane International. The applicant’s statements do acknowledge Class B1 (research and development) and Class B4 (storage and distribution) uses could be accommodated. It is therefore contended that this proposal does not clearly demonstrate that a departure from the land use zoning has been justified in this case.

70. A further point of note is that approval (Y/2008/0505/F) was granted to the

applicant on adjacent lands to the south of this proposal for Class B employment uses. That approval was for the erection of buildings of approximately 4000 square metres to accommodate a trade showroom, parts store, workshops, hire centre, offices and car parking. The applicant previously advised DoE that commencement works had been carried out on that approval. It is contended that approval is not dissimilar to the uses granted for this subject building, which the proposal seeks to occupy. Therefore the applicant’s assertion that further Class B development remains live throws into question their reasoning why this proposal should seek a departure from the Class B zoning to a Class A use.

71. In view of the above points it is considered that a departure from the existing

employment zoning is not appropriate in this case.

72. A further material consideration is that the applicant contends there is ample other areas of zoned employment lands within the Carryduff area. The supporting statement refers to there being approximately 17 hectares of such land. These are indicated on Map 03/0001, Carryduff, and include lands located adjacent and west of the Cyril Johnston site and at Comber Road.

73. The applicant points out this proposal would only result in the loss of

approximately 0.1 hectares of zoned employment land and when this is compared to the current availability of undeveloped zoned employment land this is insignificant. That may be the case, however this proposal is comprised of floorspace on land zoned for another use, that is a material consideration to be measured against the already available A1 retail floorspace identified within the operator’s catchment area.

74. Paragraph 18 of this report and the findings of the PAC on the potential

implications if this zoning were to be lost as Class B employment lands is an important consideration. Whilst the PAC emphasised the risk were any significant reduction in employment zonings to be allowed, they noted this zoning would support and sustain the existing community of Carryduff and that Invest NI supported its retention for the purpose it has been zoned.

13

75. Whilst this proposal may sit comfortably with the applicant’s operation of part of the site, it doesn’t fit comfortably with the planning history, nor the defined zoning of the LDP which has evolved because of those previous planning approvals, nor the overall uses currently operating on this overall site.

76. The proposal now seeks to follow the precedence set by earlier approvals and

will further chip away and undermine its defined zoning within the LDP. This would further increase the likelihood that the zoning will become substantially developed for other uses, undermining both it and other areas specifically for A1 uses. This is contrary to the premise of the LDP and the purpose of the plan led system within which Council operates.

Summary

77. The following are a summary of the material considerations of this proposal, Committee should consider and place appropriate weight to the various points for and against the proposal when forming its opinion.

78. This proposal is contrary to the site’s zoning within the LDP. The options paper for the emerging LDP indicates the preferred option will be the retention of all existing zoned employment land to accommodate such uses over the plan period to 2030.

79. Policy RG1 of the RDS seeks the protection of zoned employment land for

sustainable economic development opportunities.

80. The Planning Appeals Commission resisted calls for the rezoning of this specifically zoned area.

81. The proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 4 as the zoned site

remains substantially in Class B use. Additionally Policy PED7 of PPS4 will only permit retailing if it is ancillary development to an existing use on the site, in this case the proposal is not.

82. The proposal is contrary to the Department’s advice note which seeks to retain

zoned employment land for the consistent development of economic opportunities. The applicant has not satisfied Planning Unit that the zoned site is no longer suitable for Class B employment uses. The applicant holds in reserve planning approval for an additional 4000 square metres of Class B floorspace.

83. The SPPS indicates planning permission should not normally be granted where

it would result in the loss of zoned land (including employment zoned). Any decision to reallocate such zoned land to other uses ought to be made through the LDP process, taking note of the emerging preferred option.

84. The SPPS does however offer flexibility to the planning authority for alternative

proposals that offer benefits that outweigh the retention of the zoned land. The comments put forward by the applicant for this proposal, contrary to the zoning, should be considered and weighted by Committee.

14

85. A sequential assessment carried out by the applicant has identified suitable alternative units which are deemed sequentially preferable and approved A1 retailing opportunities. These sites outweigh the loss of this Class B land.

86. The applicant does not consider the site is reflective of a zoned area of existing

employment and the balance of operational floorspace is clearly weighted towards the display of goods for retail sale. Although planning history does not indicate A1 retailing approvals, the applicant contends new forms of retailing have been introduced to the site over the past 10 years. No evidence to substantiate this assertion has been submitted.

87. The applicant has compared the overall site with other employment zonings in

Carryduff and considers it is not reflective of a conventional employment site. The applicant’s contends this because the buildings at Cyril Johnston are constructed with large glass fronts and a pedestrian walkway and are therefore not suitable for Class B2 or B3 uses. Further Class B2 and B3 uses could conflict with the established restaurant within the Woodlawn Garden Centre. The zoning also allows it use for Class B1(b) as a call centre, B1(c) for research and development and B4 for storage and distribution. None of these are considered detrimental to the existing retailing uses on the site.

88. Precedence of other approvals on the site is the basis of seeking this

permission, yet those approvals are not a diminution of the standing of the sites zoning. This proposal would however chip away the status of the zoning and is contrary to the purpose of the LDP which seeks to protect and direct specific uses to zoned areas in this plan led system.

89. ‘The Northern Ireland retail market is currently and generally in poor shape and

there are a limited number of transactions being reported’ (GL Hearn, Town Centres and Retailing Research Project, January 2014). Retail vacancy in Lisburn is detailed in the Hearn report to be 21.5 % (2012), rising from 16% (2009). Since then Lisburn has further lost out with the closure of Bhs, Burton, Argos, Dorothy Perkins and HMV.

90. Whilst it is fully recognised that not all vacant retail units, including those for the

above named national retailers are suitable, the applicant has identified a handful of sequentially preferable units in Lisburn, with A1 retailing approval. With flexibility those identified units could accommodate the operator’s needs.

91. There is a need to control and direct retail proposals to such areas designated

in the LDP for retail uses, or that have appropriate planning approval. There is also a need to control and direct Class B opportunities to sites protected for those uses. Whilst Planning Committee can apply a flexibility of approach in its determination this in itself does not afford suitable protection for the standing of either Class A1 or Class B zonings. Such flexibility of approach has already allowed uses that are contrary to the land use zonings of the LDP. This sets precedence, dilutes the effectiveness of zonings and makes it increasingly difficult to resist any proposal that comes forward and which is located on land zoned for another purpose.

15

Recommendation

92. Based on careful consideration of the zoned land designation within the current

and up to date LDP, its status within the context of the RDS, the proposals unacceptability to planning policy and the availability of more sequentially preferable opportunities, it is contended that determining weight should be attached to a refusal.

Refusal Reasons

93. The following reasons for refusal are recommended:

The proposal is for Class A1 retailing, contrary to the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 and Policy PED7 of Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning and Economic Development as it is located within an area zoned as existing employment land (Zoning CF07) which should be retained for Class B employment opportunities to serve the local area.

The proposal is contrary to Policy PED7 of Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning and Economic Development as the land use zoning (CF07) has not been substantially developed for alternative uses and the retailing operation proposed is not ancillary to any other use operating within this zoned land.

The proposal is contrary to Paragraph 6.89 of the Strategic Planning

Policy Statement, Planning for Sustainable Development, as the proposal would result in the loss of land and buildings zoned for economic development use.

The proposal is contrary to Paragraph 6.89 of the Strategic Planning

Policy Statement, Planning for Sustainable Development, as the applicant’s sequential assessment has identified sequentially preferable sites within the proposals whole catchment.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for

Town Centres and Retailing in that development at this existing employment zoned site would, if permitted, create a precedent and prejudice the implementation of local development plan policies and proposals.

16

Site Location Plan – LA05/2015/0178/F

brendaf

Typewritten Text

brendaf

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX 1.1 PM ANNEX 1

brendaf

Typewritten Text

1




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Major

Application Reference LA05/2015/0338/F (Addendum Report)

Date of Application 25 June 2015


Proposal Description The development of 219 houses, comprising 90, 3 and 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129, 3 and 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space.

Location Lands To The North Of 21 Knockbracken Road Belfast and adjoining Brackenhill Crescent and Brackenhill Avenue to the east Laurelgrove Avenue Laurelgrove Crescent and Laurelgrove Dale to the north and Croft Hill.

Applicant/Agent Fraser Homes/Iain Stewart

Representations 20 Letters of Objection

Case Officer Mark Burns

Recommendation APPROVAL


1. A recommendation to approve planning permission was presented to the

Planning Committee in April 2017.

2. Concern had been expressed at the lack of Community Consultation and an opinion had been expressed that the application was not compliant with an earlier Article 40 agreement.

3. The application was deferred for one month to allow for clarification on the

matters for deferral to be provided to the Planning Unit for consideration by way of this addendum report.

APPENDIX 1.2(a)PM

2

Clarification of Matters for Deferral

4. Clarification on the matters for deferral was provided in an email dated 10 April 2017. These included the following. Failure to have Public Consultation Failure to comply in some areas with Article 40 namely;

- Shopping and Community Areas - Landscaping - Flood Risk - Traffic Calming on Laurelgrove - Social Housing

Assessment of Matters for Deferral

5. An assessment of the matters raised for Deferral is set out below.

Failure to have Public Consultation

6. The application was submitted for determination on 25 June 2015. Whilst registered as a major application, the legislative requirement for pre-application community consultation did not come into effect until 1 July 2015.

7. That said, the application was advertised in the Belfast Telegraph initially and again on receipt of amended site address details.

8. The application was also brought to the attention of the occupiers of buildings

on neighbouring land which abutted the boundary of the application site in accordance with legislative requirements.

9. In response to the public consultation exercise, it is contended that individuals

have been afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposal. As indicated in the initial report, 20 letters of objection were received and the issues raised by way of third party representation have been taken into account in reaching a recommendation in respect of this application. Failure to comply in some areas with Article 40

10. An Article 40, dated 7 July 2004, was agreed between the then Department of the Environment, Fraser House (NI) Limited, Fraser Estates Limited and Fraser Homes Limited.

11. The agreement was for the development of lands between Ballymaconaghy Road to the east, Knockbracken Road to the south, the Laurelgrove

3

development to the north, Primrose Hill and Ballylenaghan developments to the west and Croft Hill to the north west.

12. The development lands were divided into Phase One and Phase Two. This

proposal is located in the western half of Phase One lands, the other half of which is now built out as the Bracken Hill development. The Phase Two lands, to the west of Phase One, have been largely built out as the Brookhall development.

13. The agreement for the development of the Phase One and Two lands was

based upon two outline approvals (Y/1996/0233/O and Y/1996/0258/O) and a concept master plan. The details contained within that agreement and the concept master plan provided for the following;

Provision of a spine road linking the development to Laurelgrove and

Primrose Hill. Landscaping and a scheme for the long term maintenance of public open

space. A cycle path and footway linkages A mixed use ‘village centre’ and community building.

15. As noted in the previous paragraph the agreement was formed on the basis of

two outline planning permission, and any subsequent reserved matters applications. It should be noted that no further reserved matters applications were submitted for the development of these lands. The developments already undertaken in Bracken Hill (east) and Brookhall (west) have been through separate full planning applications. As a result the agreement is now null and void.

16. That said, it is important to note that the current proposal encompasses all of

the provisions required by the agreement, namely the provision of the spine road linkage, a landscaping and management scheme for the proposal, provision of footpaths with connection to an already implemented cycle path and a contribution towards the provision of a community building. Shopping and Community Areas

17. The Design & Access Statement submitted with the application indicates that a community room facility formed part of the 2004 outline approval and that it would be sited within a ‘village centre’ location.

18. The matter was discussed with the Agent on 13 April 2017. The Agent explained that this application leaves aside a site for that facility to be developed jointly with the adjacent owner. The Agent also explained that this community element would be progressed with a contribution from the developer based on the Councils preference in terms of location/type of community facility.

19. A letter was received from the Agent on the 21 April 2017 that further detailed

the applicant’s willingness to enter into agreement on this matter. A plan accompanied the letter clarifying the position to be set aside – see ANNEX A,

4

and transferred to Council if required, for future community use. Alternatively the Agent has advised that the applicant is willing to enter into an agreement with Council that a financial contribution of £50,000 would be made available to allow Council to provide a community facility at an alternative off site location should that be considered more acceptable. The land to be set aside within this application site is stated as being the equivalent of one house plot.

20. The plan indicating the land offered also denotes a similar area of ground to be

set aside within lands owned by another developer. This land is outside of that defining the current proposal and there is no indication that the other landowner would be willing to enter into a similar agreement with Council. Additionally there would be no obligation for such an agreement by that landowner and on this basis it is contend that the proposition put forward in this regard is not reasonable.

21. The concept master plan associated with the agreement indicated the provision

of a community building to the north side of and overlooking an area of open space that formed the centre part of the ‘village centre’. This current set aside area of land is located to the east side of this open space, directly opposite proposed Sites 159 to 162. It is therefore contend that this set aside land is not appropriate as the location of such a community facility as it has potential to adversely impact upon the amenity of future residents of those dwellings giving its proximity and orientation. There is also no indication that suitable car parking provision can be made for the facility.

22. On the basis of the above paragraphs it should be noted that the applicant has

offered to enter into a Section 76 agreement with Council. It is recommend that Council secure such an agreement on the basis of a financial contribution, rather than one that involves the setting aside lands, for the provision of community facilities off site. It is contended that, subject to further negotiation if necessary as to the exact value of the financial contribution to be made, that such contribution should be confirmed by way of legal agreement. This would ensure that the community facility is developed in general conformity with the initial concept plan. Landscaping

23. Whilst the initial DM Officer highlights that landscaping and management plans have been submitted indicating the position, species and canopy spread of existing and proposed vegetation and trees, concern was expressed in relation to a landscape buffer between Cairnshill and Bracken Hill housing.

24. The matter was discussed with the Agent on 13 April 2017 and clarification was provided to indicate that the layout associated with the current application includes an annotation that a buffer of planting was to be planted as part of an adjacent development.

25. Furthermore, the Agent advised that the houses associated with the adjacent

development (now built as No’s 1 to 17, odd numbers only, Bracken Hill Avenue) were positioned at a higher level and as such, effective boundary planting was required on the neighbouring side to ameliorate their impact on future residential developments.

5

26. Planning Unit has checked the appropriate planning approval for these houses

(Y/2009/0211/F) and can confirm that landscaping provision was indicated on the approved plans, incorporated into a landscape management plan and was conditioned as part of that application. Furthermore, it should be noted that this planting appears from aerial photography to be in place.

27. As noted by the Agent this proposal involves development of dwellings at a

lower level than those built in Bracken Hill Avenue and the intention is to augment the already approved landscaped boundary with further landscaping.

28. Given the level differences and the provision of landscaping it is contended that

there will be no significant adverse impact to occupiers of adjacent dwellings as a result. Flood Risk

29. As indicated in the initial DM officer report, the susceptibility of all land to flooding is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

30. An amended drainage assessment was submitted in February 2017 and Rivers Agency having considered the detail associated with the report has offered no objection.

31. NIEA – Water Management Unit also considered the potential impacts of the

proposed development on the water environment and based on the information provided, is content subject to informatives being associated with any decision issued.

32. NI Water in its consultation response has advised that both foul and surface

water sewers are located in proximity to the proposal and that connection, the method yet to be determined with NI Water, is acceptable as there is available capacity within their network.

33. It is therefore considered that this aspect of concern has been satisfactorily

addressed by the applicant and it does not hinder a decision being taken on this proposal. Traffic Calming on Laurelgrove

34. It is understood that concern relates to the need for traffic calming on Laurelgrove. Laurelgrove lies outside of the site boundaries of this proposal and its main through route, from its junction with Ballymaconaghy Road, is free of traffic calming measures. Cul de sacs feed off this spine road and are defined at their junctions with that road by the provision for raised tables to control traffic.

35. Access to the application site is proposed through Laurelgrove and eventually

Brook Hall, in accordance with the original agreement for the overall lands. Transport NI responses have not raised any concerns that would necessitate

6

traffic calming along the main spine road. This is in accordance with those spine roads existing within both Laurelgrove and Brook Hall.

36. Additionally the detail associated with the application indicates a level of traffic calming throughout the development. With the exception of the spine road this includes a site layout design of small cul de sacs, feeding from the spine road that are laid out with short, straight street sections interspersed with bends that will restrict speed. In addition these cul de sacs are defined at their junctions with the spine road by raised tables, further calming traffic. This is the same arrangements within the adjacent developments.

37. The initial DM Officer report confirmed that Transport NI having considered the

detail associated with the application was satisfied that the proposed internal layout provided for a safe and convenient road system. This remains the case.

Social Housing

38. The Local Development Plan process is the main vehicle for assessing future housing land requirements and managing housing growth to achieve sustainable patterns of residential development, as well as fulfilling other SPPS objectives.

39. Strategic guidance for plan preparation advises at paragraph 6.139 that Housing allocations in Local Development Plans should be informed by Housing Needs Assessment / Housing Market Analysis (HNA/HMA). Such assessments provide the evidence base that must be taken into consideration in the allocation, through the development plan, of land required to facilitate the right mix of housing tenures including open market and special housing needs such as affordable housing and social housing. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, or the relevant housing authority, will carry out the HNA/HMA.

40. As indicated in the initial DM Officer Report, the application site falls within lands that are zoned within the Local Development Plan (LDP) for housing (MCH 03/05). It is important to note that there are no Key Site Requirements (KSRs) associated with this zoning that require an element of social housing to be provided.

41. The Agent has provided clarification that the proposal as presented does not include social housing.

Completion of Spine Road

42. It is appropriate to give consideration to the completion of the spine road linkage between this site and Brook Hall, approximately 70 metres beyond the western boundary. This was a requirement of the original legal agreement. The area of ground required for this final section of the spine road falls outside of the applicant’s ownership.

43. Transport NI seek this connection to ensure traffic distribution and to provide a

through linkage for public transport.

7

44. It is understood that side agreements are in place between landowners that allow for the construction of this connecting section of the spine road, either by the landowner or the applicant.

45. As a Section 76 is recommended with regard to the Community facility, it is considered prudent that any agreement should also reflect the need to complete the spine road. That agreement should reflect a maximum number of dwellings to be occupied before the spine road is complete.

46. It is also prudent to consider that the Section 76 agreement must include those lands beyond the control of the applicant and therefore the owner of that land must also enter into the agreement. Therefore any decision taken on this application can only be approved with the co-operation of a third party and this aspect remains undetermined.

Recommendation 47. The requested deferral of the planning application and the matters of concern

raised have been fully considered above. A recommendation to approve this proposal remains, subject to further negotiation and agreement between the applicant and all other parties as to the financial contribution and committed that the spine road will be completed in its entirety.

48. The legislative requirement to carry out a public consultation exercise has not

been necessary in this case. 49. The Article 40 agreement previously in place on this application site and other

surroundings lands is null and void, nevertheless the applicant has indicated willingness to enter into a new Section 76 agreement to accommodate a community facility either on site or by way of a financial contribution to off-site works, subject to the agreement of Council.

50. The proposal involves the provision of landscaping as part of the development

and this has been checked where concern has been raised regarding the potential impact to dwellings in Bracken Hill Avenue. This check confirmed landscaping was approved along this boundary and appears to have been implemented. This is coupled with the level differences with this site being lower than that already approved and built, thus there is unlikely to be a significant impact to existing dwellings.

51. Concerns raised regarding flooding have been fully considered with

submissions from the applicant and consultation responses confirming that there are no matters of concern in this regard.

52. Traffic calming has been incorporated into the proposal in a similar manner to

that constructed within adjoining developments. The spine road is to remain free of calming measures, also the case in adjoining developments and Transport NI are content with the design and layout of roads.

53. There is no key site requirements for the provision of social housing on this site.

8

54. Completion of the spine road is an important and fundamental requirement and

it is clear from the layout as shown that the applicant fully intends this to occur, in a similar manner to the original concept Masterplan. It would be prudent to include this within any forthcoming Section 76 agreement, this will however involve a third party. Subject to approval of all parties such an agreement would be a necessity to ensure full compliance with intention of the scheme as presented.

55. In addition to the conditions captured in the initial DM Officer Report (appendix

1.2 (b), the following NIEA conditions are also recommended; The badger mitigation as detailed with the letter date 8 February 2016 and

shown on drawing number 02/2 date stamped 19 September 2016 shall be carried out prior to any works starting within the development site. To safely manage the movement of badgers within the site and to allow badgers to cross the Knockbracken Road safely.

There shall be no site clearance or development activity within 25 metres

of badger setts A & B, as shown on the badger survey map, date stamped 27 October 2015, until badgers have been excluded and the setts have been closed under the terms of a licence issued by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. To protect badgers and their setts.

9


Appendix 1.2(a)ANNEX A

1




3 April 2017





Proposal Description The development of 219 houses, comprising 90, 3 and 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129, 3 and 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space.

Location Lands To The North Of 21 Knockbracken Road Belfast and adjoining Brackenhill Crescent and Brackenhill Avenue to the east Laurelgrove Avenue Laurelgrove Crescent and Laurelgrove Dale to the north and Croft Hill

Applicant/Agent Fraser Homes/Iain Stewart



Recommendation Approval


1. This application is categorised as a major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the development comprises 50 units or more and the area of the site exceeds 2 hectares.

2. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve.

APPENDIX 1.2(b)PM

2


3. The application site measures approximately 10.7 hectares in size and lies between the existing Laurel Grove Development to the East, the existing Bracken Hill Development to the North (currently under construction) the existing Brook Hall Development to the South and Knockbracken Road on its Eastern boundary.

4. The topography of the site is undulating with a north to south trending slope,

the site is devoid of any substantial vegetation with only sporadic trees located throughout the site.

5. The area is characterised as residential with ongoing developments to the

North, South and West of this proposal.

6. The Knockbracken Road to the East of this proposal forms the settlement development limit of Lisburn City as defined within the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. This site lies within Housing Zoning MCH 03/05 of BMAP.


7. The development of 219 houses, comprising 90, 3 and 4 bedroom semi-detached houses and 129, 3 and 4 bedroom detached houses, with associated garages and landscaped open space (amended number of houses and site layout).


8. The relevant planning history includes the following



Y/1996/0233/O Site for housing development Granted 7 July 2004

Y/1996/0258/O Site for housing development Granted 7 July 2004

Y/2010/0060/F Spine Road linking Laurelgrove Manor and Primrose Hill via Brooke Hall

Granted 18 August 2011


9. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows:

Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015;

3

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) - Planning for Sustainable Development

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 - Natural Heritage. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 - Quality Residential Environments Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the

Built Heritage Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 8 - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor

Recreation Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 Planning and Flood Risk.

Consultations

10. The following consultations were carried out

Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to conditions re streets and

parking layouts. NI Water No objections subject to informatives re connection to

sewerage and water infrastructure. NIEA Natural Heritage No objection subject to conditions re implementation

of badger protection measures NIEA Water management No objections subject to informatives and agreement

of NI water to connect to main sewers. Environmental Health No objections subject to informatives. Rivers Agency No objections, drainage assessment acceptable.

Representations

11. 20 letters of objections have been received to date, the issues raised include:

Increased Traffic / Car Parking

Existing wildlife

Views over green area

NIE Pylons

Flooding

Density/Character of area

Additional dwellings to located in existing Laurel grove cul-de-sac.

4



are:

Principle of Development Access, Movement and Parking Quality Residential Environments

- Impact on character of area - Residential amenity - Layout / Design / Materials - Landscaping - Parking and Access

Flooding Outdoor Space and Recreation Natural Heritage Interests


13. An article 40 agreement dated 7July 2004 covers this parcel of land and the wider area, and is associated with two residential approvals, Y/96/0233/O and Y/96/0258/O.

14. Council is content that this application complies with the Article 40 and in particular with para 6.1 of the document in that proposal is in general accordance with the principles of the Concept Master Plan.

15. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), published in September

2015, indicates that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

16. Paragraph 3.8 of the SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

17. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date

development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

18. An important consideration in this regard is that this proposal is located on land

zoned for housing within the LDP and already benefits from previous planning approvals as indicated in Paragraph 8 above.

5

19. It is therefore contended that the principle of development at this site is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other relevant material planning considerations.

Access, Movement and Parking

20. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitment to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.

21. Policy AMP1 – Creating an Accessible Environment aims to create an

accessible environment for everyone. Transport NI were consulted in relation to this proposal. They are satisfied the proposed internal layout of this development provides a safe and convenient road system. It is therefore contended that the proposal as presented is compliant with this policy.

22. Policy AMP7 – Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements requires proposals to

provide adequate provision for car parking and appropriate servicing arrangements. Transport NI are satisfied the proposal incorporates adequate parking provision for each dwelling and it is therefore contended the proposal as presented is compliant with this policy. Quality Residential Environments

23. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for

achieving quality in new residential developments. 24. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It

states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

25. Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7 - Protecting Local Character,

Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity is another important consideration. It states that in established residential areas a key consideration is to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and that the development is in harmony with the local character of the established residential area.

26. The following are the applicable criteria of Policy QD1 of PPS 7 to ensure

compliance with Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7.

6

Impact on Character of Area

27. In terms of site layout it is contended that this proposal is acceptable when compared with other developments in its immediate vicinity. The scheme comprises a range of house types reflective of those in adjacent developments and which are appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of their layout, scale, proportions, massing/appearance of buildings and other landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

Layout/Design/Materials

28. The proposed site layout seeks to enhance that of the overall area. The

dwellings are sensitively positioned, offering sufficient front and rear amenity space and with suitable garages and car parking provision.

29. The design of the dwellings draw upon the characteristics of, and are broadly in

line with the existing built fabric in terms of height, scale and massing and the site layout plan demonstrates a density and ratio of built form to garden area that is appropriate to planning policies and is consistent with that found in the immediate vicinity. Separation distances between proposed dwellings and their relationship with adjacent residential dwellings and their existing boundaries is adequately addressed and respected by this proposal.

30. Finishing materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings will include

light red facing brick, buff brick, brick detailing, self-coloured scratch render and red or slate grey interlocking concrete roof tiles, black UPVC rainwater goods white/oak UPVC windows. These finishes very much match those of the dwelling designs in the surrounding developments and it is contended therefore that the design of, and construction materials are acceptable and will not be detrimental to the overall character of the area.

Residential Amenity

31. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposal will result in sufficient separation distances between proposed dwellings and those in adjacent developments and will not therefore create conflict or unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

Landscaping/ Amenity Space 32. Policy requires that adequate provision is made for public and private open

space and landscaped areas as an integral part of new developments. 33. The level of private open space (measured as an area of rear garden space) as

illustrated in the proposed site layout plan appears to be acceptable. Drawing No 1037-03 rev K (site layout) indicates sample measurements of the plots that have both the highest and the smallest private amenity area. No dwelling has less than 40 square metres of private open space provision, and the average for the site as a whole is more than 70 metres per dwelling.

7

34. Landscaping and management plans have been submitted to indicate the position, species and canopy spread of existing and proposed vegetation and trees and the ongoing management and maintenance of landscaping provided as part of this proposal. Proposed landscaping and the maintenance of the existing vegetation to be retained is considered appropriate.

35. It is contended that the provision of open space both private and communal,

and the landscaping proposed is acceptable. Public Open Space

36. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out the planning

policies for the protection of open space, the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development and the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation.

37. Open space is essential in any community for both amenity and recreation purposes and often contributes positively to the character, attractiveness and vitality of our cities, towns and villages.

38. As this proposal exceeds an area of one hectare Policy OS2 of PPS8 directs

that open space must form an integral part of this development and that a normal expectation will be the provision of such space on at least 10% of the total site area.

39. Areas of open space are provided throughout the site and Drawing No 1037-03

rev K (site layout) indicates that more than 10% open space has been provided throughout the site as required OS2 of PPS8.

40. Policy OS2 of PPS8 states that for residential development of 100 units or

more, or for development sites of 5 hectares or more, an equipped children’s play area will be required as an integral part of the development.

41. Two equipped play areas have been provided as part of this application. One is

proposed in the south west corner of the site adjacent to site no 107 and the other is proposed facing sites 24-28. The equipment proposed includes, swings slides, climbing frames, inclusive units and scramble nets. Flood Risk

42. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out policy to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment. The susceptibility of all land to flooding is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

43. An amended drainage assessment was submitted in February 2017 and Rivers Agency, while not being responsible for the preparation of that assessment has accepted its logic and has no reason to disagree with its conclusions. In light of this Rivers Agency has granted discharge consent for this proposal and therefore it is deemed acceptable to PPS15.

8

44. NIEA Water Management Unit has also considered the potential impacts of the proposed development on the water environment and on the basis of the information provided is content subject to informatives.

Natural Heritage Interests

45. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage, sets out the planning polices for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.

46. The application site is located in close proximity to an area of sensitivity for

priority habitats and species namely badgers and bats.

47. NIEA Natural heritage were consulted and the agent provided numerous ecologist reports in relation to the existing badgers which have been protected in the development to the north. Bat surveys have also been provided.

48. NIEA have no objection to the proposal and it is contended that no protected

species will be affected by this proposal. NIEA have offered conditions that should be attached to decision notice should the application be approved.

Consideration of Representations

49. 20 letters of objection were received. The following issues were raised:

Increased Traffic / Car Parking - Concerns have been raised by residents regarding the existing road network to serve the development and also the dangers involved with the additional traffic which will be generated as a result of the development. Transport NI were consulted with the proposal and had no objections subject to conditions and informatives.

Impact on Character / Density - In terms of the character of the existing

area it is noted that the proposal is located within a suburban context and the number of units proposed will not be at odds to the nearby and adjacent developments. The density of the proposal is not considered to be at odds with the wider context. The design of the properties, as has been covered within Policy QD1 of PPS7 above, is not incongruous to the established grain of urban design in the immediate vicinity or indeed the its wider context.

Existing wildlife - objections were raised in regards to existing wildlife that may be damaged should the proposal go ahead. NIEA Natural heritage were consulted and the agent provided numerous ecologist reports in relation to the existing badgers which have been protected in the development to the north. Bat surveys have also been provided. NIEA have no objection to the proposal and are content that no protected species will be affected by this proposal. NIEA have offered conditions that should be attached to decision notice should the application be approved.

Views over green area – objections have been raised with regards to the

existing green area that is subject to the application. The right to a view is not a material planning consideration and given that the land is zoned for

9

housing it is a reasonable assumption that the land would have been developed for housing at a future stage.

Flooding – Objectors stated that the site is prone to flooding. In line with FLD 3 of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 Planning and “Flood Risk” a drainage assessment was submitted and sent to Rivers Agency for consideration. Rivers Agency have no evidence of the site flooding, were content with the drainage assessment and had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

NIE Pylons – Issues have been raised by objectors regarding the safety of

dwellings being built under power lines and pylons. In line with Health and safety regulations and NIE requirements no 2 storey dwellings are located under pylons. The scheme has been amended so as there are only bungalows under pylons which complies with all legislation and requirements.

Additional dwellings Laurelgrove Crescent. Objectors have raised

concerns regarding the proposal to add additional dwellings to the existing cul-de-sac. In particular the point to the previous approval and a drawing dated 1998 which suggested an additional 3 dwellings were proposed. The current application propopses7 dwellings in this area. As mentioned in the main body of this report the scale form massing and design of the proposal has been assessed against PPS7 “Quality Residential Environments” and the council is content that it complies with the criteria as identified in QD 1 of this policy.

Objection regarding buffer planting along Laurelgrove– An objection was raised from a resident in Laurelgrove Dale regarding a 3.5 metre landscaped buffer that they stated should have been planted to the rear of their properties. Upon further investigation it would appear that a condition was included on a decision notice(Y/1994/0403/F) stating that a 3.5metre buffer should be provided.

However it would appear that buffer planting should have been included within the curtilage of the dwellings along Laurelgrove Dale, and not to the rear of the property or within in the current application site.

Conclusions

50. Based on careful consideration of all material considerations, it is contended that the proposal satisfies all of the relevant planning policies and will not cause detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties.

Recommendations

51. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

10

Conditions

52. The following conditions are recommended:

As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the

development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time limit

No development shall take place until drawings necessary to enable a

determination to be made in accordance with Article 3 of the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 have been submitted to, and approved by, the Council Reason: To ensure there is a safe and convenient road system to comply with the provisions of the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) order 1980.

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with

drawing No. 83638 – 04B bearing the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council date stamp 25th Janurary 2016 and the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried out during the 1st available planting season after occupation of the dwellings/buildings hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Council, seriously damaged or defective, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

The proposed landscaping should be carried out in accordance with the Landscape Management plan submitted to the Department and the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council date stamped 7th October 2016. Reason: To ensure the sustainability of the tree cover on the site through the successful long term proactive maintenance.

A Construction Method Statement for all works in or near water including pollution prevention measures to protect groundwater and other waterways for the construction and operational phases of the proposal must be prepared and forwarded to Water Management Unit for agreement at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of those works. Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the protection of the water environment.

11

Location Plan – LA05/2015/0338/F

1




8 May 2017



Date of Application 13 December 2016


Proposal Description Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of mixed use development of 2514 m2 retail sales area, 185 m2 office units, ancillary accommodation, 20 no apartments ( 4 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed) and associated car parking and landscaping.

Location Carryduff Shopping Centre, Church Road, Carryduff

Applicant/Agent Coogan & Co Architects Ltd

Representations 3

Case Officer Kevin Maguire



1. This proposal is categorised as a major planning application in accordance with

the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the proposed site exceeds the defined threshold of 1 hectare.



3. The area of the application site is approximately 1.48 hectares and it encompasses the existing buildings, car parking areas, servicing spaces and ancillary works associated with the Carryduff Shopping Centre.

APPENDIX 1.3PM

2

4. The western boundary is defined by a small ranch style fence and some existing landscaping including semi-mature trees and shrubs/hedging. A pedestrian access provides access to the car park at the front of the site. The northern boundary fronts onto Church Road and is defined by a grassed area sloping down from the car park to the road. This frontage includes some semi mature deciduous trees, an extension of the ranch style fencing and some shrub planting at the vehicular entrance of the site. The north eastern boundary is defined by a row of more mature deciduous trees and hedging which separates the site from Killynure House and Carryduff Library. The eastern boundary dissects the existing shopping centre site and building. The southern boundary follows a substantial mature deciduous boundary.

5. The existing site is relatively flat although elevated above the public road level

to the west and north. Beyond the site land levels rise significantly to the south towards dwellings along Meadowvale Avenue. The Carryduff River is culverted below the existing car park within the site.

6. The site is located within the development limit of Carryduff and its designated

Town Centre boundary. It is located adjacent and east of the Ballynahinch Road, which is a Protected Route and adjacent and south of Church Road where the existing vehicular access to the site is positioned. Land uses in the immediate area are a mixture of commercial, residential and community buildings. There are a number of retail units across the Ballynahinch Road to the west and a library and a residential care home to the east. A residential area of mainly two storey housing is located adjacent and to the south of the site.


7. The application seeks full planning permission for demolition of the existing

buildings and construction of mixed use development comprised of 2514 m2 retail sales area, 185 m2 office units, ancillary accommodation, 20 No. apartments (4 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 1 x 3 bed), associated car parking and landscaping. These uses would be included in a single mixed use building with retailing at ground floor level and offices and residential units on the floors above. Additionally, a stand-alone food retail unit is proposed in the southern portion of the site. Access is to remain at the existing entrance position on Church Road.

8. The application and plans are supported by a Pre-Application Community Consultation Report, Design and Access Statement, Preliminary and Generic Quantative Risk Assessment, Air Quality Impact Assessment, Noise and Vibration Assessment, Drainage Assessment, Transport Assessment Form and Statement of Consultation and Community Involvement.

3


9. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below.

10. It is important to note that Application Y/2007/0612/F is an extant permission

and therefore remains capable of implementation.

Proposal of Application Notice Procedure

11. It is a requirement under Section 27 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 that the

applicant submits to Council a ‘proposal of application notice’ (PAN) and consults the community in advance of submitting the application and subsequently compile a Pre Application Community Consultation Report (PCCC) as part of the planning submission.

12. A proposal of application notice (LA05/2016/0478/PAN) was submitted in

respect of the proposal. The application, when submitted, was accompanied by a Statement of Consultation and Community Involvement which indicated that the consultation ran from May to September 2016. The statement detailed the method and extent of public consultation with local residents and political representatives and included specific findings of the Community Exhibition Event and subsequent meetings. Specifically it advised that the Carryduff Regeneration Forum raised a number of potential issues with the development team during the consultation process:

Delivery to Lidl supermarket and possible disruption to residents; Concerns around ‘Signage’ being used for anti-social behaviour; Desire for alternative business accommodation; Five storey building is out of keeping with the area; More landscaping and planting requested.



Y/2007/0612/F Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 19 no. retail units and 150 no. apartments with basement car parking and associated landscaping.

Permission Granted 3rd October 2012

LA05/2015/0325/F Proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of 2314 sqm of retail space and 48 No. apartments including associated car parking and landscaping.

Application ongoing

4

13. Subsequent to the points being raised, the Applicant in their Statement has identified measures that would address these concerns. These included that the new services arrangement associated with the Lidl store would be much smaller than the existing arrangement at the site. Additionally the application has included some business units at the first floor level and the building has been reduced by one level to four storeys.

14. The Applicant also entered into pre-application discussions with the Council to

enable engagement with some of the key statutory consultees and identify issues which would need to be addressed as part of the planning application.


15. The relevant planning policy context is as follows:

Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), Planning for Sustainable

Development Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 – Quality Residential Environments Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 - Planning and Flood Risk

Consultations


Consultee Response

NI Water No Objection

DAERA Water Management Unit No objection subject to conditions

DAERA Waste Management No objection subject to conditions

Transport NI No objection subject to conditions

Rivers Agency No objection

Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions

Representations

17. To date 3 letters of representation have been received in relation to this

application. This has included one letter of support and two non-committal representations. The issues raised include:

5

The application has noted that the site is currently vacant which is not accurate;

Overall height of the proposal in relation to surrounding context; Tentative approach to tree planting and general landscaping along

Ballynahinch Road; Absence of pedestrian link between retail units and Lidl supermarket; Potential for developer’s contribution to enhancement of community

facilities in town centre.



are: Principle of Development Regional Planning Context Local Development Plan Context Quality Residential Environments Design and Impact on Townscape Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring Impact on Existing Land Uses Potential effects of Flooding and Water Management Other environmental considerations


19. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) states that until the Council

adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

20. The SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in

determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.



22. It is contended that the principle of development at this site is in accordance with the up to date Development Plan and is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other relevant material planning considerations.

6

Regional Planning Context

23. The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 is the spatial strategy of the

Stormont Executive and seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and while not a binding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

24. Policy RG6 of the RDS promotes the strengthening of community cohesion by developing integrated services and facilities, fostering a stronger community spirit and sense of place and encouraging mixed housing development.

25. This application is considered to comply with this policy as it will provide

improved retail services to Carryduff, its associated hinterland and would represent a focal point where people could meet and socially interact in a non-segregated environment. Additionally, the inclusion of the apartments within the overall scheme would provide a mix of sizes and tenures in the context of the existing housing stock in the Carryduff area.

26. Policy RG7 of the RDS aims to support urban and rural renaissance and advises that ‘regeneration is necessary to create more accessible, vibrant…town centres which offer people more local choice for shopping, social activity and recreation’.

27. With specific relevance to this application it encourages the ‘development of

innovative ways to bring forward under-utilised land and buildings, particularly for mixed use development’.

Local Development Plan (BMAP)

28. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making

a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that the determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

29. The Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 is the applicable up to date local development plan (LDP). The application site lies within the following designations contained within that LDP - Carryduff Settlement Development Limit and Carryduff Town Centre.

30. The town centre boundary is designated (CF 19) within the LDP to encompass the existing concentration of all existing and planned uses which have a town centre function. Residential accommodation can be encouraged in the town centre if, as in this case, it does not compromise the retailing function at ground floor level. This proposal represents the concept of ‘living over the shop’.

7

31. Policy CF 20 of the LDP relates to urban design criteria for Carryduff Town Centre. It advises that:

Development shall respect the established building line. Building heights should generally be 2–3 storeys. Taller buildings, of up to 5

storeys, will only be acceptable where it is demonstrated that they act as landmark buildings which aid legibility; and

Development shall be fine grain in nature, and aim to reflect traditional plot widths. The façade of larger development proposals shall be broken up visually to reflect the scale of traditional units.

32. This criteria will be considered in the context of the detailed plans submitted in support of the application and its overall impact on the existing townscape in the following sections.

Quality Residential Environments


achieving quality in new residential developments.

34. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is considered that on balance the proposals would comply with this policy.

35. One aspect of Policy QD1 is the consideration of impacts on the amenity of

existing dwellings around the proposal.

36. Guidance contained in ‘Creating Places’ advises that in lower density areas it is good practice to maintain a separation distance of around 30 metres between apartment developments and neighbouring residential units.

37. It is noted in this case such a separation distance can be exceeded given the

position of the proposed residential building in relation to existing dwellings. This site is bound to its north and west sides by commercial development, it is separated from the residential home to the east and it is located between 80 and 100 metres north of the closest dwellings in Meadowvale Gardens and Meadowvale Avenue.

38. It is considered that this position will remove any issues of overlooking or loss

of light to existing dwellings. In addition a well-defined boundary of mature vegetation exists along the southern boundary of the site, this will further screen the proposal from existing dwellings.

39. In terms of amenity provision for the residential units contained in this proposal

‘Creating Places’ will allow private communal open spaces in apartment

8

developments in the form of landscaped areas, courtyards or roof gardens. These communal areas should range from a minimum of 10sqm to around 30sqm per unit. From the floorplans provided, this development is seen to meet these open space standards, in addition to providing varying levels of private open space in the form of individual terraces and balconies.

Design and Impact on Townscape

40. The SPPS notes that ‘there will be a general presumption in favour of

development, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, which include such issues as design.

41. The immediate area surrounding the site is characterised by 1-2 storey buildings. The existing Shopping Centre site includes limited vegetation with the exception of the southern and north eastern parts of the site. The parking for the existing facility is concentrated at the front of the site along Ballynahinch Road and Church Road with the buildings set back into the site, and this adds to the relatively poor quality architectural design and development form that currently exists.

42. The Design and Access (D&A) Statement which provides consideration and

justification of the proposed design in the context of the existing site, adjacent developments and the statutory development plan. A number of key points are identified including the following: The site has low permeability with only one pedestrian access located at

the south west corner and one vehicular access at the north east corner. The suburban nature of streets and spaces provides a poor town centre

form in terms of poor continuity and enclosure, dominance of private car related infrastructure and corners/edges are poorly defined.

Suburban low-density pattern of development. No focal points and very little landscape structure present along key

roads.

43. The D&A Statement notes the current Carryduff Shopping Centre buildings are 2 storey in nature with a number of ground floor retail units. It identifies that a previous planning application (Y/2007/0612/F) proposed to develop a 5 storey mixed use development comprising retail and residential units and this approval has not yet lapsed.

44. Therefore, in consideration of this current application, it is argued that a proposal for a similar number of floors ‘is entirely in keeping with previous approvals’. In addition, it is argued that a taller building on the site would ‘help to form and define a clear focal point at a significant corner and junction’, and that such a development should provide ‘active frontage’ onto a busy town centre thoroughfare.

45. In terms of the scale and massing of this proposal the submission details that

the current buildings and those in the immediate area ‘lack distinctive architectural style or merit’, however there are certain aspects of the current

9

urban form that have been used to inform the current design proposals. It is advised that ‘the ground floor retail of the proposal is wholly in render and glass and forms a plinth with a horizontal emphasis with a generous set back of the upper floors of the residential units’. The D&A contends that the ‘proposed upper floor projections and the contrasting materials of brick, render and glass provide articulation that visually reduces the overall mass’. Furthermore, it notes that the proposal is smaller in terms of scale and massing to the previous planning approval.

46. Paragraph 31 above refers to design criteria for Carryduff Town Centre and

notes that while 2-3 storey buildings would normally be allowed in the area, taller buildings, of up to 5 storeys, will be acceptable where it is demonstrated that they act as landmark buildings which aid legibility.

47. It is considered that the mixed use building proposes four floors in total and

given this scale and its prominent location within the town centre in Carryduff the proposal has the potential to be viewed as a landmark building in the area. This argument may be further strengthened by the modern design and variety of building materials in contrast to many of the buildings in the surrounding area and the provision of an area of public realm along Church Road which would be likely to attract people to the development. The plans submitted also show the increased permeability at the site, with a number of additional pedestrian accesses from both Ballynahinch and Church Roads which may assist in encouraging footfall from residential areas.

48. Details of soft and hard landscaping have been provided as part of the

application. This includes a number of grassed areas on the western and northern edges of the site, with a number of extra heavy standard trees (Silver Birch) and standard trees (Whitebeam and Paperbark Maple) which would assist in softening the edges of the development and breaking up the car park area when viewed from key public vantage points.

49. In addition the communal amenity areas within the mixed use building includes

a number of feature trees (Weeping Beech, Indian Bean and Weeping Oak) which are likely to soften the massing of the building and provide attractive areas for residents to utilise. This planting is in addition to the trees and other vegetation to the southern boundary of the site which is to be retained as an important buffer with the adjacent residential area. Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring

50. The application proposes the use of the existing vehicular access along Church

Road with a number of additional pedestrian access points along both Church Road and Ballynahinch Road.

51. A Transport Assessment Form (TAF) has been submitted which includes a Service Management Plan and Parking Statement. The TAF notes that 210 car parking spaces have been shown on the site layout plan in addition to motorcycle and bicycle spaces. The TAF indicates that as the retail units are

10

1397sqm smaller than the permitted retailing on the site there is a resultant reduction in traffic during the peak hours. This confirms there is no intensification of the access. .

52. The TAF has also stated that the resultant impact on noise generation and air

quality will not be significant given the reduction in generated traffic. The Service Management Plan highlights four areas of opportunity to improve and promote efficient servicing arrangements including developing a delivery booking system, inform suppliers of location and procedures, monitoring and reduction of delivery/servicing/collection frequencies.

53. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) – Access, Movement and Parking deals

with those matters raised in the TAF. Policy AMP2 of PPS3 is applicable to the proposed access, using the existing access point to Church Road.

54. As this proposal involves a lesser amount of retail floorspace than the existing

use on the site it is contended that the proposal does not represent an intensification of the Church Road access. Transport NI has been consulted on the matter and consider the proposal will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic at this point.

55. Policy AMP7 of PPS3 deals with car parking and servicing arrangements within

the site. Transport NI has considered the level of car parking and the servicing arrangements for this application and are content with the proposed arrangements. These arrangements are subject to Transport NI conditions relating to the parking provision for both the retail and residential use and the submitted service management plan provided within the TAF.

Impact on Existing Land Uses

56. As has been described Carryduff Town Centre contains a mix of uses including

commercial, services, community, industrial and residential. It is therefore considered that in principle the proposed retail and service uses have been established on this site.

57. Existing residential properties are likely to be the most sensitive receptors in the

context of this proposal, with the closest housing located to the south in Meadowvale Gardens and Meadowvale Avenue. Given the location of these sensitive receptors there is the potential to result in adverse impact in terms of noise, both at construction and operation stage, and vibration through construction works. In addition there may be the potential impact on air quality, particularly through the increase of traffic and odour release. On this basis a Noise and Vibration Assessment and Air Quality Impact Assessment were submitted with the application.

58. With regards to construction noise the assessment has stated that the highest

noise predictions are likely to occur during the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the supermarket building. Figures are based on a worst case scenario and it has been emphasised that the effects will be temporary and localised. Additionally, construction noise will be further

11

mitigated by a proposed acoustic barrier during the period of works and this will specifically benefit properties adjacent to the southern boundary.

59. Noise impacts during the operational phase have been broken down to impacts

from increased traffic on the nearest noise receptors and the potential plant/equipment noise impacts associated with the development. Overall, it is considered that any increase in road traffic noise levels associated with this proposal would be imperceptible. Impacts of plant/equipment during the operation of the supermarket have been undetermined at this stage, this and equipment specifications would be determined at detailed design stage.

60. Environmental Health were consulted on the report and offer no objection to its

findings, subject to several conditions including dust mitigation measures, provision of a 1.8m acoustic barrier during the construction phase and compliance with the noise and vibration assessment as submitted. Further conditions also relate to any unknown contamination being discovered at the site, odour and acoustic controls, hours of demolition and any artificial lighting.

Potential effects of Flooding and Water Management

61. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 deals with flood risk matters. The site is

not located within a fluvial floodplain, however given the area of the proposal a drainage assessment was required in accordance with Policy FLD3.

62. A drainage assessment was submitted as part of the application and following consultation with Rivers Agency that assessment was considered acceptable.

63. The drainage assessment notes there is no intention to alter any watercourse

as part of the proposal, this includes the culverted watercourse below the site. The assessment notes ‘the line of the culvert is in the proximity of the building line’ and the ‘foundations of the new building will be taken down to the same level as the invert of the culvert to ensure the integrity of the culvert is maintained at all times’.

64. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in compliance with the

requirements of PPS15.

65. Water Management Unit offers no objection to the proposal subject to connection of the foul sewage infrastructure to Northern Ireland Water system. Consent will be required for any site drainage discharges to the aquatic environment during and after construction.

66. NI Water in its consultation response has confirmed there is available capacity

for this proposed development, both foul and storm drainage.

12

Other environmental considerations

67. Impact on biodiversity – there is not considered to be an impact on biodiversity

matters given the current nature of the site and buildings which do not offer natural heritage features. The stand-alone supermarket unit does lie adjacent to an area of established trees along the southern boundary, however it does not encroach into this area and in the context of the existing and proposed siting of buildings it is not considered that there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that protected species would be adversely impacted.

68. Impact on heritage – There is no evidence that the development would

adversely impact upon any recorded heritage features. It is noted that a ‘red gate’ is located on the north boundary of the site, adjacent to Church Road. Such gates were erected by Belfast & District Water Commissioners allowing access along the line of the Mourne Conduit, which once supplied water to Belfast. This is not a listed structure, but it is a feature of historical value. This proposal will see the gate retained and relocated along the Church Road frontage of the site.

69. Air Quality and odour – An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) was

submitted in support of the proposal and detailed the potential impacts of the scheme and associated mitigation measures. Impacts on air quality may result from the demolition and construction phases, through release of emissions from vehicles and creation of dust. The report does not envisage that the proposed development will have a significant impact on levels of atmospheric pollution and the scheme could be considered to be neutral in terms of local air quality. The Environmental Health Department has considered these issues and have not indicated any objections subject to any approval being conditional on the implementation of the dust mitigation measures as outlined in the Applicant’s AQIA. In addition, the plans and elevations do not indicate any café/restaurant associated with the application and therefore impacts of odours related to such facilities have not been considered as part of the assessment. Any such use and associated extraction equipment would require a separate planning approval.

70. Land contamination – A Preliminary and Generic Risk Assessment was

submitted in support of the planning application. It is noted that to facilitate the existing development of the site the ground in the north west section may have been filled with material of varying quality and quantity. Further potential sources of contamination may have resulted from the presence of an oil tank and a car wash. Consultations with Environmental Health and NIEA Waste Management have not identified any known contamination on the site or any significant pollutant linkages at the site that have the potential to cause risk to future users, construction workers or environmental receptors. It is therefore recommended that conditions are attached to any approval to deal with any undiscovered contamination should it be identified during the course of development works.

13


71. A number of points have been raised by third parties. The issues raised are considered in the section below. The application has noted that the site is currently vacant which is not accurate

72. The Design and Access Statement notes that the ‘existing shopping centre currently lies vacant’. From site visit it is clear that there are a number of businesses currently operating in the retail parade to the front of the main building. However it is considered that this statement would not have any bearing of the determination of this planning application and issues concerning the lease of units is a matter between tenants and the owner of the Centre.

Overall height of the proposal in relation to surrounding context

73. The proposed mixed use building is significantly greater than the height of the existing shopping centre, comprised of 4 floors in total. The height from ground level to the roof level for the majority of the building is approximately 13 metres, with a maximum of 14.5 metres where a false floor has been incorporated as a design feature.

74. These figures would be broadly similar to the previous redevelopment of the site approved under Y/2007/0612/F however with a much reduced scale and massing. On this basis it is considered that the principle of a building of this height has been established on the site. Furthermore, Designation CF20, Paragraph 31 of BMAP 2015 states that while building heights should generally be 2–3 storeys, taller buildings of up to 5 storeys will be acceptable where it is demonstrated that they act as landmark buildings which aid legibility.

75. The Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application has

demonstrated the development would be likely to act as a landmark for the locality.

Tentative approach to tree planting and general landscaping along Ballynahinch Road

76. The proposed plans show a mix of hard and soft landscaping. The soft landscaping is mainly comprising of a range of tree species (some of which are extra heavy standard) and grassed areas. An assessment of the appropriate level of tree planting should be taken from the current situation on site and within the town centre surroundings as a whole. While there would be reduction in the number of trees along the Ballynahinch Road with this proposal, it is considered this is offset by the tree planting proposed throughout the site and the higher quality design, both in buildings and materials to be used in the hard landscaping works.

77. On this basis it is therefore considered the proposed landscaping would be acceptable to this town centre designation.

14

Absence of pedestrian link between retail units and Lidl supermarket

78. It is noted from the plans that there are some pedestrian linkages between the mixed use building and the car park area delineated by concrete textured paving slabs, however this link does not extend fully through to the supermarket building.

79. Transport NI have been consulted and have not objected to the proposals involving pedestrian movement through the proposed car park given its size and layout. It is therefore considered that the absence of a pedestrian link between these two buildings would not preclude the approval of this planning application.

Potential for developer’s contribution to enhancement of community facilities in town centre

80. No details of a contribution proposed by the developer has been submitted formally in the context of this planning application. The normal approach to providing developer contributions would be through an agreement under Section 76 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

81. The SPPS states that the Council may consider the use of a planning agreement where what is required cannot be adequately addressed by the imposition of planning conditions and meets a number of other criteria.

82. In this case it is not considered that such a contribution is required given the

proposals potential to revitalise Carryduff Town Centre. Development Management Practice Note 21 advises that in some circumstances community benefits may be offered on a voluntary basis by developers. However, whilst the advice states that there is a commitment ‘to ensuring that local communities benefit from development schemes in their area, such community benefits cannot be considered material considerations in decision-taking and are distinct from developer contributions and planning conditions’.

Conclusions

83. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that on balance the proposed development meets the requirements of the Local Development Plan and all relevant planning policies.

Recommendations

84. It is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Conditions

15

85. The following conditions are recommended for inclusion on any forthcoming decision notice.

As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time Limit.

No retailing or other operation in or from any building hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed and permanently marked in accordance with the approved drawing No 02A bearing date stamp 10 Feb 2017 to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.

The parking facilities detailed in Condition 2 above shall be open for use

during all hours of business. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.

No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been

constructed in accordance with approved Drawing No 02A bearing Planning date stamp 10 Feb 2017 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

The development hereby permitted shall be operated in accordance with

the approved Service Management Plan dated by Planning 10 Feb 2017. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for servicing and traffic circulation within the site.

No mezzanine floors shall be installed within the retail units hereby approved without prior written consent of the Council. Reason: To control the nature and scale of retailing hereby approved.

In accordance with the Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 the office units hereby approved shall be used only for Class A2(a) financial services or Class A2 (b) professional services, principally to visiting members of the public and for no other use. Reason: To prohibit a change to an unacceptable use.

Foul sewage shall be connected to the main sewer with Northern Ireland

Water approval.

16

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to odour.

Development should be undertaken in accordance with the dust mitigation

measures as detail in Section 6 of the Air Quality Impact Assessment dated 30 August 2016. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to air quality.

All fuel storage tanks (and associated infra-structure) must be fully

decommissioned and removed in accordance with the Northern Ireland’s Environment Agency Documents entitled; “Installation, Decommissioning and Removal of Underground Storage Tanks: PPG27” & “Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks PPG2”. Any impacted soil in the vicinity of the storage tanks and associated infrastructure should be excavated and the quality of the surrounding soils verified. This process shall be supervised by a suitably qualified Environmental Engineer and should new contamination be identified the requirements of Condition 9 will apply. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

If during the development works, new contamination and risks to the water environment are encountered which has not previously been identified, works should cease and the Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. This new contamination shall be fully investigated in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). In the event of unacceptable risks being identified, a remediation strategy shall be agreed with the Council in writing and subsequently implemented to its satisfaction. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors and ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised and that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

After completing any remediation works required under Conditions 9 and

10, and prior to occupation of the development, a verification report shall be submitted in writing and agreed with Planning Authority. This report should be completed by competent persons in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). The verification report should present all the remediation and monitoring works undertaken and demonstrate the effectiveness of the works in managing all the risks and achieving the remedial objectives. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors and ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised and that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

The applicant shall have full regard to all relevant and current guidance

and standards during the remediation and validation processes and shall

17

incorporate such detail within any report submissions required to be submitted for prior approval by the Council. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

During the operational phase of the development no activity which is likely to generate excessive noise e.g. waste collection and delivery, should be undertaken outside the hours 0700 – 1900 Monday to Friday and 08:00 – 18:00 on Saturday and Sundays. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.

The derived noise threshold limits of any plant/equipment associated with

the development at any noise sensitive receptor identified in Figure 1 of the Noise and Vibration Assessment dated August 2016 shall not exceed the limits as detailed in Table 4.4 of the same report. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.

During the construction of the development an acoustic barrier of

minimum height 1.8m shall be erected in line with Drawing 18 - Construction Phase Noise Barrier received by Planning Unit 10 April 2017. The barrier should be constructed of a suitable material (with no gaps) and shall have a minimum self-weight of 6 kg/m2. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.

As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Assessment dated August 2016

construction and demolition hours should be limited to 0800 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0800 – 1300 hours Saturday and no activity in Sundays or bank holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise and vibration.

Subsequent to the completion of the residential units (including all noise

mitigation measures), an acoustic verification report shall be forwarded to Environmental Health via Planning Unit. The report shall demonstrate that the design mitigation measures incorporated into the buildings, e.g., glazing units, frames, window seals and ventilation, have achieved the sound reduction performance in compliance with BS8233:2014 as outlined in Table 2.4 in the Noise and Vibration Assessment dated August 2016. Reason: To ensure compliance with BS8233:2014.

The construction of the retail units shall be completed prior to occupancy

of the residential units.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.

18

The glazing unit and acoustically attenuated mechanical ventilation to be installed shall have a sound reduction of 35dB RTra or greater. The inlet for all ventilation systems shall be downward facing and acoustically treated. Glazing unit and ventilation with a sound insulation of less than 35dB RTra may be considered if further support evidence is provided. Reason: To ensure compliance with BS8233:2014.

Any odour extraction units installed within the development shall be

constructed in line with the DEFRA document entitled ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise and odour.

The communal terraces shall be constructed as detailed in the letter from

RPS dated 23 March 2017. Reason: To ensure compliance with BS8233:2014.

Demolition work should be undertaken in line with the further control

measures for demolition activities as detailed on page 6 of the letter from RPS dated 23 March 2017. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.

Any artificial lighting to the development must minimise obtrusive light and

conform to the requirements of the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations for Environmental Zone – E3 (Suburban) contained within Table 2 of the Institute of Light Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting, GN01, dated 2011. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to obtrusive light.

No development shall take place on-site until the method of sewage

disposal has been agreed in writing with Northern Ireland Water (NIW) or a Consent to discharge has been granted under the terms of the Water (NI) Order 1999. Reason: To ensure a practical solution to sewage disposal is possible at this site.

Each building shall be provided with such sanitary pipework, foul drainage

and rain-water drainage as may be necessary for the hygienic and adequate disposal of foul water and rain-water separately from that building. The drainage system should also be designed to minimise the risk of wrongly connecting the sewage system to the rain-water drainage system, once the buildings are occupied. Reason: In order to decrease the risk of the incorrect diversion of sewage to drains carrying rain/surface water to a waterway.

All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved Drawing Number 03 bearing the date stamp received 13th December 2016. Hard landscaping works shall be undertaken prior to

19

the occupation of any part of the development. Soft landscaping works shall take place in the first available planting season after the commencement of the development hereby approved. within 12 months or by the end of the 1st planting season following completion of the development. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub

or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Council, seriously damaged or defective, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

The existing natural screenings along the southern boundary of the site

shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation and remediation strategy shall be given to the Council in writing prior to removal. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

The landscaping works hereby approved in accordance with Condition 27

shall be maintained in accordance with a Landscape Management Plan to be submitted and approved in writing by the Council within 6 months of the commencement of any development at the site. Reason: To ensure successful establishment and ongoing management and maintenance (in perpetuity) of the open space and amenity areas in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

20


1




8 May 2017


Application Reference LA05/2016/0612/RM


District Electoral Area Lisburn South

Proposal Description Development of Community Treatment and Care Centre, parking including basement and multi storey levels, access arrangements and other associated operational development.

Location Lands at Lagan Valley Hospital, Hillsborough Road, Lisburn

Applicant/Agent GPG O'Hare/Fleming Mountstephen Planning

Representations 0




1. This application is one for approval of reserved matters. It is categorised as a

major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the proposed site exceeds the threshold of 1 hectare as defined in Part 8 of the Schedule to those Regulations.



3. The site is located at lands at Lagan Valley Hospital, Hillsborough Road,

Lisburn. It is an irregular plot of land measuring approximately 1.61 hectares in

APPENDIX 1.4PM

2

size. The site includes a number of existing operational buildings connected with the hospital.

4. A number of buildings exist within the site which are to be demolished and

include the L.A.R.C Building (Single storey mobile structure), Department of Psychiatry (3 storey) and the Lagan View Conference Centre (1 storey).

5. The site accesses off the existing vehicular access onto the Hillsborough Road

to the east of the main site. The site would access through an existing access onto a protected route.

6. The northern boundary of the site abuts the existing hospital surface level car

parking areas, Maternity Unit and a number of other buildings including workshops and IT Department. The south eastern boundary follows along an existing internal road which runs parallel and adjacent to Laganside House and the staff accommodation block.

7. The western boundary extends along the White House with the red line

extending between the L.A.R.C building (which is proposed to be demolished), the Day Hospital and the Department of Elderly Medicine further to the west.

8. The proposed development is located within the wider hospital facility with a

number of other health related uses located adjacent. In general, however, the site is located within an area of mixed use with residential development to the west and south west a residential care home to the south west. There is also a cemetery and petrol filling station in close proximity along the Hillsborough Road.


9. This is a reserved matters application for the Development of Community Treatment and Care Centre, parking including basement and multi storey levels, access arrangements and other associated operational development. The building proposes a 4 storey building with a mix of finishes including Proprietary Render, Polyester Powder Coated Double Glazed Curtain Walling and Louvres, and a PV Array on roof.

10. The multi-level car park is a stand-alone building which proposes 10 parking levels with one deck below ground level and proposes a finish of precast concrete panels.

3




12. The relevant planning policy context is as follows: Regional Development Strategy 2025 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) PPS3: Access, Movement and Parking PPS 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage PPS 13: Transportation and Land Use DCAN 15 Vehicular Access Standards



S/2014/0506/O Development of Community Treatment and Care Centre, parking including basement and multi storey levels, access arrangements and other associated operational development

Granted 9 January 2015

LA05/2015/0148/F Proposed toilet block extension to existing modular structure

Granted 27 August 2015

S/2014/0871/F Demolition of existing psychiatry and conference centre buildings plus alterations to existing complex car parking to facilitate construction of new community care and treatment centre

Granted 5 July 2016

S/2014/0510/O

Redevelopment of site to provide Community Treatment and Care Centre, associated multi-level car park, access from Hillsborough Road and other associated operational development


S/2014/0500/O

Demolition of existing buildings to facilitate proposed new Community Treatment and Care Centre and decked car park with associated site works


4

Consultations

13. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response

Transport NI No objections subject to conditions

Historic Environment Division No objection

NI Water No objection

Environmental Health No objection

Representations

14. No letters of representation have been received in relation to the proposed

development.



are: Principle of Development Regional Planning Context Local Development Plan Context Design/Townscape issues Impact on Built Heritage features Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring Impact on Existing Land Uses Potential effects of Water Management and Contamination.

Principle of development

16. The site is located within the Lisburn City Settlement Development Limit, as defined in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. The site does not fall within any other land zoning.

17. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015

states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

5




20. Outline planning permission S/2014/0506/O was granted in January 2015. This

permission confirmed that the site for the development of a Community Treatment and Care Centre facility and other associated operational development was acceptable in principle.


21. The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 is the spatial strategy of the Stormont Executive and seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and while not a binding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

22. While the RDS does not include a policy related specifically to the type of development being proposed, in its aims it does encourage the promotion of development which improves the health and well-being of communities. Further policies referring to the provision of a good transport network and the promotion of a sustainable approach to water and sewerage services would also generally relate to the proposal.

23. Compliance with this strategic guidance is assessed through the careful

consideration of the information submitted with this proposal and the relevant consultation responses received.

Local Development Plan (BMAP)

24. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that the determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

25. The Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 is the applicable up to date local development plan (LDP). The application site lies within Lisburn City Settlement Development Limit and outside any other zoned or designated areas.

6

Design/Townscape Issues

26. The application proposes a new community treatment and care centre (CTCC) which comprises of a 5 floor stand-alone building with associated basement car parking (Maximum height from finished floor level approx. 24.8 metres). This is proposed to be built on the sites of the existing Department of Psychiatry, L.A.R.C Building and Lagan View Conference Centre.

27. The elevational details provided show a modern flat roof building which include

a number features and related finishes including the following: Proprietary Render; Polyester Powder Coated Double Glazed Aluminium Window System, Polyester Powder Coated Double Glazed Rooflight, Polyester Powder Coated Aluminium Brise soleil; Polyester Powder Coated Steel Doors and; Aluminium Clad Canopy.

28. The main pedestrian entrance to the building is on the northern elevation, with

further entrances to the western and eastern sides of the building. 29. The planning application also proposes an associated stand-alone building

housing a multi-storey car park which proposes to include 10 floors in total (Maximum height from finished floor level approx. 14.6 metres) and is to be sited on an existing surface level to the rear of the Department for Psychiatry. The finishes to the decking of the car park is predominantly architectural precast concrete panels.

30. The impact of the proposed building and associated multi-level car park has

been demonstrated visually through a number of photomontages in support of the application, particularly in relation to the impact on nearby listed structures (the impact on these buildings will be considered in more detail in the next section).

31. The Department of Psychiatry building is a 3 storey detached building with red

brick/rendered finish and a pitched roof with grey slates. The L.A.R.C Building is a single storey detached mobile structure with flat roof. The Lagan View Conference Centre Building is a detached single storey building with a brick finish and porch to front, with a mainly flat roof however there is a pitch to the front elevation comprising of grey slates.

32. Given the scale of the current building, the proposed development will

represent a substantial increase in the height and overall scale on the current buildings. This proposal has however been assessed taking into account the massing, form and design of the existing buildings and surrounding context which comprises a varied mix of buildings both within the immediate area surrounding the site and within the wider context of the Lagan Valley Hospital site.

33. In addition, the photomontages demonstrate that the new building would relate

quite favourably to the existing maternity building situated adjacent, with the ridge of the building being slightly lower than the proposed building which also exhibits a similar solid to void ratio.

7

34. It is contended that the new CTCC will create an active frontage along the internal road and create a sense of enclosure between the proposed and existing buildings. It is considered that the proposed finishes, while contrasting to the stonework employed in the maternity building adjacent, will not appear incongruous with many of the other surrounding buildings.

35. Whilst it is considered that the proposed multi-level car park adjacent to the

CTCC does not provide an active frontage, this element has been considered within the context of the current site which is currently in use as a surface level car park.

36. In addition, whilst this building would be dominant when viewed from the hospital’s internal road network, it is considered that its position behind the proposed CTCC would help to limit critical views from the main road.

37. The main entrance is to be covered by a canopy with a pavement extending along the front of the building. There is an external circulation space proposed between the CTCC and proposed multi-level car park. This area, although uncovered, will serve to create a sense of enclosure and propose timber seating to raised planters.

38. This includes paved areas surrounding the community treatment and care

centre with a variety of finishes including granite and concrete setts/paving blocks. Soft landscaping works proposed new tree planting, hedge and shrub planting and areas of grass cover which would help to ameliorate the scale of the proposed structures. There is limited landscaping provision at the existing site and therefore I would consider that the proposals would be a planning gain in this respect.

Impact on Built Heritage features

39. Policy BH11 of PPS 6 states that development will not normally be permitted where it would adversely affect a listed building. The policy also states that a proposal will normally only be accepted where all the following criteria are met:

(a) the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment;

(b) the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building; and

(c) the nature of the use proposed respects the character of the setting of the building.

40. The CTCC and associated multi-level car park lies adjacent to the maternity of Lagan Valley Hospital which is a Grade B2 listed building of special architectural and historic interest.

41. This building is a multi-bay two storey with attic-storey stone former workhouse (built c1840). Following consideration at outline stage NIEA: HBU advised that ‘on the proviso that the structure was of architectural merit, in terms of layout,

8

design, material and intent’… a 5-6 storey block could be accommodated on the proposed site.

42. In a further consultation, HED has acknowledged that although the proposed

building is of a greater scale than the existing listed building, ‘it is considered that the horizontal division of stories by material i.e. 3rd storey is glazed above 1st and 2nd storey solid wall, reduces the perceived scale to an acceptable level. The stepping of the ‘leading’ corner on approach also reduces the perceived mass and dominance of this corner in adjacent to the listed building’.

43. Further information was however requested on the specific detailing on

elevations, particularly in relation to articulation of render surface on window band which could lend detail and mask/distract from jointing. It was also suggested that the mostly glazed ground floor, which is flush with the storeys above, would benefit from separation/introduction of another material.

44. It is therefore contended that the proposal development complies with PPS 6

and it will not have a negative impact on the setting of the listed building.

Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring

45. The application proposes a new multi-level car park to be built on the site of an existing surface level car park and proposes to use existing access points at the LVH site.

46. The outline application included the following condition

No part of the development hereby permitted shall become operational until hard surfaced areas have been constructed within the site for the sole use of the development to be permanently marked to provide (i) 400 No. parking spaces which shall include facilities for disabled people

and staff. Any proposal will be supported by appropriate swept path analysis of the largest vehicles likely to access the site. The layout of parking spaces, control measures and internal access arrangements shall be determined at Reserved Matters stage.

(ii) Secure and covered cycle parking facilities which shall be located convenient to main accesses, the precise number of which shall be determined at reserved matters stage

(iii) Separate facilities for the operational parking, loading and separate facilitate for he operational parking, loading and unloading of delivery and other service vehicles attracted to the development.

47. A detailed travel plan and service management plan for the entirety of the

South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Lagan Valley Hospital was submitted with the application.

9

48. The Travel plan and Service Management Plan acknowledged that some parking spaces would be lost as a result of the proposed development but that the new multi-level car park would provide around 400 parking spaces

49. The aim of the Travel Plan is to increase and maximise the use of travel to and from the hospital site by using sustainable modes of transport, reducing the reliance of private cars and single occupancy vehicles.

50. The plan estimates that the maximum estimated accumulation of cars parked

will be 265 vehicles without the allowance for shared trips, however even when taking these potential shared trips into account the c400 parking spaces would cater to these additional parked cars.

51. By way of conclusion the plan advises that measures to reduce the reliance on

the private car usage have been considered to including walking, cycling and public transport. In particular the promotion of the ‘TaxSmart’ initiative, which reduces public transport costs through a salary sacrifice scheme, could make travelling through this mode a more economically attractive option.

52. Transport NI have been consulted on the proposal and subsequent

amendments and have indicated no concerns subject to conditions to be attached to any planning approval.

53. These conditions relate to the requirement for 34 spaces to be permanently

retained for people with a disability or special needs, a minimum of 24 cycle spaces and compliance with the Travel and Service Management Plan submitted.

Impact on Existing Land Uses

54. Detail associated with the application indicates that the proposed CTCC building will be sited closer to residential development immediately to the south east, with the boundary coming close to Woodgrove Care Home, 71a and 71b Hillsborough Road and the staff accommodation block within the LVH site itself.

55. The plans submitted show that the CTCC building is approximately 24 metres

from Woodgrove Care Home, which would be approximately 34 metres closer than the 3 storey Psychiatry building currently on the site. In addition the building is approximately 34 metres from 71b Hillsborough Road, with the site at a slightly higher elevation than both these properties.

56. In terms of the potential overlooking, from the information provided and

observations when on site it is considered that given the location of the habitable rooms, particularly at the Care Home, and the orientation (and subsequent oblique angle) of the proposed CTCC block, that the proposal will not result in an adverse impact on amenity at these locations.

57. It is considered that the potential for overlooking to No 71a will be furthered

lessened by an extension to the rear of 71b which serves to limit direct view

10

between the dwelling and the proposed site of the CTCC. The CTCC block is also approximately 50 metres from the rear elevation and at higher level from the staff accommodation block and as such, the impact on amenity will be minimal].

58. These buildings [no 71a and 71b] will also be separated by the existing White

House building which is to be retained, further limiting the potential for overlooking.

59. With this in mind, it is noted that in general the ground, 1st and 2nd floors of the

building are occupied along its western and southern sides by treatment/consultation rooms, which given their nature are less likely to be in constant use. The 3rd floor provides office space for Health Trust including desk space and areas for internal meetings along its south west corner. Whilst the potential for overlooking is acknowledged, given that this space will only be used during normal office hours, the potential for overlooking and subsequent impact on amenity is limited.

60. Furthermore, the Agent has provided clarification and justification regarding the

specific design and floorplan layout of the CTCC, specifically the upper floors. They have advised that 'locating staff areas on the third floor ensures the privacy and security of the staff offices and allows the more private areas of the hospital to be more easily secured'.

61. In addition, it has been stated that the 'various departments are strategically

located based on an extensive amount of design development work which has taken into consideration a number of inter-related factors including the requirements of the end users, the size of departments, the relationship of different departments to one another, the need to avoid splitting departments over multiple floors and the need to locate outpatient treatment areas on lower floors with work station areas on upper floors to accommodate Trust and Social Services staff'.

62. With specific relevance to the third floor, the Agent has advised that

'workstations are located to meet the spatial requirements of the building’s clerical staff and to meet privacy and security requirements e.g. the location allows the staff to enter/exit through a specific staff area (without going through public areas) linked to the car park'. Separately, it is unlikely that overlooking would be an issue given that the key residential properties would be sited further to the south.

63. In summary the Agent has provided a detailed and compelling case for the

proposed design and layout of the CTCC.

64. It is considered that on this basis, and in addition to the relative distance from the properties concerned and the angle of the new building, together with the intervening boundary treatments and existing built form, it is unlikely that in this context the proposal would cause adverse detrimental impact to the private amenity of neighbouring residential units.

11

Potential effects of Water Management and Contamination

65. NI Water have commented on the proposal through a pre-development enquiry that the receiving WwTW has sufficient capacity to serve the development. Details on the locations of existing infrastructure at the site and maximum discharge from the site has been provided.

66. The consultation response does not raise any reasons for the refusal of

planning permission, and on this basis it is taken that any design details and required permissions can be agreed directly with NI Water in accordance with the Water (NI) Order and prior to the commencement of any works on site. The Pre-Development Enquiry issued at outline stage advised that at present there is no public storm sewer available which can serve the proposal, therefore if it is not possible to get consent for discharge to the local watercourse it is advised the Applicant may wish to provide a suitable storm outfall sewer.

67. It is further noted that the site does not fall within a significant flood risk area or

on land prone to surface water flooding as indicated on the published Rivers Agency Flood Maps.

68. Water Management Unit have been consulted and are content with the

proposal subject to the submission of a detailed Construction Method Statement which would include details of mitigating measures to address to address the environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. Further conditions and informatives within Standing Advice Note 23 are also recommended to be included in any approval notice.

69. Conditions 4, 5 and 6 of outline planning permission S/2014/0506/O related to

potential for contaminant pathways to be opened up, with these conditions offering protection of nearby environmental receptors. Condition 4 in particular requested that should a piled foundation be required a foundation works risk assessment should be completed and submitted for agreement prior to the development being commenced.

70. To this end a report has been submitted with this reserved matters request to

assess the appropriateness of the piling methodologies for the redevelopment of the site in terms of minimising any potential adverse environmental impacts which could be affected or created by the proposed piling methods, as well as any necessary mitigation methods.

71. The report concludes that the piling techniques considered would be suitable

for this site, as they will generate a negligible risk of creating pathways to the underlying aquifer.

72. On this basis, Waste Management have advised that Condition 4 of

S/2014/0506/O has been fully satisfied and can be discharged. However, Conditions 5 and 6 relate to unidentified contamination discovered during the course of construction works and would therefore still be relevant in any decision notice.

12

Biodiversity

73. Planning Application S/2014/0506/O included an ecological report which was considered by NIEA as part of the assessment.

74. On this basis it was considered that the application would be acceptable subject to conditions which required the existing building to be checked for bat presence 24 hours prior to demolition commencing and a survey to be required for breeding birds should the buildings be demolished between 1st March and 31st August.

75. It is considered that such conditions are still be applicable and should be

included on any decision notice issued.

Public Services/Social Benefits

76. It is advised that the CTCC will 'deliver a range of significant public benefits in relation to health care provision' including the creation of opportunities for the wider GP network and support for multi-disciplinary and integrated working, the improvement of local service delivery and supporting the management of long term conditions within primary care.

77. In addition the accommodation will facilitate the future predicted increase in population and access/parking arrangements to improve the patient experience.

78. It is therefore considered that these community benefits are an important

material consideration in the determining of this application.

Conclusions

79. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material planning considerations including relevant planning policy, and taking into account the planning history and specific characteristics of the proposal and adjacent land use, it is recommended that the detail associated with the reserved matters application is acceptable.

Recommendations

80. It is recommended that the reserved matters application is approved.

Conditions


1. The development to which this approval relates must be begun by

whichever is the later of the following dates:-

13

(i) The expiration of a period of 5 years from the grant of outline planning permission; or

(ii) The expiration of a period of 2 years from the date hereof.

Reason: As required by Section 62 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not become operational/be

occupied until the associated multi-level car park and associated hard surfaced area have been constructed in accordance with the approved layout Drawing No. 16A ‘LIS-WIA-0801-ZZ-DR-A-07-2210, ‘Proposed Underground and Decked Parking Plans, Rev P2’ and bearing the Lisburn and Castlereagh Council Planning Office date stamp 24 November 2016 and Drawing No. 18 ‘LIS-AFA-00-XX-DR-C-07-0711, ‘Proposed Site Layout, Rev P4’ and bearing the Lisburn and Castlereagh Council Planning Office date stamp 03 June 2016 to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking servicing and traffic circulation within the site.

3. A minimum of 34 spaces shall be provided and permanently retained for

people with a disability or with special needs in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking for people with a disability or with special needs within the site.

4. A minimum of 24 No. cycle parking stands shall be provided and permanently retained within the sites for use by staff and visitors to the development. Reason: to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport for development users.

5. The development hereby permitted shall operate in accordance with the

approved Travel Plan & Service Management Plan bearing the Lisburn and Castlereagh Council Planning Office date stamp 24 November 2016.

Reason: To encourage the use of alternative modes of transport to the private car in accordance with the Transportation Principles and in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

6. Connection to the main sewer with Northern Ireland Water approval.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to odour.

14

7. A detailed Construction Method Statement for any in / near water works must be submitted to Planning Authority, for consultation with NIEA Water Management Unit, at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of construction. Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the protection of the water environment.

8. Twenty four hours prior to demolition, the existing buildings on the site shall be checked for bat presence and all demolition works shall be monitored by a recognised bat expert. Reason: To ensure protection to Bats, a European protected species and their roosts.

9. All buildings proposed to be demolished between 1 March and 31 August shall be surveyed for breeding birds by an experienced ecologist at an appropriate time of year prior to demolition and a report submitted to the Department detailing the results of the survey. Reason: To protect breeding birds.

10. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance

with the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other recognized Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried out within the first available planting season prior to the occupation of any part of the development. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

11. A Construction Method Statement including details of site set up, location of construction activities, its boundaries, means of access and how they are segregated from other activities, shall be submitted to the Council at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of construction, and agreed (in consultation with Historic Environment Division) prior to construction works commencing on site. Reason: To safeguard existing listed structures adjacent to the site.

15

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0612/RM

1




8 May 2017


Application Reference LA05/2016/1062/O

Date of Application 24 October 2016

District Electoral Area Castlereagh East

Proposal Description Residential development of 85 houses with associated open space and road access junction

Location Lands between 20 and 26 Comber Road, Carryduff.

Applicant/Agent Fraser House (NI) Ltd/Iain Stewart Ltd





1. This application is categorised as a major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the development is comprised of more than 50 units and the area of the site exceeds 2 hectares.



3. The application site measures approximately 4.46 hectares in size and comprised of a greenfield parcel of land that lies between an existing detached dwelling (No 20 Comber Road) and associated shed to the west and a cluster of dwellings around the junction of Comber/Cadger Road to the east.

4. The site is divided into a number of existing fields separated by boundaries of mature deciduous trees and hedging and some post and wire fencing. There is a small watercourse which cuts through the centre of the site, this flows from north to south and becomes culverted where the site abuts the Comber Road.

APPENDIX 1.5PM

2

The southern boundary, which fronts to Comber Road, is partly defined by a concrete post and wire fence over its western half whilst the eastern half is defined by a mature mixed species hedgerow.

5. The overall topography of the site is undulating with the site relatively flat at the

front (southern end) of the site with land levels rising further back towards the north and north east.

6. The area is semi-rural on the edge of the built up area associated with

Carryduff. There is a mixture of land uses in the vicinity of the site including agricultural, residential properties, industrial warehouse and commercial businesses, particularly to the south west.

7. The north eastern boundary of the site along Cadger Road forms the settlement

development limit of Carryduff as defined within the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. This site lies within Housing Zoning CF 04/05 of BMAP.


8. The development proposes 85 houses with associated open space, internal roads and access to the Comber Road to include the provision of a right turning pocket into the site.

9. The application is accompanied by a Drainage Assessment, Community Consultation Report, Ecological Assessment, Transport Assessment Form and a Design and Access Statement.


10. The relevant planning history includes the following:



Y/2001/0444/O Housing development Withdrawn 27.09.2001

Y/2002/0183/O Housing development Refused 09.03.2007

Pre – Application Notice Procedure

11. It is a requirement under Section 27 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 that the

applicant submits to Council a ‘proposal of application notice’ (PAN), to consult the community in advance of submitting the application and subsequently compile and submit a Pre Application Community Consultation Report (PCCC) with the proposal.

3

12. This procedure was carried out within the context of LA05/2016/0713/PAN and the application was accompanied by a Community Consultation Report detailing the method and extent of public consultation with local residents and political representatives.

13. The report specified issues raised during the Community Exhibition Event on

11th August 2016 and subsequent correspondence between the Architect and interested parties. The issues raised through this process included the following: Traffic and transport concerns; Drainage concerns; Pressure on services in Carryduff; Concerns about the connectivity of the housing areas; Relationship with adjacent Baronsgrange scheme; Concerns on adjacent existing business on Cadger Road; The related community benefits of the scheme.

14. A number of these points were discussed and clarified by the architect at the

public event. This included clarification that there was no intention to access the site from Cadger Road and a 5 metre band of screen planting would be included along this site boundary. In terms of the detailed design and layout such considerations would be dealt with at reserved matters stage. Some of the other issues including the housing mix, pressure on local services, transport concerns and drainage matters were subsequently addressed through correspondence with key interested parties.

15. The Community Consultation Report also includes in Appendix 1 a copy of a

letter to Carryduff Regeneration Forum, dated 14 October 2016, which indicates that the developer is agreeable to the contribution of a sum of money towards the provision of play equipment in the locality, subject to outline planning approval being granted by June 2017.

16. Separately the applicant also entered into pre-application discussions with the

Council to enable engagement with some of the key statutory consultees and identify issues which would need to be addressed as part of the planning application.



Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) -

Planning for Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 - Natural Heritage. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 - Quality Residential Environments

4

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 8 - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 13 – Transportation and Land Use Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 - Planning and Flood Risk.

Consultations


Consultee Response

Transport NI No objections subject to conditions re streets and parking layouts.

NI Water No objections subject to informatives re connection to sewerage and water infrastructure.

NIEA Natural Heritage No objection subject to conditions re stream to remain unculverted and all boundary vegetation to be retained. Also informatives recommended to advise of protection of badgers and other wild animals.

NIEA Water management No objections subject to conditions relating to Construction Method Statement. Also informatives and agreement of NI water to connect to main sewers.

NIEA Waste Management No objection subjection to conditions re the identification of any new contamination during site works.

Environmental Health No objections subject condition requiring foul sewage to be connected to main sewer.

Rivers Agency No objections, drainage assessment acceptable.

Representations

19. 2 letters of objections have been received to date. The issues raised include the following: Overlooking and loss of privacy; Loss of light; Traffic congestion and associated noise; The development will cause pollution; Devaluation of property; Impact on existing access and safety; Boundary treatments not shown on application.

5


20. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: Principle of Development Regional Planning Context Local Development Plan Context Access, Movement and Parking Quality Residential Environments


Drainage issues Outdoor Space and Recreation Natural Heritage Interests


21. This outline application proposes 85 houses and associated site works to be located within Carryduff Settlement Development Limit and within land zoned for housing as designated within the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015.

22. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), published in September 2015, indicates that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.




25. An important consideration in this regard is that this proposal is located on land

zoned for housing within the LDP and it is therefore contended that the principle of development at this site is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other relevant material planning considerations.

6


26. The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 is the spatial strategy of the Stormont Executive and seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and while not a binding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

27. Policy RG8 of the RDS aims to manage housing growth in order to achieve sustainable patterns of residential development. This policy notes that an adequate and available supply of quality housing is needed to meet the needs of everyone, and that housing land will be identified in development plans, with the delivery of any housing dependant on the availability of water resources and sewerage capacity.

Local Development Plan Context

28. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that the determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

29. The Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 is the applicable up to date local development plan (LDP). The application site lies within land zoned for housing CF 04/05. The Plan identifies that 6.23 hectares are zoned for housing as part of this designation and includes a number of key site requirements including: A Concept Master Plan to facilitate the comprehensive development of the

site shall be submitted to and agreed with the Department (now Council);

30. The proposal does not include the entirety of the zoning however a Site Concept Plan has been submitted showing the general arrangement of the proposed dwellings in addition to the development of the site immediately to the west, previously approved by Committee in March 2017. This includes the potential for cycle links between the two sites. A Transport Assessment (TA), agreed with Roads Service, DRD (now

Transport NI, DfI), shall be required to identify any necessary improvements to the road network/public transport/transportation facilities in the area. In addition to the need for a TA, and the requirements identified therein, an initial assessment of this specific development site indicates that as a minimum, the following improvements shall be required:-

- Improvements to Comber Road along the site frontage, work to

include provision of a right pocket into the site;

7

31. Some of these details have been submitted as part of this outline application, including both the creation of acceptable visibility splays for access and a right hand turning pocket.

- Improvements to junctions at Comber Road/Saintfield Road/Church Road and Carryduff Roundabout;

32. The drawing indicating the Saintfield Road/Comber Road/Church Road

Junction has been submitted as part of the application and the details submitted by the Applicant suggest a phased approach which would see a maximum of 55 units occupied prior to any junction improvements taking place, with the final 30 units being constructed and occupied once these junction works have taken place.

33. It should be noted that the adjacent approval (March 2017) including a condition of the phasing of dwellings to ensure this junction upgrade is undertaken. The site layout shall be designed to provide for maximum permeability by

bus services. 34. The Transport Assessment Form submitted with the application states that the

development proposes to provide pedestrian and cyclist connectivity which would allow residents to access the bus services operating through the recently approved adjacent development.

35. It is noted that a full Transport Assessment has not been submitted in this case however Transport NI have indicated that the Transport Assessment Form (TAF) has provided an appropriate level of detail to allow a full assessment of the application and traffic impact on the existing public roads within the local area, and that no further details are required under this application.

36. Further details relating to the impact on the local road network is discussed in the next section.


37. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitment to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.

38. Policy AMP2 of PPS3 – Access to Public Roads will grant access to the site

from a public road provided it does not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic.

39. In this regard Transport NI, in its consultation response, is satisfied that the

proposal can achieve a suitable access from Comber Road, subject to conditions including visibility splays of 4.5 x 215 metres. Further conditions

8

relate to reserved matters at the detailed design stage, including approval of Private Streets design drawings and the provision of the right hand turning lane.

40. Policy AMP7 of PPS3 – Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements requires

proposals to provide adequate provision for car parking and appropriate servicing arrangements.

41. Based on the illustrative site layout plan for this proposal Transport NI is

satisfied that in principle adequate parking provision can be provided for each dwelling, subject to detailed design at reserved matters stage in accordance with published Parking Standards/Creating Places.


42. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments.

43. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It

states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. It directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

44. Whilst an illustrative layout has been provided this proposal is for outline

planning permission only, however the following criteria of Policy QD1 are applicable.

Impact on Character of Area

45. In terms of the indicative site layout it is contended that this proposal is acceptable when compared with other developments in the vicinity, particularly the recently approved Baronscourt Development to the west.

46. Given that the application is an outline application no detailed plans have been provided to show the proposed buildings in terms of their layout, scale, proportions, massing and appearance of buildings. These matters are reserved.

47. In principle the context of this proposal is considered to be acceptable on the

basis of the site’s zoning within the LDP.

Residential Amenity

48. With regard to residential amenity considerations, it is contended that the Concept Plan demonstrates that sufficient separation distances are achievable between each of the proposed dwellings and in relation to their position and context to existing dwellings in the vicinity of the site.

9

49. In light of this, it is considered that the proposed dwellings will not create conflict or unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance. This aspect of the proposal would be further considered at the detailed design stage of a future reserved matters application.

Landscaping/ Amenity Space 50. Policy QD1 of PPS7 requires adequate provision be made for public and private

open space and landscaped areas as an integral part of new developments.

51. The illustrative concept plan indicates that an acceptable level of private amenity space for the overall development would be achievable. The plan indicates that no dwelling will have less than 40 square metres of private open space provision, the average for the site as a whole is likely to be more than 70 sq metres per dwelling based on the plans submitted.

52. Landscaping and management plans have been submitted to indicate the

retention and maintenance of existing landscaping on the site along with indicative positions, species and canopy spread of proposed landscaping. Provisions for the retention and augmentation of landscaping is considered appropriate to ensure the proposal does not significantly impact upon existing dwellings and to aid integration within the wider area context.

Public Open Space

53. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out the planning policies for the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development. Open space is essential for both amenity and recreation purposes and often contributes positively to the character, attractiveness and vitality of our cities, towns and villages.

54. As this proposal exceeds an area of one hectare Policy OS2 of PPS8 directs

that open space must form an integral part of this development and that a normal expectation will be the provision of such space on at least 10% of the total site area.

55. It should be acknowledged that whilst this is an outline planning application and

the level of detail for the proposal is to be reserved, areas of open space have been demonstrated throughout the site on the ‘illustrative plan’.

56. As Policy OS2 of PPS8 clearly states the normal expectation is the provision of

at least 10% open space, the precise amount and location of such should be confirmed within a future reserved matters application to demonstrate compliance with this policy.

Drainage Issues

57. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out policy to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment. The susceptibility of all land

10

to flooding is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

58. A Drainage Assessment was submitted in accordance with Policy FLD3 of PPS15 to demonstrate that the site, developed as proposed and any other surrounding lands, will not flood during extreme weather events. A storm drainage layout and associated modelling was submitted to demonstrate that the site drainage system is adequate to maintain a greenfield run off rate during a 1 in 100 year flooding event.

59. Surface water is to be diverted to existing watercourses and consent to

demonstrate that storm water run-off from the site can be safely discharged has been granted under Schedule 6 of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973.

60. As has previously been described a watercourse flows through the centre of the site. The proposal involves a limited amount of culverting in certain places to accommodate access roads within the site.

61. Policy FLD 4 of PPS15 only allows limited culverting of watercourse where

such access is necessary. It is considered the limited culverting, as indicated on the illustrative site layout plans, are acceptable in this case.

Natural Heritage Interests

62. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage, sets out the planning polices for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.

63. The application site is located in close proximity to an area of sensitivity for

priority habitats and species including badgers. An Ecological Assessment was submitted by the Applicant in support of the application. This assessment included a fauna survey that investigated the site for evidence of otters, badgers, rabbits, bats, smooth newts, birds.

64. In considering the likely impact on protected species the assessment found no

evidence of badgers or otters on the site and concludes that impacts on these mammals are likely to be low.

65. Some of the trees along the boundaries of the site were assessed as offering

moderate potential for roosting bats. The survey notes these trees are to be retained and protected during development of the site. No suitable smooth newt habitat has been identified, therefore the likelihood of impacts on this species is considered to be low.

66. Furthermore, the assessment concluded that in order to protect nesting birds

within the site, any removal of vegetation should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season.

67. NIEA Natural heritage were consulted and have advised they have no concerns

based on the findings of the Ecological Assessment, the indicative layout and the concept plan.

11

68. NIEA have recommended a number of conditions which include the retention of the open watercourse, associated vegetation and all boundary vegetation shall be retained and maintained. These conditions are considered to be reasonable.


69. Two letters of objection were received. The following issues were raised:

Overlooking/loss of privacy

70. This is an outline planning application with limited details, including an illustrative site concept plan. The Council is not bound to the detail of the illustrative plans submitted and the exact layout will only be determined with a forthcoming reserved matters application.

71. This illustrative plan does indicate that the majority of proposed buildings are to be located away from existing dwellings outwith the site. The closest existing residential units are No. 28 Comber Road and No. 4 Cadger Road which lie adjacent to the south east corner of the proposal.

72. The illustrative plan also shows that the positioning of new dwellings are a

similar distance from the boundary that separates those dwellings and the site. No 26 Comber Road is approximately 25 metres east of proposed dwellings and at this distance it is not considered to be a significant issue. Proposed dwellings are also shown on the illustrative plan adjacent to outbuildings associated with No. 20 Comber Road, to the west of the site. These dwellings, although closer to the site boundary, are not considered to significantly impact upon that property.

73. It should be noted that the site boundary would be subject to the establishment

of landscaping to further protect the amenity of existing dwellings. On balance, it would appear from the information provided, including the layout and orientation of the dwellings, distance and existing vegetation and boundary treatments that it is unlikely that the proposal would lead to significant levels of overlooking and loss of privacy. However as mentioned above, the illustrative plan is subject to further consideration at reserved matters which allows further detailed assessment of this issue.

Loss of light

74. Given the distances already mentioned it is not envisaged that the development proposal would lead to a significant level of overshadowing at existing properties. Details including heights of proposed dwellings and finished floor levels would be provided at reserved matters stage and would allow a more detailed assessment of this issue, with amendments requested if necessary.

12

The development will cause pollution

75. The objection received did not define what type of pollution would be caused. With regards to the potential for water pollution, Water Management Unit have recommended a condition requiring a construction method statement to be submitted if works are to take place close to watercourses in order to prevent pollution during the construction phase. As there is a watercourse running through the site, and the proposal requires limited culverting, it is likely that such a statement will be required. The Applicant will be expected to fully adhere to the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 once the development has been constructed and occupied.

76. In addition to the granted consent to discharge surface water to a watercourse, foul sewage will be disposed through the mains sewer. NI Water has advised that there is available capacity for the connection of a foul sewer. Such a sewer may need to be requisitioned to serve this development. It is therefore considered this proposal will not cause detrimental pollution to water or land resources.

77. In terms of the potential for air and noise pollution Environmental Health notes

that noise and odours may result from the close proximity to an existing farm located nearby and any prospective owner should be advised that nuisance action cannot be used to subsequently address these prevailing conditions. It is, however, not considered that this issue, particularly in the context of the zoning of this site, would provide a reason for refusal in this case.

Devaluation of property

78. There is no evidence provided as to why this would be the case. This issue is difficult to quantify and in this case has not been quantified. Nevertheless devaluation of property would not considered to be a material planning consideration.

Impact on existing access and safety

79. The development has proposed visibility splays of 4.5m x 215m to Comber Road. Objections have been received concerning the impact of the development on visibility when accessing existing dwellings directly west of the site.

80. Transport NI have been consulted on the matters raised in the objections and have advised that existing accesses with poor visibility standards would be the responsibility of the residents who may wish to engage with the developer to see if the situation can be improved.

81. The proposal contains a right hand turning lane and widening of Comber Road

which should increase the visibility for all accesses. It would be the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that they are control of all the land to ensure that the indicated visibility splays are implemented in full.

13

Traffic congestion and associated noise

82. Transport NI have been consulted on this application and on the basis of the information provided within the Transport Assessment Form (TAF) it has not been indicated that the proposal would lead to unacceptable levels of congestion in the local area.

83. Proposals have been put forward to upgrade the Saintfield Road/Comber Road/Church Road Junction and the TAF has proposed phasing the development to only allow 55 units to be constructed and occupied prior to this work taking place.

84. Neither Transport NI or Environmental Health have raised any concerns

regarding noise generated from the additional vehicles which would access the site and on this basis it is not envisaged that such an issue would cause adverse impact on neighbouring residents.

Boundary treatments not shown on application

85. This is an outline planning application therefore issues relating to boundary treatments including hard and soft landscaping would be submitted as part of any reserved matters application.

86. Nevertheless, NIEA Natural Environment Division has recommended a condition requesting that all boundary vegetation shall be retained as part of any future development at the site.

Conclusions

87. Based on careful consideration of all material considerations, it is contended that the proposal satisfies all of the relevant planning policies, including the extant local development plan, and will not cause detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties.

Recommendations

88. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

Conditions


As required by Section 62 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Council within 3 years of the date on which this permission is granted and the development, hereby permitted, shall be begun by whichever is the later of the following dates:

14

(i) the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission; or (ii) the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of

the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: Time limit

Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of

the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), shall be obtained from the Council, in writing, before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Council to consider in detail the proposed development of the site.

The under-mentioned reserved matters shall be as may be approved, in writing, by the Council :-

Siting; the two dimensional location of buildings within the site. Design; the two dimensional internal arrangement of buildings and uses and the floor space devoted to such uses, the three dimensional form of the buildings and the relationship with their surroundings including height, massing, number of storeys and general external appearance. External appearance of the Buildings; the colour, texture and type of facing materials to be used for external walls and roofs. Means of Access; the location and two dimensional design of vehicular and pedestrian access to the site from the surroundings, circulation and car parking. Landscaping and open space; the use of the site not covered by building(s) and the treatment thereof including the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs, grass, the laying of hard surface areas, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks and associated retaining walls, screening by fencing, walls or other means, the laying out of gardens and the provisions of other amenity features, including public open space.

Reason: To enable the Council to consider in detail the proposed development of the site.

Full particulars, detailed plans and sections of the reserved matters

required in Conditions 01 and 02 shall be submitted in writing to the Council and shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To enable the Council to consider in detail the proposed development of the site.

A scale plan and accurate site survey at 1:200 (minimum) shall be

submitted as part of the reserved matters application showing the access to be constructed generally in accordance with Drawing No 08 dated by Planning 24 Oct 2016 to include the following requirements:

15

Visibility splays of 4.5 x 215 metres. Access gradient max 4% for the first 10 metres from the public road boundary. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order (NI) 2015 no garages shall be sited closer than 6.0 metres from the back of the footway or the near edge of a shared surface carriageway. Reason: To ensure that there is space for a parked vehicle without encroaching onto the footway or service strip.

The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. The development shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Department's Creating Places Design Guide and, for the purpose of adopting private streets as public roads, the Department shall determine the width, position and arrangement of the streets associated with the development and the land to be regarded as comprised in those streets. Reason: To ensure there is a safe and convenient road system within the development and to comply with the provisions of the Private Street (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.

No other development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the

road works indicated generally on Drawing No. 08 date stamped 24 Oct 2016 have been fully completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Council at Reserved Matters stage. Reason: To ensure that the road works considered necessary to provide proper, safe and convenient means of access to the site are carried out at the appropriate time.

At Reserved Matters Stage parking and servicing shall be in accordance

with the requirements of the Department’s current published Parking Standards / Creating Places. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities to meet the needs of the development and in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

The development hereby permitted shall not be adopted) until any

(highway structure/retaining wall/culvert) requiring Technical Approval, as specified in the Roads (NI) Order 1993, has been approved and constructed in accordance with BD2 Technical Approval of Highways Structures : Volume 1: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Reason: To ensure that the structure is designed and constructed in accordance with BD2 Technical Approval of Highways Structures: Volume 1: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

The development hereby permitted shall not be adopted until any

Geotechnical activities which require Geotechnical Certification has been

16

submitted to Engineering Policy and Parking Services through the relevant Division and been approved and constructed in accordance with the Department for Regional Development’s Geotechnical Certification procedures as laid down in the current version of HD 22 Managing Geotechnical Risk: Volume 4: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Reason: To ensure that geotechnical feature is designed and constructed in accordance with HD 22 Managing Geotechnical Risk: Volume 4: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the

Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. No more than 55 dwellings of the development hereby permitted, shall be occupied, until the road improvements at Comber Road / Saintfield Road / Church Road junction have been completed in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Department as indicated generally on Drawing No. 10 bearing the date stamp 24 Oct 2016. The Department may attach to any determination a requirement under Article 3(4A) of the above Order that such works shall be carried out in accordance with an agreement under article 3 (4C). Reason: To ensure that the road works considered necessary to provide a proper, safe and convenient means of access to the development are carried out.

Foul sewage shall be connected to the main sewer with Northern Ireland

Water approval. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to odour.

A detailed Construction Method Statement for in/near water works must

be submitted to Council, for consultation with NIEA Water Management Unit, at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of construction. Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the protection of the water environment.

If during the development works, new contamination or risks to the water

environment are encountered which have not previously been identified, works should cease and the Council shall be notified immediately. This new contamination shall be fully investigated in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). In the event of unacceptable risks being identified, a remediation strategy shall be agreed with NIEA in writing, and subsequently implemented and verified to its satisfaction. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.

After completing any remediation works required under Condition ( ) and

prior to occupation of the development, a verification report shall be submitted in writing and agreed with NIEA. This report should be completed by competent persons in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). The verification report should present all the remediation and monitoring works

17

undertaken and demonstrate the effectiveness of the works in managing all the risks and achieving the remedial objectives. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.

The watercourse and associated vegetation on site shall be retained and

incorporated into the proposal at reserved matters. The watercourse shall remain unculverted, with the exception of those locations for access purposes only, as generally indicated on Drawing 02A dated 13th April 2017. Reason: To maintain the biodiversity value of the site.

All existing trees and hedges on the boundaries of the site shall be

retained and incorporated into the proposal as presented at reserved matters, except where necessary to provide safe access including visibility splays. Reason: To maintain the biodiversity value of the site, ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

A detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Council for

approval at Reserved Matters stage providing detail of species, siting, planting distances, presentation and programme of planting. It shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained and measures for their protection during the course of the development. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees, and the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

After occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, if any retained tree or

hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies another tree(s) or hedge shall be planted at the same place, shall be of such size and species and shall be planted at such time as may be specified by the Council. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and hedges.

If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub

or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Council, seriously damaged or defective, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

A landscape management and maintenance plan shall be submitted to

and approved by the Council at reserved matters stage. The plan shall set out the period of the plan, long term objectives, management responsibilities, performance measures and maintenance schedules for all

18

areas of public landscaping and open space. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. Reason: To ensure successful establishment and ongoing management and maintenance (in perpetuity) of the open space and amenity areas in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

19

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/1062/O

1




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions Apply) - 3rd Addendum


Date of Application 27 May 2016

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description Proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years)

Location Lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn

Applicant/Agent JIPCO / Turley

Representations 6 letters of support, 11 letters of objection




1. A recommendation to refuse planning permission was first presented to the

Planning Committee in November 2016 as it was considered that the application as presented, failed to comply with the relevant policy tests of AMP 10 and 11 of PPS 3 in that no need had been identified and that no robust analysis had been provided to show that a need exists for a car park which could not be met in the short term by the Department or private sector.

2. Subsequent addendum reports have been prepared to take account of

additional information. The application was withdrawn from the April Schedule to provide opportunity for late information to be further considered and for time to be provided for the Council to seek clarification as appropriate.

3. The recommendation in respect of this application remains as per the initial DM

Officer Report and the recommendation associated with the subsequent Addendum reports. It is however important to note that additional refusal reasons relating to the Local Development Plan have now been recommended following a further review of supporting information.

APPENDIX 1.6(a)PM

2

Additional Information

4. The following representations (on behalf of the owner of Graham Gardens Multi

storey car park) were received just prior to the April 2017 meeting

Representation from Elevate Planning dated 27 March 2017 – ANNEX A Representation from Elevate Planning with Independent Parking Study –

ANNEX B Representation from Elevate Planning with Independent Review by

Oxford Economics – ANNEX C 5. The matters raised in each of the representations are considered in the section

below and copies have been appended to the report for ease of reference. Consideration of Additional Information

Representation from Elevate Planning dated 27 March 2017 – ANNEX A

6. This representation sought to rebut the Parking Justification document

submitted by Turley on behalf of the applicant. It claims that the objector’s authorised car park has lost substantial income during the years of operation of the subject application site.

7. The objector (Elevate Planning) points out an incorrect inference by Turley that

the SPPS gives Councils the authority to dispense with policy as they see fit.

8. The transitional arrangements are in place until such times as the Plan Strategy is adopted which is likely to be early 2019 according to the published timetable.

9. It is important to note that these transitional arrangements, (as referenced in

the second addendum report), retain the policies of PPS 3 and where the SPPS is less prescriptive that should not be judged to lessen the weight of the retained policies.

10. This reinforces the need test contained within both AMP 10 & 11 and the

SPPS, which the applicant has failed to satisfy.

11. The objection goes on to acknowledge that in the absence of the Council’s own parking strategy the provisions of the SPPS still apply. The entirety of the paragraph referred to in the SPPS also reinforces a need test.

12. The objector sets out their rationale why the SPPS requirements are not

satisfied. The rationale includes the following: Para 6.305 of the SPPS requires the decision taker to consider the need

for a car parking proposal. No need has been established.

3

It requires the decision taker to reference the councils overall parking strategy. There isn’t yet an adopted council strategy.

It requires a robust analysis of need to be submitted by the applicant. None has been submitted.

It requires that the planning authority should consult with “DRD or the relevant transport authority”. Despite an unsupported assertion by Turley’s, Transport NI is clearly the relevant authority. Having consulted with TNI, and with a response from TNI which says that there is no need for the proposal, it is clear that the proposal fundamentally fails the tests set out in the aforementioned applicable policies.

13. The conclusion of this representation states that “The subject application has

been remitted to the Council by the High Court as the previous decision to approve the application was unlawful. The document submitted by Turley is a roadmap which, if followed, will lead the Council into manifest legal error once again. In the absence of a demonstrable need for the proposal, together with an absence of support in either policy or in the area plan, the only decision which the Council can properly take is to refuse the application.”

14. By way of summary, the objector confirms that despite the introduction of the SPPS, the need test is still the relevant test to be satisfied. Given that no such case of need has been proven in this instance, it is contended that the findings set out in this representation are reasonably robust as they accord with the current assessment made by professional officers.

Representation from Elevate Planning with Independent Parking Study – ANNEX B

15. The second representation was dated 20 March 17. It was submitted on behalf of the owners of the Graham Gardens multi storey car park and included a study into the availability/capacity of parking provision in Lisburn carried out by Kevin McShane, an independent transportation expert.

16. The study was carried out over a period 24 Feb 17 to 14 Mar 17. It took into

account the parking provision for Graham Gardens multi storey car park, Bow Street Mall multi storey car park, the Antrim Street surface level car park and Jordans Mill car park. The surveys were taken in the mid AM (around 11:00) and the mid PM (around 3:00pm) each day consecutively.

17. Several tables and graphs were submitted which detailed the AM and PM data

each day that the survey results were collated (24 Feb – 14 Mar 17). Survey results taken from an average of every day of the study period, at the average AM (11am) and average PM times (3pm) that 1243 remained available in the AM period and 1281 remained available in the PM period.

18. The study states that retail demand at Lisburn can peak on a Saturday, which

would seem logical. Being the busiest day for shoppers of the week.

4

19. A summary table of averages for the three Saturdays (3 busiest days) which spanned the duration of the survey was provided to show clearly on average that from a total availability of spaces of 1820, that in the AM surveys, 1165 spaces remained available and in the PM 1197 spaces remained available.

20. The independent review by Kevin McShane states that having examined the availability of car parking in the immediate area there is no justification of need to provide for additional parking in this part of Lisburn and even at the busiest times, as there are over 1000 spaces available.

21. It is therefore considered that this review, provides clear evidence that there is

no need for this temporary car park development. Furthermore, it is considered that the statistical analysis of parking availability in the area is robust in that it carried out over a reasonable survey period and its conclusions demonstrate that at busiest periods, there is an overprovision of parking (in excess of 1000 spaces) available within the surveyed area.

Representation from Elevate Planning with Independent Review by Oxford Economics – ANNEX C

22. The third representation submitted on 28 March 17 on behalf of the owners of

the Graham Garden multi-storey car park appended an independent review compiled by Oxford Economics based on the information contained within the parking justification report submitted by Turley.

23. In terms of evidence, this review points out Transport NI’s maintained position

that based upon their surveys there is no need for additional parking provision in Lisburn Town Centre.

24. The Turley Parking Justification document states that the parking ‘is needed in

the meantime to sustain the vitality and viability of the city centre pending redevelopment of the land for shops, offices and apartments’. This document is based on surveys undertaken with users of the car park and with local retail firms. The Oxford Economics review criticises the sampling techniques used as being not robust or random and not representative of the actual population with the shopper survey, and as being too small to be representative and open to bias. In addition, it asks only asks existing users of the car park for their thoughts, rather than a random sample exercise in the town centre.

25. The Oxford Economic Review was critical of the survey technique used to

inform the Turley parking justification document in that the business survey did not inform the respondent when Jordon’s Mill car park closed and reopened — a key component of subsequent performance questions. The business survey was also not specific as to how this unspecified closure period impacted the businesses surveyed (e.g. footfall, sales, etc). Also, there was no indication of how the alleged performance change was measured during this period (i.e. in comparison to the previous week’s trading, previous month, etc).

5

26. It is noteworthy that similar surveys were submitted during the appeal of the previous application for a 1 year temporary permission and in that instance they were supposed to demonstrate a case of need. The surveys were not found to demonstrate need but demonstrated a desire of surrounding retailers to have a car park operate next to their business which is convenient and prevents a competitor from opening beside them.

27. The Turley justification gives no robust evidence based survey analysis, e.g.

comparable upturn/downturn in trade when the car park is open or closed. It is therefore contended that because of the “fundamental failings” identified by Oxford Economics these surveys can only be afforded “the most minimal of weight”.

28. The Oxford Economics review took on board the findings from Kevin McShane

and found them to be of a much greater relevance than the surveys produced by Turley as they were based on actual parking availability statistics.

29. The conclusions of this review are that there is no need for additional parking

provision within the city centre. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the operation of this car park attracts additional shoppers and therefore additional consumer spending. As such approval of the application will simply displace parking that would have happened at other nearby sites in the city centre. Oxford Economics therefore conclude that “Consequently, there is no evidence that the proposed development would provide a positive net economic impact to Lisburn Town Centre”.

30. By way of conclusion, the second addendum report associated with this

assessment demonstrated shortcomings in the Turley parking justification document. The findings and conclusions reached in the Oxford Economic review appear rationale taking into account various pieces of evidence associated with the application.

Summary

31. Further to the receipt and discussion of additional information in the 2nd

addendum, there are a number of pieces of additional evidence which need to be considered prior to making a decision.

32. As indicated above, the additional information appears robust and based on sound interpretation of policy and data analyses/survey techniques.

33. As discussed in the second addendum, the Council is in receipt of the statistics

from Bow Street Mall which demonstrate how occupancy rates relate to the parking availability in the Lisburn area. They provide robust evidence that there are at all times over provision of parking in the area. It demonstrates an occupancy rate of between 6% - 60% within the Bow Street Mall Multi Street Car Park. These are reinforced by Transport NI’s own parking availability

6

survey which was relied upon for the previous appeal heading and found to be robust.

34. Furthermore, there is now the Oxford Economics report from an independent

economic expert which reinforces the statistical analysis of parking availability carried out by Kevin McShane, all which prove that there is no need for a car park at this location. This is based on the robust analysis of a parking survey which clearly demonstrates that there is an overprovision of parking in the city centre. Approval of a car park would simply displace parking that would have happened at other nearby sites in the city centre. As indicated above, the review carried out by Oxford Economics concluded “Consequently, there is no evidence that the proposed development would provide a positive net economic impact to Lisburn Town Centre”.

35. The argument is made by the Agent within the Parking Justification report that

refusal of this application would result in a vacant site which does not contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

36. It is considered that the use of this site as a car park is not only contrary to

policy but its use does not contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre. Its use as a private car park generates income to the owner, it does not draw people to the city centre for any particular purpose. The profitability of such a use prevents any real effort/commitment being shown for progress of the reserved matters application as there is no evidence that the proposed development would provide a positive net economic impact to Lisburn Town Centre and that the car park will simply displace parking which otherwise could have been accommodated elsewhere.

37. The application seeks approval for a two-year period of operation which if

permitted would prevent the owners from beginning to discharge the pre commencement contaminated land conditions for at least two years. In fact there is no robust evidence to show that the closure of the car park would not simply displace the parking provision to those legitimised car parks in the city centre which are currently operating, or that its continued operation would provide any positive net economic impact for the City centre.

38. It is therefore contended that the approval and implementation of the reserved

matters application for apartments, retail and offices is within the spirit of protecting and improving the vitality and viability of the town centre, the primary retail core and the shopping environment, as it will provide for a development that will contribute more positively to their success. Conversely, approval of the current car park application would be contrary to the spirit of improving the vitality and viability of the town centre and would be ultimately damaging to its realisation.

7

Conclusion

39. The Planning Unit is therefore content that the initial DM Officer report and

subsequent addendum reports provide for a relevant and robust assessment of this application and that the reasons for refusal cited previously remain valid.

40. For clarity, and taking into account all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that the application is refused for the following reasons, which include the original reason for refusal on PPS 3 policies AMP 10 and 11, and the addition of Local Development Plan refusal reasons, the basis of which is discussed within the 2nd Addendum: The development is contrary to the SPPS and Planning Policy Statement

3; Access, Movement and Parking: Policy AMP 10; Provision of Public and Private Car Parks and AMP 11; Temporary Car Parks in that:

o A need for car parking within the areas has not been identified by the

Department for Regional Development in a Transport Plan or by the Department of the Environment in a Development Plan;

o The developer has not shown, through a robust analysis, that a need exists for car parking which cannot be met in the short term by the Department or the private sector.

The proposal is contrary to Policy LC46 Area of Parking Restraint of BMAP 2015 in that it is not essential to support new development.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1 Retailing in Town Centres as it

would take the street frontage beyond 25% non-retail use for this potion of Antrim Street.

The proposal is therefore contrary to policy LC43 of BMAP 2015 in that it

fails to contribute to the primary retail core to provide a lively and attractive shopping environment.

8


Appendix 1.6(a)PMANNEX A

Appendix 1.6(a)PMANNEX B

Appendix 1.6(a)PMANNEX C

1




3 April 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions Apply) 2nd Addendum











1. A recommendation to refuse planning permission was presented to the

Planning Committee in November 2016. The cited refusal reasons were: The development is contrary to the SPPS and Planning Policy Statement

3; Access, Movement and Parking: Policy AMP 10; Provision of Public and Private Car Parks and AMP 11; Temporary Car Parks in that:

A need for car parking within the areas has not been identified by the


The developer has not shown, through a robust analysis, that a need exists for car parking which cannot be met in the short term by the Department or the private sector.

2. The application is categorised as a local application and it has been referred to

the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Planning Scheme of Delegation.

APPENDIX 1.6(b)PM

2


Policy Review

4. Having reviewed the Parking Justification document (outlined below) and the

policy changes which have occurred since the determination of the last application for temporary permission (2014/A0043), the Planning Unit have considered the changed context of the SPPS and Plan Led system and would provide the following comments.

5. As outlined in the earlier reports this application falls within an area of parking restraint and the Primary Retail Core for Lisburn City Centre. Within these designations are policies designed to promote sustainable development and promote vitality and viability within the City Centre.

6. By way of further detail the policies are considered as follows:

Primary Retail Core LC43

7. The purpose of identifying a primary retail core is to allow control to be exercised over development inside that area to ensure continuance of a compact, lively and attractive shopping environment. The Primary Retail Core within Lisburn City Centre is the main focus of retail activity and retail investment during the Plan period. It includes the main retail outlets along the pedestrianized Bow Street and comprises the Bow Street Mall, accessed via Bow Street and Antrim Street. The Primary Retail Core also contains banks and professional offices within Market Square and along Bow Street. This designated area also contains the Irish Linen Centre/ Lisburn Museum at Market Square.

8. In the plan led system, and in accordance with the SPPS, the use as a temporary car park within this important site in the Primary Retail Core prevents the site being developed to provide a compact, lively and attractive shopping environment and help the vitality and viability of Lisburn City Centre.

9. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy LC43 of BMAP 2015 in that it fails

to contribute to the primary retail core to provide a lively and attractive shopping environment.

City Centre LC42

10. The proposal is within the city centre boundary. Lisburn City Centre faces a number of design issues including the dominance of road infrastructure and traffic in the city centre. The provision of further private car parking is not considered a suitable use in the city centre, nor will it aid the issues relating to traffic.

3

Area of Parking Restraint LC46

11. The Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan proposes a number of transportation initiatives that will further enhance the accessibility of Lisburn City Centre. In order to encourage greater use of public transport and more walking and cycling, thereby reducing car dependency.

12. It goes on to state that the more effective management of city centre car parking is needed to reduce the amount of long stay parking and to maximise the use of short stay spaces, with no significant expansion of the number of public and private car parking spaces available unless essential to support new development. Parking requirements for new developments will be in accordance with relevant parking standards.

13. This proposal is clearly at odds with both the thrust of the area of parking restraint in terms of reduction in car dependency and it is not essential to support new development.

14. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LC46 Area of Parking Restraint of

BMAP 2015 in the proposal is not essential to support new development.

Car Parking and New Development in City and Town Centres Policy UE3

15. In City and Town Centres, planning permission will not be granted for ground floor car parking along street frontages in association with new or existing development.

16. Car parking will no longer be permitted at ground floor level along street frontages where it would result in dead frontage. It may be situated at street level provided active uses are located along the street edge. In order to promote vitality at street level, new development will be expected to incorporate active uses and positive features at ground floor level such as shop fronts and windows. These features assist in the animation of the street and improve legibility.

17. This policy is considered largely for parking in accordance with new

development and this application is solely for parking therefore it is not applicable, despite providing parking.

Retailing in Town Centres Policy R1

18. Planning permission will be granted for retail development in all town and city centres.

19. Non-retail development will be restricted in designated Primary retail Cores (and primary Retail Frontages) so that no more than 25% of the frontage of the shopping street to which it relates is a non-retail use and no more than 3 adjacent units are non-retail use.

4

20. The Primary Retail Cores will be the preferred location for new comparison and

mixed retail development. Outside designated Primary Retail Cores, planning permission will only be granted for comparison and mixed retail development where it can be demonstrated that there is no suitable site within the Primary Retail Core.

21. The Plan Proposals seek to support the vitality and viability of city and town centres by ensuring that they are the main focus for all retail developments, including convenience, non-bulky comparison and bulky comparison retailing.

22. This application would take the street frontage beyond 25% non-retail use for

this portion of Antrim Street and would therefore be contrary to policy R1.

Tran 1 Parking Standards within areas of Parking Restraint

23. This policy largely allows for a reduced level of parking provision in the city centre but is designed as the parking provision which would accord with plans to develop the site of other uses. It is therefore not overtly applicable in this instance.

Tran 2 Publically Owned Off-Street Surface Car Parks within city and town centres.

24. This policy relates to the development of publically owned car parks. As this is

a privately owned car park then the policy strictly cannot be applied to this application.

25. In general, the SPPS seeks to encourage development at an appropriate scale

in order to enhance the attractiveness of town centres, helping to reduce travel demand.


26. This application was rescheduled for determination by the Planning Committee on 6 March 2017 following the quashing of the planning decision discussed in the 1st Addendum on 6 February 2017.

27. Additional information entitled ‘Parking Justification’ was submitted by the agent

after business on 2 March 2017 necessitating its removal from the schedule for consideration and consultation regarding the information.

28. In addition to this a further letter of objection was received 1 March 2017 and

then on 19 March 2017 which will now also be considered.

5

Parking Justification

29. The applicant has submitted a statement entitled Parking Justification which

concentrates on several key areas: Relevant policy tests New survey information Pending Reserved Matters Application

Relevant Policy tests

30. The main thrust of the policy test consideration for this application is demonstration of need. The Commissioner (2014/A0043) states that ‘need is largely supply and demand’ i.e. how many spaces are available and how many are occupied. It is therefore logical to assume that to prove a need there should be a shortage is parking provision or demonstration that all parking is at capacity.

31. It is noteworthy that the document provided is not entitled parking need, but parking justification.

32. The statement comments that the car park is proposed for the duration of the

period required to secure the Reserved Matters application (LA05/2015/0845/RM) and allow the development to commence on the site. This period has doubled since that cited to the Planning Appeals Commission under (2014/A0043) which requested the temporary car park for a duration of 1 year for the same purpose. Further detail is contained below on the timeline for that Reserved Matters application.

33. The agent states that the planning policy context has changed since the appeal

decision (2014/A0043) and whilst it is acknowledged that the SPPS has been introduced from the decision date, the ‘need test’ is still firmly in place.

34. Within the Transportation Section of the SPPS Paragraph 6.305 of the SPPS

provides comment on the provision of public and private car parks. It states that the planning authority should be satisfied that there is a need for the development by reference to the councils overall parking strategy following a robust analysis by the applicant. In such cases the planning authority should consult with DRD, or the relevant transport authority. Other relevant planning considerations when determining such proposals will include traffic and environmental impacts and the proposals compatibility with adjoining land uses.

35. Under the transitional arrangements, the SPPS states that a transitional period

will operate until such times as a Plan Strategy for the whole of the council area has been adopted. During the transitional period planning authorities will apply existing policy contained within the documents identified below together with the SPPS.

6

36. Whilst it states that any conflict between the SPPS and any policy retained

under the transitional arrangements must be resolved in the favour of the provisions of the SPPS, it goes on to say that where the SPPS introduces a change of policy direction and/or provides a policy clarification that would be in conflict with the retained policy the SPPS should be accorded greater weight in the assessment of individual planning applications. It is not considered that in this instance that the SPPS introduces a new policy direction. In fact the wording is identical in parts referring to a need test and a demonstration of robust analysis by the developer to prove this. Furthermore, where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded to the retained policy. The Planning unit would content that whilst the content of the SPPS might be less prescriptive in detail, the retained policy is PPS 3 which, by virtue of the transitional arrangements, should be afforded full weight in the test of need.

37. The agent goes on to claim that he now provides robust analysis in support of

the development. This is further considered below.

New Survey Information

38. The agent has presented a new survey of 161 people at the entrance of Jordans Mill between 01- 03 Feb 2017. The location of this survey would be directly at users of the car park.

39. Similar surveys were carried out for the previous appeal 2014/A0043 and a petition of support (5500+) and questionnaire (197 responses). These were not deemed sufficient to demonstrate a need for the proposal.

40. Whilst the agent makes a correlation between the opening of the car park and

an increase in trade to the surrounding businesses, it is noteworthy that no such consideration is given to the competing legitimised car parks in the area who claim to suffer a downturn in business as a consequence of the operation of the car park.

41. The Planning Unit are of the opinion that weight cannot be given to the

increased revenue of one business at the expense of another.

42. In any event it is natural that local traders would welcome and support a convenient car park for their customers as it works to their advantage and prevents a competitive alternative use opening.

43. In line with the policy test the additional information has been circulated to

Transport NI for comment who have confirmed the points of concern that no case of need has been demonstrated and the time period is for more than one year which is not in accordance with the policy.

7

Reserved Matters Application

44. Reserved matters application LA05/2015/0845/RM has been in the system for 16 months to date without the necessary information required in order to make a determination.

45. By way of timeline, the crux seems to be the applicant unable to satisfy Transport NI. The timeframes are as follows thus far: Initial TNI response dated 11 April 2016 outlined concerns Amended information was submitted on 18 August 2016 and reconsulted. TNI replied on 16 September 2016 still with concerns. Amendments were submitted on 11 November 2016 On 25 November 2016 TNI still raised concerns Amended drawings submitted by agent on 22 February 2017 TNI response received 9 March 2017 considered the information

unacceptable.

46. The agent claims that they will be in a position to secure the RM by the end of April 2017 however this is not certain given the dissatisfaction with TNI.

Further Objections

47. Two further objections have been received from the owners of Bow Street Mall

which reiterates the policy requirement of PPS 3 policies AMP 10 and 11 and the ‘need’ test which has not been demonstrated.

48. They also point to this part of the policy which states that temporary permission will only be for 1 year and not normally renewed. These points have been raised in the case officer’s report.

49. They reiterate the findings of appeal 2014/A0043 in relation to need which

accepted there was no need for parking provision based on a TNI survey that showed considerable available capacity.

50. The same agent’s Transport Assessment form submitted for reserved matters

application LA05/2015/0845/RM offers parking provision for the residential units only and none for the retail and office uses proposed. The justification is that ‘there are a number of existing public car parks in the vicinity of the development (i.e. Bow Street Mall, Graham Gardens) that have spare capacity and are capable of accommodating any increased demand generated by the proposed development.’

8

51. It is therefore illogical to state that there is a need for this temporary car park for one application but acknowledge there is no need and in fact spare capacity under another.

52. The objector goes on to provide statistical analysis of the occupancy rates for

Bow Street Mall. The minimum – maximum usage is as follows for 7 consecutive months:

Month Min Max June 6% 48% July 8% 54% August 6% 46% September 6% 53% October 6% 58% November 8% 58% December 10% 60%

53. This is a clear supporting documentation of supply and demand demonstrating

there is spare capacity available.

54. The objector goes onto confirm that there is no significant change in policy direction with the introduction of the SPPS which has been considered in the earlier parts of the addendum. It also reiterates the fact that this does not challenge the view that there is adequate parking provision in the city centre.

55. The objector raises the point that in one hand the agent states that the

contractor is prepared to commence the planned redevelopment in the first quarter of 2017. The first step of which logically would be site clearance. This is at odds with the request to operate a car park on the site for 2 years which would in fact prevent any site clearance of disposal of contaminated lands conditions as required.

56. The reliability of the evidence provided by the agent is questioned in terms of

quality

Conclusion

57. The Planning Unit is therefore content that the original case officer report and

first and second addendum are both relevant and robust and will therefore rely on the assessment and reasons for refusal as previous cited. In addition, under the Plan Led system, the last 3 reasons are added based on policies contained within BMAP 2015.

9

The development is contrary to the SPPS and Planning Policy Statement 3; Access, Movement and Parking: Policy AMP 10; Provision of Public and Private Car Parks and AMP 11; Temporary Car Parks in that: o A need for car parking within the areas has not been identified by the


o The developer has not shown, through a robust analysis, that a need exists for car parking which cannot be met in the short term by the Department or the private sector.

The proposal is contrary to Policy LC46 Area of Parking Restraint of BMAP 2015 in that it is not essential to support new development.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1 Retailing in Town Centres as it would take the street frontage beyond 25% non-retail use for this potion of Antrim Street.

The proposal is therefore contrary to policy LC43 of BMAP 2015 in that it

fails to contribute to the primary retail core to provide a lively and attractive shopping environment.

10


1




6 March 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions Apply) Addendum











1. A recommendation to refuse planning permission was presented to the

Planning Committee in November 2016. The cited refusal reasons were: The development is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3; Access,

Movement and Parking: Policy AMP 10; Provision of Public and Private Car Parks and AMP 11; Temporary Car Parks in that:




2. The application is categorised as a local application and it has been referred to

the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Planning Scheme of Delegation.

APPENDIX 1.6(c)PM

2


Details of Judicial Review

4. Planning permission was granted by Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee on 07 December 2016 for a temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years) on lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn. (Application Ref: LA05/2016/0542/F), the decision was granted by the Committee contrary to the Planning Officers recommendation.

5. Following this decision, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council received two pre-

action protocol letters threatening Judicial Review proceedings. The grounds for challenge are set out in the letters attached (Appendix 2.2(d)PM and appendix 2.2(e)PM).

6. The Council conceded the Judicial Review on the basis that inadequate

reasons were given for the decision.

7. In light of this, the Court ordered that the decision is quashed and must be re-determined in a proper and lawful manner. A copy of the Court Order is attached for your attention (Appendix 2.2(c)PM).

8. The Committee must now re-determine the application on its merits and take

into account all of the information available prior to making a decision.

Summary

9. There has been no additional information submitted since the court challenge of

the application.

10. The Planning Unit is therefore content that the original case officer report is both relevant and robust and will therefore will rely on the assessment and reasons for refusal contained within it.

3


1




7 November 2016

Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions Apply)







Representations 6 letters of support, 6 letters of objection (updated)




1. This application is categorised as a local application. The application has been

referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.



3. The application site is located on Antrim Street, 60m to the South of McKeown Street, Lisburn. It is located within Lisburn City as defined by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. The site also lies within the Primary Retail Core Designation as identified on Map No 02/003, (Lisburn City Centre).

4. The site was occupied and operated as an unauthorised surface level car park until October 2015, it has now ceased trading and is closed.

APPENDIX 1.6(d)PM

2

5. The site previously accommodated mill buildings which were removed and the ground levelled and marked out for parking. There are concrete boundary walls on all sides and an entrance from Antrim Street. A portacabin remains on site along with a barrier arrangement for the vehicles to enter and exit.

6. To the north and east of the site are existing car parks with the multi-storey

Grahams Gardens development to the east. To the south of the site are the service areas to shop units fronting onto Bow Street Mall and to the west are existing retail units.


7. The application is for a proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years)


8. The relevant planning history includes the following.



S/1999/0871/F Single level surface car park – continuation of use for 1 year

Withdrawn

S/2006/1109/F Retention of existing surface level car park for 1 year to run alongside application to redevelop the site.

Refused

S/2007/1372/O Proposed mixed use incorporating apartments, retail units, offices and ancillary site works

Approval

PAC 2010/E093 Change of use to land to a surface level commercial car park – 1 year temporary permission

Appeal allowed – Permission granted

S/2013/0252/F Retention of temporary car park for a period of 1 year

Refused

2014/A0043 Retention of temporary car park for 1 year Appeal dismissed – permission refused

LA05/2015/0845/RM Mixed use development comprising 49 apartments, 4 retail units and 3 offices with access arrangements and associated car parking and landscaping

Under consideration

3



Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement 2015 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking

Consultations

10. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response TransportNI Refusal

Representations

11. Twelve representations have been received in respect of this proposal, 6 in opposition to the proposal and 6 in support. The following issues have been raised in objection:

No need exists for the additional car parking Over provision of parking exists in the city centre Relevant planning history not being given weight Failure to comply with policy tests in AMP 10 and 11

12. The following point was raised in the letters of support

A decline in business turnover from local business close to the car park

since its closure. Consideration and Assessment

13. The main issues to consider in the determination of this full planning application

are: Planning History Principle of Development Access, Movement and Parking Provision of Public and Private Car Parks Temporary Car Parks

4

Planning History

14. The planning history in relation to this application is an important material

consideration in the assessment of the application.

15. The application site was subjected to enforcement action for period in excess of 14 years. The applicant proceeded to run the unauthorised car park despite enforcement action having been initiated by the Department of the Environment as planning authority.

16. Decisions in respect of planning applications S/2015/0252/F and 2010/E093

had been referred to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) twice in the intervening period. In 2015, the commissioner, after conceding to reopen the appeal further to the grounds for judicial challenge, agreed with the Departments decision to refuse the application on the above policy grounds.

17. The appeal was subsequently dismissed leaving the applicant with no other

option but to comply with the requisite enforcement notice which required the caseation of the operation of the car park, including the removal of the kerbs, kiosk and the barriers with the restoration of the land to its former condition. The site has been closed since 19 October 2015.

18. It is contended that the application as presented is essentially a repeat

application with some subtle differences. Namely, the publication of the SPPS, the uncertainty of the position of the LDP given the judicial review of BMAP 2015 and the change of powers to local government and enactment of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

19. In addition to the above, this application seeks temporary approval for a 2 year period, and not one year as previously requested.

20. There is also an application with the Council for the approval of reserved

matters associated with planning application S/2007/1372/O.

Principle of Development 21. The site is located on Antrim Street, 60m to the South of McKeown Street,

Lisburn and is located within Lisburn City as defined by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. The site also lies within the Primary Retail Core Zoning as identified on Map No 02/003, (Lisburn City Centre)

22. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), published in September 2015, indicates that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

5




25. One of the strategic objectives of the SPPS is to promote parking policies that

will assist in reducing reliance on the private car and help tackle growing congestion.

26. The Transportation section in the SPPS continues to state at Para 6.305 that ‘In

determining proposals for public and private car parks, including extensions, the planning authority should be satisfied that there is a need for the development by reference to the councils overall parking strategy following a robust analysis by the applicant. In such cases the planning authority should consult with DRD, or the relevant transport authority’. This policy context is more widely considered within Policy AMP 10 and 11 considerations below.

27. Planning application S/2013/0252/F for the use of same car park for a period of

1 year was refused on 25 April 2015. The associated planning appeal 2014/A0043 was dismissed by the PAC on 22 September 2015. The PAC found that the proposal failed to comply with Planning Policy Statement 3 (Access Movement and Parking) and in particular policy AMP10 and AMP 11.

28. It is contended that policy context and circumstances have not changed since

the previous applications and subsequent appeal was considered and as such, the principle of the proposal as presented is considered to be unacceptable

Access, Movement and Parking.

29. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access Movement and Parking sets out policies

for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitments to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.

30. Policies AMP 10 and 11 of PPS 3 are key policy considerations in the determination of this application.

31. The recent appeal on site 2014/A0043 (S/2013/0252/F) stated that Planning

Policy Statement 3 - Access, Movement and Parking sets out regional policy for the provision of public car parks. Policy AMP 11 - Temporary car parks required such proposals to comply with AMP 10 – Provision of Public and Private Car Parks, and for the developer to show that a need exists which cannot be met in the short or long term. Proposals are to be submitted in conjunction with

6

programmed proposals to develop/redevelop the site, and planning permission will be limited to a period of 1 year.

32. It is considered that the provisions of this policy remain unchanged and are

relevant to the determination of this application. Provision of Public and Private Car Parks

33. Policy AMP 10 - Provision of Public and Private Car Parks relates to the

provision of public and private car parks. This application makes parking provision within the context of a private car park.

34. The policy states that planning permission will only be granted for the development or extension of public or private car park, where it is demonstrated that; They do not significantly contribute to an increase in congestion Are not detrimental to local environmental quality They meet a need identified by the Department for Regional Development

in Transport Plans or accepted by DRD following a robust analysis provided by a developer;

Within defined areas of parking restraint they are only used for short-stay parking and are appropriately managed to deter long stay commuter parking; and

They are compatible with adjoining lands.

Congestion

35. With regard to the congestion consideration, Transport NI has indicated that the proposed use could cause an increase in congestion of 240 vehicle movements per day. Further clarification was received from Transport to advise that congestion has not been recommended as a reason for refusal as the response was based on potential impacts which are not proven.

36. The professional recommendation takes account of the recent planning appeal decision which found that there was no compelling evidence that the appeal car park caused congestion in the wider area. The Commissioner stated that whist there may be queues back onto Antrim Street on occasion, they had not witnessed this and the barrier was set well back from the road. At that time Transport NI did not consider the queues as excessive.

37. Furthermore, Transport NI could not link any accidents to the operation of the

car park and as such, offered no objection on road safety grounds. On this basis, the Commissioner was satisfied that no evidence had been provided to demonstrate that significant congestion would arise.

38. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this would again be the case in light of

there being no evidence that the proposal will significantly contribute to an increase in congestion and that the application as present complies with this first policy criterion.

7

Detrimental to local environmental quality

39. With regard to the potential impacts on local environmental quality considerations, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the proposal will be detrimental to the local environmental quality and as such, it is considered that the proposal complies with this policy criteria. Again this was not an issue which was raised or contended at the recent appeal. Need

40. In relation to a need identified by the Department for Regional Development (DRD) (now Department for Infrastructure) in Transport Plans or acceptance by the DRD following robust analysis provided by a developer it is contended that DRD has not identified any need for parking at this location within Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan (BMTP). In addition, the applicant has failed to provide a robust analysis to demonstrate the car parking need within the immediate area.

41. It is noteworthy that the applicants submitted a series of surveys with their

evidence to the PAC in their consideration of this element of the policy however no such analysis has been submitted to the Council for determination within the context of this application.

42. In a survey of parking availability undertaken by Transport NI in July 2015, and

accepted by the PAC in 2015, figures were produced that showed both the Bow Street Mall and Graham Gardens adjacent car park have approximately 978 & 847 available spaces in the AM & PM peaks respectively.

43. Considering the total of 128 car parking spaces at the Jordan’s Mill car park it is

clearly demonstrated by the Transport NI surveys and accepted by the Commission that there currently exists sufficient spare capacity within existing car parks in the vicinity of the City centre to easily absorb the loss of Jordan’s Mill car parking.

44. Based on this assessment, it is contended that the proposal as presented fails

to demonstrate a need identified by the Department for Regional Development (DRD) in Transport Plans for the provision of a private car park at this location nor has a robust analysis been provided by the Developer to justify the need for a private car park in this area.

45. The recent appeal again provides clarification on the interpretation of need. The

Commissioner in their decision states “Regarding ‘need’ the term is expanded on in para 5.70 of AMP 10’s justification and amplification and advises that within town and city centres it is essential that sufficient short stay public parking facilities are available to maintain economic vitality and viability. Para 5.71 then states that public parking provision should focus on meeting the demand generated by centres for short stay spaces. The overall transportation objective will nevertheless be to restrain the use of the car and encourage shoppers and commuters to use public transport and park and ride initiatives”

8

46. The Commissioner goes on to state that the third criterion for need has to demonstrate that existing car park provision is inadequate to serve the demand generated by the facilities and functions provided in a town or city centre.

47. This has clearly not changed in the intervening time period from 22 September

2015, nor has any further case of need been submitted or demonstrated to overcome the third criterion.

Defined areas of parking restraint

48. In relation to considerations associated with Defined Areas of Parking Restraint, information has been provided by the Agent regarding the pricing structure for the car park which encourages short stay.

49. Transport NI has indicated that the policy criterion in this regard is satisfied in part by the applicant’s justification on their pricing structure. The applicant has failed to demonstrate how long term parking is to be discouraged.

50. As part of the case officer’s assessment of the previous application, a detailed analysis of the pricing structures of Jordan’s Mill and the main pay car parks in the area was carried out and the proposed temporary car park was the cheapest in the short term.

51. The price, after a period of time, increased to a higher level than that of its

competitors. This matter was clarified with Transport NI who were content that the offence of this criterion should not be included as a reason for refusal.

52. The appeal considerations are important in that it dealt with the short term/long term issue and it concluded that ‘in the absence of indications that the proposal in contrary to criterion 4 and 5, the Commissioner concentrated on the first 3’.

Compatibility with adjoining land use considerations

53. Finally, in terms of compatibility with adjoining land use considerations, this was

not raised by any party nor by the PAC previously. The adjoining land uses are city centre uses including retail, commercial, multi storey parking etc. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not incompatible with adjoining land uses.

54. It is however important to note that the Policy AMP 10 states that planning

permission will only be granted where all 5 criterion have been demonstrated.

55. In order to comply with criterion 3, a clear need must be demonstrated. Evidence provided previously within the context of planning application S/2013/0252/F demonstrates surplus car parking availability within Lisburn. It is therefore contended that this evidence and the failure to provide any further robust evidence to the contrary as part of this application reinforces the fact that the application fundamentally fails to satisfy the third criterion associated with policy AMP 10.

9

56. Furthermore, Transport NI considers that surplus availability does not encourage shoppers and commuters to use more sustainable forms of transport such as public transport and park and ride initiates.

Temporary Car Parks

57. The application seeks approval for a proposed temporary surface level car park for a maximum of 2 years.

58. Policy AMP 11 – Temporary Car Parks provides the policy context for temporary car parks in addition to policy AMP 10. It states that planning permission will not be granted for the development of a temporary car park unless it is demonstrated that:

It complies with policy AMP 10 and the developer can show that a need

exists which cannot be met in the short term by the Department or the private sector; and

It is submitted in conjunction with programmed proposals to develop/redevelop the site in question.

59. For the reasons stated above within the context of Policy AMP 10

considerations and due to the fact that there is clear evidence of surplus car parking availability in Lisburn City Centre and that no need has been demonstrated, it follows that this application fails to comply with Policy AMP 11 in that the developer has failed to show that a need exists which cannot be met in the short term by the Department or the private sector.

60. Whilst it could be argued that the application is submitted in conjunction with a programmed proposal of works to redevelop the land as there is currently a live reserved matters application LA05/2015/0845/RM which is under active consideration. The applicant has yet to satisfy the requirements of Transport NI and that the additional information regarding the same remains outstanding.

61. Whilst the Commissioner acknowledged within the 2015 appeal that the reserved matters at that point had not been submitted they did state that the submission of ‘reserved matters application would to my mind meet the thrust of the second criterion of AMP 11’. For this reason, it is not contended that the second criterion has failed.

62. Transport NI has expressed the view that the provision of temporary parking must be seen as a short-term expediency and that the long-term existence of such car parks is contrary to both transportation and the broader environmental objectives.

63. Results of the weekday occupancy Lisburn Town Centre Parking survey

conducted by Transport NI in July 2015 indicate that a total of 3247 spaces are available for use in Lisburn, of which this development accounts for 3.9%.

10

64. When considering the adjacent car parks at Bow Street Mall and Graham Gardens, the under occupancy rates range between 87% to 19% in the AM peak and 74% to 20 % in the PM peak (latest survey carried out 30/07/2015).

65. In light of the survey results referred to above, it is contended that the applicant

has failed to demonstrate a need for parking exists in Lisburn city centre. Furthermore, a survey carried out by Transport NI in July 2015 shows that there is currently a surplus number of parking spaces than required to meet the needs of Lisburn city centre.

66. The appeal acknowledged this point as well and the Commissioner concluded

that ‘in the view of the conclusion reached on policy AMP 10 – and for the same reasons – the failure to comply with the first criterion of AMP 11 in this case overrides any compliance with its second criterion. The proposal thereby fails to meet policy AMP 11.’

67. In light of this assessment, it is considered that the application as presented still fails to satisfy policy AMP 11 of PPS 3 in terms of need.

68. Policy AMP 11 also states that planning permission, if granted will be subject to

a time limited condition of 1 year. The justification and amplification of this policy context states that this type of permission will not normally be renewed.

69. It is important to note that the site has benefited from a temporary permission

for a one year period approved in 2011 along with a number of years unauthorised use.

70. As reflected in the description of the proposed development, the Applicant

seeks permission for a temporary surface level car park for a maximum of 2 years. It is noteworthy in the case submitted to the PAC that the applicant argued that the reserved matters could be on site within 1 year of the approval of a temporary car park. The Reserved Matters application was submitted to the Council on 29 December 2015 and it is still under active consideration. The Transport Assessment which was necessary and conditioned as part of the outline application have not been agreed with Transport NI.

71. The findings of the Commissioner stated that ‘overall there is a range of ample,

acceptable and accessible parking opportunities in a variety of locations in the city centre and the primary retail core’. In that context the commissioner was not persuaded that the preference and desire of people to use the appeal car park was determining in relation to the third criterion of AMP 10.

72. The Commissioner concluded that although the spaces may be convenient,

there is adequate provision of car parking spaces elsewhere in the city centre to meet demand and maintain vitality and viability. The demand for the appeal car park has therefore not been adequately demonstrated. Accordingly the third criterion of AMP 10 is not met. As the proposal fails to meet AMP 10 it also fails to meet the first criterion of AMP 11.

11


73. Six letters of objection were received. The following issues were raised:

Application does not comply with policy PPS 3 AMP 10 and AMP 11 and there is no identified need for the car park.

74. Transport NI has been consulted with the application and have indicated that

there is adequate provision for car parking in the area and there is therefore no need for the proposed car park.

75. A previous planning application for a similar proposal (S/2013/0252/F) was

refused and the subsequent planning appeal was dismissed. 76. It is contended that circumstances have not changed and that the application

should again be refused. 77. Six letters of support have been received, the following points were raised:

Drop in footfall and sales since car park was closed

78. All 6 letters of support for the car park came from adjacent retail units, they

have indicated that since the car park has closed down business has slumped. 79. It is contended that although the car park could provide parking in a convenient

location, there is adequate provision of car parking spaces elsewhere in the city centre to meet demand and maintain vitality and viability.

Conclusion

80. Further to consideration of the development plan, relevant planning policy and

all material considerations, it is contended that the application as submitted offends policies AMP 10 and 11 in PPS3 for the reasons set out below and should therefore be refused.

Recommendation

81. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

The development is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3; Access, Movement and Parking: Policy AMP 10; Provision of Public and Private Car Parks and AMP 11; Temporary Car Parks in that:



12


13


1




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Called-In)


Date of Application 19 February 2016

District Electoral Area Downshire East

Proposal Description Re siting of approved dwelling and garage previously approved under S/2013/0044/F. Incorporating realigned private road.

Location 60m west of 92 Carnreagh, Hillsborough and rear of No 10 Farriers Green, Hillsborough

Applicant/Agent J W & J Porter & Co / J W and J Porter

Representations 5

Case Officer Catherine Gray



1. This application is categorised as a local planning application. It is presented

to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.

2. The application is presented with a recommendation to approve.


3. The site is located 60m West of 92 Carnreagh, Hillsborough and to the rear of 10 Farriers Green. The site is just inside the Settlement Development Limit of Hillsborough.

APPENDIX 1.7PM

2

4. The site is currently vacant and is partly overgrown with vegetation and partly covered in gravel.

5. The southern boundary is defined by fencing, the eastern boundary is partially

undefined, the northern boundary is undefined and the eastern boundary is defined partly by existing mature vegetation and is partially undefined.


6. The application as presented is for full permission for the re siting of approved dwelling and garage previously approved under S/2013/0044/F, incorporating realigned private road.





LA05/2015/0683/NMC Realignment of private access road Non material change refused 25/01/2016

S/2013/0044/F Alteration to approval S/2008/0365/F to form access and replacement of 5 redundant non-residential buildings with 4 dwellings

Permission Granted 12/09/2014

S/2008/0365/F Housing Development (18 dwellings) detached & semi-detached houses

Permission Granted 08/09/2011


8. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: Regional Development Strategy 2035 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015: Metropolitan Lisburn Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning

for Sustainable Development Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS 6): Planning, Archaeology and the Built

Heritage Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7): Quality Residential Environments Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS 12): Housing in Settlements Creating Places DCAN 8

3

Consultations


Objections / Representations

10. Five objections have been received in respect of the proposal. The following

issues have been raised: Changes to Access Arrangements Third Party Legal Agreements Safety and Compliance Standards Failure to satisfy planning standards and Creating Places Inadequate Red Line Levels/Infilling Threat of Judicial Review Length of the site



are: Principle of Development Impact on Archaeology and Built Heritage Impact on Character of the Area Layout/Design/Material and Impact on Residential Amenity Access, Movement and Parking


12. The site is located within the Settlement Development Limit of Hillsborough and is on land zoned for housing as designated by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

Consultee Response

Environmental Health No objection.

Drainage and Water No specific comment to make and refers to standing advice.

Archaeology and Built Heritage

Has considered the impacts of the proposal on the nearby monument and on the basis of the information provided is content with the proposal.

Transport NI Considers the application acceptable.

4

13. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

14. The SPPS states that Planning Authorities should be guided by the principle

that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.



16. Given that the application site is located within a Settlement Development Limit,

there is a presumption in favour of development subject to residential amenity, design and standard consultations. There is a previous approval on the site under S/2013/0044/F for the development of an access and replacement of 5 redundant non-residential buildings with 4 dwellings which was granted planning permission on 12/09/2014.

17. This application is an amendment to the previous application in which they have

applied to change the proposed access and to re-site one of the previously approved dwellings and garage.

18. Given the planning history associated with the application site and its location

within the settlement limits, it is contented that the principle of development is acceptable subject to all other planning and environmental considerations being met.

Impact on Archaeology and Built Heritage

19. PPS 6 – Planning Archaeology and the Built Environment sets out the policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.

20. The site is not located within an Area of Townscape Character or a Conservation Area. No archaeological, built heritage or landscape feature is threatened or requires protection or integration into the site.

21. Further to consultation with the Archaeology and Built Heritage Unit they have considered the impacts of the proposal on the nearby monument and on the basis of the information provided is content with the proposal.

5

Impact on Character of the Area

22. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning policies for

achieving quality in new residential developments.

23. Policy QD1 states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. It states that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

24. The proposed dwelling and garage is the same as that previously approved under S/2013/0044/F. Its position within the site has changed slightly.

25. It is considered that the dwelling is in line with the adjacent approved dwellings

and the garage is positioned to the side and rear of the dwelling. The scale, massing and proportion of the building is consistent with the already approved and built housing adjacent to the site.

26. It is therefore contended that the proposal would not be out of character with

the general location. The density of development is consistent with that surrounding it. The topography of the site is such that the development would integrate into the landscape and would not be prominent or on the skyline. Layout/Design/Materials and Impact on Residential Amenity

27. The dwelling is two storey with a proposed ridge height of 8m above the finished floor level with a single storey front porch and a two storey rear return, it has a main frontage of 12.5m. The roof is proposed to be finished in concrete tiles and the walls are to be render finish. The external material finishes are considered to be acceptable for the site and location. There are no 1st floor side elevation windows.

28. The design of the dwelling and the positioning of the windows along with the siting of the dwelling ensures that there would be no issues with regards to overlooking or loss of private amenity and as such, it is contended that the proposed development should not have a negative impact on residential amenity.

29. It is considered that there is an acceptable amount of private amenity space to

the rear of the dwelling, above the minimum requirement for one dwelling house.

30. The garage is single storey measuring 7.2m by 4m and has a proposed ridge

height of 4.1m above the finished floor level. The proposed re-siting of the dwelling and garage is considered to be acceptable.

6

31. To accommodate the proposal and access a small portion of the land will be graded. The existing and proposed levels are considered to be acceptable. Access, Movement and Parking

32. PPS 3 – Access Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any development does not create a traffic hazard.

33. The proposed access is via an existing housing development known as Farriers Green. The positioning and dimensions of the access has changed from the previously approved under S/2013/0044/F which the access to the site was also gained via Farriers Green.

34. Transport NI (TNI) were consulted on the application and on 13/05/2016 replied to advise that they consider this application unacceptable in its present form. A number of issues needed to be addressed.

35. The agent then responded to advise that TNI had previously approved the proposed access when they were consulted on the Non Material Change application - reference LA05/2015/0683/NMC). This information was sent on to TNI for consideration and they responded on 08/07/2016 advising that TNI considers this application acceptable.

36. In assessing the application and in light of comments made by way of third party representation in relation to access arrangements, and the fact that determining weight cannot be given to a consultation response for a proposed non-material change that was ultimately refused, further advice was sought from Transport NI.

37. In a response received in on 22 November 2016 TNI advised that whilst they accepted that the letter of representation contained relevant information regarding issues associated with the design of the proposed development particularly in relation to the road width and parking provision, and that various elements had been approved previously, they were unable to seek amendments to previously approved applications. The view expressed by the consultee was that the weight to be attached to detail associated with previous approvals was a matter for the planning authority.

38. Given the history and different layouts, Transport NI prefers the original

geometry as contained in application S/2013/0044/F and the 4.8 metre road width which provides on-street parking opportunities, improved manoeuvring and pedestrian safety. However, given the previous approvals, TNI retains its position of 08 July 2016 and offers no objections. They also advised that if further amendments were to be requested then TNI would ask for a number of issues to be addressed.

39. Further to this the agent was asked for amendments to the proposal. Amended plans were subsequently submitted and a new consultation was initiated to TNI.

7

40. On 19/12/2016 TNI commented as follows: TNI has considered a further letter of representation and an amended drawing which shows a revised layout and parking provision for the development. The objection letter states that the road is not as agreed and that the layout is unsafe. TNI considers that the revised layout provides a safe access to serve the four dwellings and considers this application acceptable.

41. Transport NI are now content with the proposal and on this basis, it is contended that it complies with PPS 3.

Consideration of Representations/Objections

42. Consideration of the matters raised by way of third party representation is set

out below. Changes to Access Arrangements

43. Concern was expressed about the proposed access arrangements by way of third party representation with the representation indicating contentment with access arrangements associated with the original application.

44. The application was submitted to the Council for determination and the detail submitted included changes to access arrangements. The detail of the application is assessed in its entirety and the changes are considered to be acceptable. Third Party Legal Agreements

45. Reference was made by way of third party representation to the applicant/developer obstructing the building of the approved access road and that court proceedings are pending. The view expressed is that the application is in breach of an agreement reached between individuals out with the planning process and that this agreement is currently the subject of Court proceedings. The view is also expressed that the proposal is incompatible with a legal obligation to accept the route approved pursuant to planning application S/2013/0044/F.

46. It is contended that the matters raised in this instance are legal matters and

not a planning consideration.

Safety and Compliance Standards 47. Concern was expressed in relation to safety and compliance standards

associated with changes to the access arrangements.

48. It is contended that consideration of the proposal has been subject to the normal planning process with advice sought from key consultees were appropriate. Failure to satisfy planning standards and Creating Places

49. The view is expressed that the application as presented falls far short of planning standards and that it is not in accordance with Creating Places.

8

50. Creating Places is a guidance document only and Transport NI have no objections to the proposal. Inadequate Red Line

51. Representation expressed the view that the red line of the application site indicated on the block plan had not incorporated sufficient land to allow for forward sightlines around the bend or even a verge to be achieved.

52. It is contended that all of the proposed works are within the red line of the application site. Transport NI has indicated that they are content with the proposal and as such, it is contended that sightlines can be achieved. Levels/Infilling

53. Concern was expressed that the levels between this land and the land to the west are such that a retaining wall or supporting bank would be required. Concern was also expressed that land outside of the red line was going to be filled and regarded to deal with the difference in levels between the proposed road and adjoining land to the west.

54. The proposal involves a level of filling and requires the slope to be graded. The detail associated with this element of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

55. In relation to references made to infilling out with the application site, the detail

associated with the application indicates that the slope to be graded is within the red line of the application site. Furthermore, there is an additional note on the layout plan that indicated that the applicant owns the land required. Threat of Judicial Review

56. View is expressed that if the application is approved, a judicial review challenge will be initiated.

57. It is contended that the threat of judicial review is not a planning consideration. Length of the site

58. Concern was expressed that the proposal involved changes to the length of the site despite detail indicating that it was to remain the same as the previous approval.

59. The overall length of the site does not change. This application seeks to amend the positioning of the dwelling and garage to the end plot.

Conclusions

60. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that the proposed development satisfies all relevant policy tests.

9

Recommendation

61. It is recommended that planning permission is approved subject to conditions.

Conditions 62. The following conditions are recommended:

As required by Section 61 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Act 2011, the

development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time Limit.

The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 02 (amended) bearing the date stamp 30 Nov 2016, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

The access gradient to the dwelling hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until parking /

hard standing has been provided and permanently retained in accordance with the approved drawing. Drawing No. 02 (amended) bearing the Planning date stamp 30 Nov 2016. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

10

Site Location Plan: LA05/2016/0174/F

1

APPENDIX 1.8PM




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)




Proposal Description Retrospective amendment to part of housing development approved under S/2011/0383/F to facilitate amended house types and reduced number of dwellings from 8 no to 6 no.

Location Nos 2,4,& 6 Ballantine Way and site nos 462 463 and 468 Ballantine Garden Village approximately 100 metres south of Hillhall Road Lisburn

Applicant/Agent James B Kennedy Administrator / Donaldson Planning

Representations 9 letters of support




1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.



3. The site is located to the South of Hillhall Road on the Eastern edge of Lisburn and approx. 1 mile from the City Centre. It is within the settlement limit and

2

zoned for housing in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP). The overall site has planning permission for a housing development, local commercial centre, and retirement units.

4. The site subject of this application measures approximately 0.22 hectares in

size and is visible from the existing roundabout on the Hillhall Road.


5. Retrospective amendment to part of housing development approved under S/2011/0383/F to facilitate amended house types and reduced number of dwellings from 8 no to 6 no.


6. The relevant planning history includes the following



S/2003/1059/O Residential development Approval

S/2005/0440/F Proposed 205 no. dwellings, 12 no. commercial units & other associated site works

Approval/Appeal

S/2005/0898/F

Proposed road improvements and new roundabout

Approval

S/2005/1600/F

Road network for proposed residential development and associated siteworks

Approval

S/2006/0646/F

Proposed 263 no. dwellings with associated site works

Approval

S/2006/0691/F

Proposed retail/apartment complex to include 16 apartments, 5 retail units, 1 crèche, 2 office units and other associated siteworks, including car parking facilities

Approval

S/2008/0714/F

Proposed 39 No. dwellings comprising detached and semi-detached (2&3 storey) with detached garages and other associated site works

Approval

S/2008/1040/F

Minor amendment to PSD drawing (approved April 2012)

Approval

S/2008/1040/F

Erection of 27 no. apartments in 4 no. buildings with stores/yards & associated site works

Approval

S/2009/0080/F

Re-development of sites 35-46 of previous approval S/05/0440/F. to

Approval

3



provide 11 No dwellings (in lieu of 12 previously approved) comprising of 5 NO detached & 6 townhouses, access & landscaping

S/2009/0154/F Proposed change of house type from previous approved application comprising of 6 no. townhouses & 2 apts

Approval

S/2009/0300/F

Proposed development of 237 no. dwellings (detached, semi-detached, townhouses & apartments) and garages, carports, bin/cycle stores with associated site works. Revision to previously approved planning application Ref S/2006/0646/F

Approval

S/2011/0383/F

Amended layout and proposed change in house type to include 452 no dwellings (101 No detached, 132 semi-detached, 151 No townhouses and 69 No apartments)garages, car ports, retirement village managers house/office and all other associated site works

Approval/Appeal

S/2013/0423/F Proposed amendment of residential development permitted under refs: S/2011/0383/F and S/2008/0714/F. Changing 39 No dwellings (9 No detached and 30 No semi-detached dwellings, previously referenced as sites 387-413b) to 33 No dwellings comprising of 14 No detached, 16 No semi-detached and 3 No townhouse dwellings, with associated car parking, landscaping and relocation of bus-gate to facilitate a two phased development.

Approval/Appeal

LA05/2016/0572/F Revision to previously approved housing development under S/2011/0383/F for retrospective planning for change of house types and alterations (including associated site and road works) to nos 60-70 Ballantine Gardens

Approval

LA05/2016/0588/F Revision to previously approved housing development under S/2011/0383/F for retrospective planning for change of house types and alterations (including associated site and road works) to nos 90-100; 104-117 Ballantine Gardens; nos 2-8 and 3-15 (excluding 13) Ballantine Way; Plot 1010 Ballantine Gardens; Plots 463-468 Ballantine Way.

Approval

4



Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - (Clarification): Access, Movement

and Parking Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 – Quality Residential Environments

Consultations

8. The following consultations were carried out

Consultee Response

Transport NI No objections – Conditions and informatives recommended

NI Water No objections –Informatives recommended

Environmental

Health

No objections – Conditions and informatives recommended

Representations

9. Nine letters of support have been received in relation to the application. The

points raised include:

Damage to the area if dwelling is demolished. Cottage provides variety in area Dwelling is in keeping with area Bungalow is well designed Reduction in number from 8 to 6


10. The main issues to consider in the determination of this full planning application

are:

5

Principle of Development Access, Movement and Parking Quality Residential Environments



11. The site is located within Lisburn City as defined by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. The site also lies within Zoning LC03/20 as identified on Map No 2/001, (Lisburn City) (Land between Hillhall Road, M1 Motorway and Plantation Road).

12. The application site comprises an area approximately 0.22 hectares within a

larger area of 17.75 hectares, and is known as Ballantine Garden Village.

13. This application is retrospective in that it seeks to regularise dwellings which have not been built in accordance with the approved plans or in the case of site 462 have not been approved at all. All dwellings subject to this application have been fully constructed and almost all are occupied except site no 462.

14. The dwellings that are subject of this application, with the exception of site No 462, have previously been approved under S/2011/0383/F. However Site 462 has been constructed without any planning permission and is located in a position which had been previously approved for 2 car parking spaces for adjacent dwellings.

15. Paragraph 3.8 of the SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning

authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.



17. An important consideration in this regard is that the application site falls within

land zoned for housing in the current development plan. This is a committed site and thus there are no key site requirements associated with this particular zoning.

18. It is therefore contended that whilst the principle of residential development at

this site is acceptable, the current proposal considered to be unacceptable as it fails to comply with prevailing policy which is addressed in more detail below.

6


19. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access Movement and Parking sets out policies

for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitments to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.

20. Transport NI was consulted and has offered no objection to the development.

A number of conditions have been recommended in order to ensure that there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

21. Based on the advice from Transport NI in relation to access movement and

parking it is considered that the application as presented will provide adequate provision for parking and circulating within the site.



achieving quality in new residential developments. 23. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It

states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment.

24. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should

be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

25. Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7 - Protecting Local Character,

Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity is another important consideration. It states that in established residential areas a key consideration is to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and that the development is in harmony with the local character of the established residential area.

26. The following are the applicable criteria of Policy QD1 of PPS 7 to ensure

compliance with Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7. Impact on Character of Area

27. In terms of site layout it is contended that this proposal is unacceptable when compared with the overall development. The scheme comprises a range of house types reflective of those in adjacent developments and which are

7

appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of their layout, scale, proportions, massing/appearance of buildings and other landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

28. It is contended that the bungalow associated with site No 462, with 2 storey

dwellings on either side of it, is not in-keeping with the character with the immediate area and does not create a quality residential environment. It is important to note that the dwelling at No 462 in isolation is acceptable in terms of design, if it were to be located elsewhere within the context of the development with other dwellings of a similar style/scale and massing, then it may have been acceptable.

29. The main issue is that the juxtaposition of this low lying single storey bungalow

bungalow within the context of the adjoining large 2/2.5 storey dwellings is prominent in this location and appears contextually out of character.

30. The proposed dwelling at site 462 occupies a prominent location at the

entrance of the development and there are long range views of it from the Hillhall Road.

31. It is considered that the dwellings at site 458, 460, 461 463 and 468 are

acceptable in principle. The style, scale, form, massing and design of these dwellings are similar those previously approved on this portion of the site and in the immediate area and as such, do not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area.

32. However, the dwelling at site 462 is considered to be unacceptable as it is

detrimental to the visual character of the area as a whole and as such, should be refused.

Design/Materials

33. The design of the dwellings (excluding 462 which is deemed to be

unacceptable in principle) draw upon the characteristics of, and are broadly in line with the existing built fabric in terms of height, scale and massing. The site layout plan demonstrates a density and ratio of built form to garden area that is in line with planning policy and consistent with that found in the immediate vicinity. Generally within the area are 2-2.5 storey detached and semi-detached dwellings constructed using a variation in designs and materials.

34. Separation distances between proposed dwellings and their relationship with adjacent residential dwellings and their existing boundaries has been adequately addressed and respected by this proposal.

35. Finishing materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings includes light red facing select facing brick, self-coloured render and grey interlocking concrete roof tiles, and hardwood UPVC doors. These finishes very much match those of the dwelling designs in the surrounding development and it is

8

contended therefore that the design of, and construction materials are acceptable and will not be detrimental to the overall character of the area. Residential Amenity

36. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposal will result in sufficient separation distances between proposed dwellings and those in adjacent developments and will not therefore create conflict or unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

Landscaping/ Amenity Space

37. Policy requires that adequate provision is made for public and private open

space and landscaped areas as an integral part of new developments.

38. Creating places states that average private amenity space should be calculated for developments and should be around 70 square metres, and no individual dwelling should be less than 40 square metres.

39. No dwelling in this proposal has less than 40 square metres of private open space provision, and the average for the site as a whole is more than 70 metres per dwelling.

40. It is contended that the provision of open space both private and communal, and the landscaping proposed is acceptable.


41. Nine letters of support were received. The following points were raised:

Damage to the area if dwelling (site 462) is demolished – Site 462 has been erected without planning permission and it is contented that the dwelling at this location harms the overall character of the area.

Cottage provides variety in area – Although the cottage is well designed

it is contended that it is not acceptable at this location. There are other bungalows in the area that have been built in more suitable and less prominent locations

Dwelling is in keeping with area – as discussed above it is contended

that the dwelling at site 462 is not in keeping with the area. The bungalow, with 2 storey dwellings on either side of it, is not in keeping with the character of the immediate area and does not create a quality residential environment.

9

Bungalow is well designed – the bungalow is well designed, however it is out of character with area as mentioned above.

Reduction in number from 8 to 6 – although there has been an overall

reduction in the number of dwellings proposed it is the bungalow at site 462 which is unacceptable and results in the application being recommended for refusal.

Conclusions

42. Having considered the nature of the proposal against all the relevant planning polices and material considerations including representations and consultation responses, it is considered that the application does not satisfy all the key policy requirements.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Conditions

44. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reason

The proposal is contrary to Policy QD1 (criteria a) of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 7: "Quality Residential Environments" in that the design and layout of the proposal insofar as it relates to site No.462 does not respect the surrounding context or draw upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

10


1




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Called in) - Addendum


Date of Application 16 November 2016

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Proposed development of a chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under CTY6 - Personal and domestic circumstances.

Location Land adjacent to No5 Megarrystown Road, Moira

Applicant/Agent Brian Crawford

Representations None

Case Officer Peter McFadden



1. The application was presented to Committee in April 2017 with a recommendation to refuse.

2. The Committee voted to defer the application for one month to allow the submission of additional information.


3. An email was received dated 10 April 2017. It attached a document from a Consultant Pathologist which gave details of the applicant’s father medical condition. It provided details of his age, and specific details about a serious medical condition.

4. A further letter from the Urology Department of Belfast City Hospital was also provided confirming this diagnosis.

APPENDIX 1.9(a)PM

2

5. A letter from the agent dated 6 April 2017 was also provided. It included some information regarding the alternative accommodation, i.e. granny flat/mobile home that should be considered as part of the policy tests.

6. The agent stated that the following options were unsuitable for the needs of the applicant:

- Alterations to the large existing detached garage to form a granny flat was

considered to be unsuitable due to the construction of the existing garage building and its positioning in relation to the main dwelling.

- Extension to the large 4/5 bedroom detached dwelling was discounted due to the buildings orientation, topography and existing internal layout.

- Temporary mobile home was ruled out due to the medical condition and personal needs of the client.

Assessment of Additional Information

7. As indicated in the initial DM officer report, policy CTY 6 – Personal and

Domestic Circumstances states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in the countryside for the long term needs of the application, where there are compelling and site specific reasons for this related to applicants personal or domestic circumstances provided a number of criteria are met.

Particular Circumstances and Genuine Hardship

8. Firstly, policy requires that the application must provide satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstance of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission was refused.

9. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that that genuine hardship

would be caused if planning permission were refused. 10. The agent, whist making available two letters endorsed by relevant medical

professionals detailing the applicant’s father’s diagnosis, has failed in any way to demonstrate how this currently effects the applicant. No information has been provided to demonstrate for example

the distance they (the applicant) currently travel to provide a caring role; the level of care being provided by the applicant (in terms of the frequency

of visits and duration) and whether the caring role (of the applicant) is share with others

individuals/hardship caused;

11. At the Committee meeting in April, the agent intimated that the diagnosis was in early stages. No information has been provided in relation to life limitations of the father, prospective treatments and/or levels of care that could be provided.

3

12. In relation to the personal and domestic circumstance considerations of the applicant, no information has been provided about their employment status and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that hardship will be caused if the application for a dwelling at this location is not approved. Furthermore, it is unclear if they are the sole carer or whether they have to take leave of work indefinitely or for a period of time in order to provide much needed care.

13. In addition, no evidence has been provided by the applicant to demonstrate the

lack of other properties available within the immediate area for purchase/rent thereby enabling them to relocate closer to dependent parent(s) to allow a level of care to be provided nor has evidence been provided to demonstrate how hardship will be caused to the applicant.

14. In the absence of such evidence being provided, it has not been possible to

assess whether the application is reflective of a desire to live close to family members or a necessary response to a medical condition.

Alternative Solutions

15. The second policy test seeks for evidence to be provided to demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of the case.

16. The Agent, in correspondence dated xxx made reference to the following alternatives

- Alterations to the large existing detached garage to form a granny flat; - Extension to the large 4/5 bedroom detached dwelling; - Temporary mobile home;

17. The Agent advised that alternations to form a granny flat extension had been

discounted because of building orientation and topography however, no detail was provided to substantiate this position.

18. In relation to a solution that involved extending the existing 4/5 bedroom detached dwelling, the Agent advised that this was discounted due to the buildings orientation, topography and existing internal layout. Again, no further detail was provided to support/demonstrate this position.

19. The Agent indicated that the mobile home solution was discounted because of

the medical condition and personal needs of the client however, no explanation of the limitations of the medical condition was provided nor was any evidence submitted to demonstrate how a modern mobile home would necessarily fail to meet his needs has been provided.

Conclusions

20. Having considered the nature of the proposal against prevailing planning policy,

taking into account the detail submitted by the Agent in an attempt to

4

demonstrate the personal and domestic circumstances of the applicant, it is contended that satisfactory evidence has not been provided to satisfy the key policy tests associated with Policy CTY6.

Recommendation

21. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the reasons given below.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY6 of Planning Policy

Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that: the applicant has not provided satisfactory long term evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.


Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of a ribbon development along Megarrystown Road.


Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that: the building would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and if permitted create a ribbon of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

5


1




3 April 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Called in)


Date of Application 16.11.2016

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Proposed development of a chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under CTY6 - Personal and domestic circumstances.

Location Land adjacent to No5 Megarrystown Road

Moira

Applicant/Agent Brian Crawford

Representations None

Case Officer Peter McFadden

Recommendation Refusal


1. This application is categorised as a local planning application in accordance

with the Development Management Regulations 2015. If has been ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee for determination in line with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

2. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse planning permission.

APPENDIX 1.9(b)PM

2


3. The application site is located on lands located adjacent (west) of No 5 Megarrystown Road, Moira. Access to the site is via the current driveway of no 5. The site is currently in grass appearing to be in agricultural usage or a paddock area as it is fenced off along the northern boundary from a larger agricultural field. The land rises up from the road frontage boundary which is a mature vegetative boundary with a grass verge and ditch. The western boundary is again planted with a well maintained 2m hedge. The eastern boundary between the site and No. 5 is a four plank fence with double wooden access gates. This separates the site from the domestic curtilage of No 5. The northern boundary is a single line electric fence wire separating it from the larger agricultural field.

4. No. 5 Megarrystown Road is a large two storey detached dwelling with detached double garage. It is set within its own large domestic curtilage with all boundaries defined on the ground. The property is accessed from the Megarrystown Road via a gravel driveway with formal entrance pillars and gates. The property is finished in a cream render with a pitched slate roof. The garage is of a similar construction. There is an area of hard standing to the front of the side of the property.

5. There is an area of formal amenity space to the front of the property laid in lawn. There is also private amenity space to the rear of the dwelling and garage.

6. The site lies within the open countryside and the wider area is both rural in character and appearance. There are several residential properties in the locality some with associated out buildings of an agricultural nature

.


7. The application is for outline permission for a proposed development of a chalet bungalow adjacent to existing main dwelling under CTY6 - Personal and domestic circumstances.


8. There is no planning history associated with the site however the following

histories are in the surrounding lands:


Site Address Description of Proposal

Decision

S/2000/0819/O Approx 200m south of Nuthill Road & Megarrystown Road

Dwelling and garage Granted

3

junction Megarrystown Road, Moira

S/2003/1497/O Lands approx 200 metres south of Nuthill Road and Megarrystown Road junction, Megarrystown Road, Moira

Site for one dwelling and garage

Granted

S/2004/0297/RM 200m South of Nuthill Road & Megarrystown road junction, Moira

Dwelling & garage Granted

S/2004/1891/O 280m south of 27 Nuthill Road, Moira

Proposed dwelling and garage

Refused


9. The land is designated as countryside in the BMAP 2015. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the

Countryside Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking

Consultations


Consultee Response

Transport NI Transport NI – offers no objection subject to conditions supplied.

Environmental Health No objections

NIEA – Water Management Unit

No objections – refers to standing advice

NI Water No objections

Rivers agency: No objection subject to standard informatives.

4

Representations

11. There have been no letters of representation received in relation to this

application. Consideration and Assessment

12. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

Principle of Development Sustainable Development in the Countryside Personal and Domestic Circumstances Ribbon Development Rural Character Integration and Design of Buildings


13. The site is within the Lisburn Countryside outside any defined settlement development limit.

14. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015

states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

15. Paragraph 3.8 of the SPPS indicates that a guiding principle for planning

authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.


development plan should be approved and development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Sustainable Development in the Countryside

17. The SPPS states at Paragraph 6.73 that provision should be made for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development which lies outside a farm provided it appears as a visual entity in the landscape; and is associated with a focal point; and the development can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the countryside.

5

18. PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists within Policy CTY1 the range of development opportunities which in principle are considered acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development. One such circumstance is for a dwelling based on special personal or domestic circumstances in accordance with Policy CTY 6. This application has been received with information pertaining to personal and domestic circumstances.

Personal and Domestic Circumstances

19. With policy CTY6, Planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in the

countryside for the long term needs of the applicant, where there are compelling, and site specific reasons for this related to the applicant’s personal or domestic circumstances and provided the following criteria are met: (a) the applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a

necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused; and

(b) there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of the case, such as: an extension or annex attached to the existing dwelling; the conversion or reuse of another building within the curtilage of the property; or the use of a temporary mobile home for a limited period to deal with immediate short term circumstances.

20. All permissions granted under this policy will be subject to a condition restricting

the occupation of the dwelling to a named individual and their dependents.

21. The information submitted indicates that the applicant and her family have lived at No. 5 Megarrystown Road for 10 years. There has been a split in the family and the applicant and her two children have remained in the property.

22. The personal circumstances quoted and rational for a new dwelling are that the

applicant has friends and family in the immediate locality who help with childcare. They go on to state that the children attend a local primary school and after schools facility and that the applicant owns the adjacent land and wish to down size.

23. Whilst the Planning unit empathise with the applicant and her circumstances the

policy criteria for an approval under this policy have not been satisfied for the following reasons.

24. No compelling reasons have been forwarded that would require a dwelling in the

countryside for the long term needs of the applicant. No compelling site specific reasons for this related to the applicant’s personal or domestic circumstances have been provided to meet the criterion that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

6

25. It is contended that a case of genuine hardship has not been satisfactorily proven in this case. The result of a family breakdown would not in itself warrant the granting of planning permission for a new dwelling in this location at this time.

26. Criteria b does not apply as this would not satisfy the requirements of the

applicant in this case who has expressly stated they require a new dwelling and intend selling the original dwelling to downsize (stated in letter of 2nd Dec 2016).

27. Both criteria have to be satisfied in relation to the policy and the express wish to

sell off the existing property does not consider any of the options in criterion b. The application is therefore at odds which the thrust of the policy.

28. The SPPS states at 6.73 that a dwelling is permissible where there are personal

and domestic circumstances needs to meet the long terms needs of a person and where there are compelling and site specific reasons related to the person’s personal or domestic circumstances. Also where there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of the case.

29. No additional policy has been introduced over and above that of PPS21

pertaining to consideration of this application, therefore the same policy tests apply.

30. After the agent had been informed that the application was recommended for

refusal additional information was submitted which altered the initial rationale for a dwelling. The personal circumstances have altered.

31. Two letters have been received 24th Jan and 24th Feb 17. This has indicated

specific health concerns related to both the applicants parents in the previous 2 years. The applicant’s father is attending the hospital for ongoing treatment. No care package is currently in place but this may alter in time. The rationale is now to have a dwelling adjacent to Ms Thompson for her parents which facilitates care but also a degree of independence.

32. This now brings both elements of the policy into play insofar as part (a) if the

applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

33. The case is made that Ms Thompson’s parents desire some independence while

the reassurance of having help nearby. This is a reasonable desire. There is however no hard evidence supplied to prove that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances presented. No details of the parents dwelling have been provided or their location relative to the application site.

34. In relation to part (b) proof there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular

circumstances of the case, such as: an extension or annex attached to the existing dwelling; the conversion or reuse of another building within the curtilage of the property; or the use of a temporary mobile home for a limited period to deal with immediate short term circumstances. In relation to this there is a large two storey dwelling No 5 Megarrystown Road with associated large double garage in

7

a large domestic curtilage. An annex/extension to the dwelling is possible as would the conversion of the large garage. This would meet the desire to live adjacent to their daughter whilst not resulting in the need for another dwelling in this location. This would appear to be a reasonable solution to the circumstances presented pertaining to this application.

35. With the additional information submitted the application remains contrary to

Policy CTY6. Ribbon Development

36. Under policy CTY8 Ribbon Development, planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. Ribbon development is detrimental to the character, appearance and amenity of the countryside. It creates and reinforces a built-up appearance to roads, footpaths and private laneways and can sterilise back-land, often hampering the planned expansion of settlements. It can also make access to farmland difficult and cause road safety problems. Ribbon development has consistently been opposed and will continue to be unacceptable.

37. For the purposes of this policy a road frontage includes a footpath or private lane.

A ‘ribbon’ does not necessarily have to be served by individual accesses nor have a continuous or uniform building line. Buildings sited back, staggered or at angles and with gaps between them can still represent ribbon development, if they have a common frontage or they are visually linked.

38. With reference to PAC decision 2012/A0226, in Para 5 the commissioner states

“Policy CTY8 does not provide a specific definition of ribbon development. It does however provide a non-exhaustive definition of what can constitute a substantial and continuously built up frontage, within which the infilling of a small gap site can be allowed as an exception to the policy. The definition refers to a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. Given this definition it would be logical to conclude that a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear could constitute ribbon development.”

39. In this case the introduction of a dwelling adjacent to No 5 which comprises of a

dwelling and detached garage would result in the creation of a ribbon of development (3 buildings) along this section of Megarrystown Road. Hence contrary to policy CTY8.

Rural Character

40. Policy CTY 14 of PPS 21 states that planning permission will be granted for a

building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to rural character.

41. In the same way as CTY 8 this proposal is contrary to this policy as the proposed

dwelling would result in a suburban style build-up when viewed with the existing buildings and create a ribbon of development along the section of road frontage.

8

As such the proposal would have an adverse impact on the rural character of this area.

Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside

42. Planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

43. As this is an outline application, no details of design have been submitted. Should

the application be approved suitable conditions surrounding planting for integration and design can be attached.

44. The existing hedgerows cam be conditioned to be retained and augmented and

a landscape schedule can be requested as part of the reserved matters application.

45. It is not considered that the proposed development fails the policy tests

contained within CTY 13.

Conclusions

46. Having considered the nature of the proposal against prevailing planning policy, it is considered that the application fails to satisfy the policy tests set out in the body of this report.

Recommendation

47. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the reasons given below.

Refusal Reasons

48. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

49. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY6 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that: the applicant has not provided satisfactory long term evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

50. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy

Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of a ribbon development along Megarrystown Road.

9

51. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy

Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that: the building would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and if permitted create a ribbon of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

10

Location Plan – LA05/2016/1195/F

1




8 May 2017

Committee Interest Local Application (Called-in)




Proposal Description Erection of 1 No. Dwelling and Garage

Location Adjacent to No.284 Ballynahinch Road, Annahilt, Hillsborough

Applicant/Agent Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council.

Representations 0

Case Officer Mark Hanvey

Group Recommendation REFUSAL


1. This application is categorised as a local planning application. It is presented

to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.

2. The application is presented with a recommendation to refuse.


3. The application site is an existing lawn area forming the side garden to no.284 Ballynahinch Road, Annahilt. There is an existing access from Loughaghery Road serving the adjacent dwelling to the west of the application site.

4. The roadside boundary is defined by a low grey brick wall. The southern boundary is defined by a 1 metre high timber fence. The northern and western boundaries are undefined.

APPENDIX 1.10PM

2

5. There are a variety of house types in the vicinity of the application site. Most are single storey; however, 287 Ballynahinch Road and 3a Loughaghery Road are 1 ½ storey.

6. Nos 1, 3 and 3a Loughaghery Road are located close to the roadside, whereas nos 2, 2a and 4 are set back. Nos 282, 282a and 284 Ballynahinch Road are set back from the roadside.


7. Outline planning permission is sought for a dwelling and garage with access from Loughaghery Road.

Relevant Planning History 8. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below.

Application ref. Proposal Decision S/2003/0044/O Retirement dwelling Permission refused

05.03.2003 S/2001/1446/O Retirement dwelling Permission refused

09.04.2002


9. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: Regional Development Strategy 2035 Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015: Metropolitan Lisburn Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments

Consultations


Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to conditions

NI Water Informatives

Water Management Unit Advice

Environmental Health No objections

3

Objections / Representations

11. There have been no letters of objection received in respect of this application.



are: Principle of Development Impact on Character of the Area Impact on Residential Amenity Layout/Design/Material Provision of Open Space Landscaping Access, Movement and Parking


13. The site is located within the Settlement Development Limits of Annahilt under the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. There is a presumption in favour of development within the settlement limits provided other policy standards are satisfied.

14. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

15. The SPPS states that Planning Authorities should be guided by the principle

that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.



17. The SPPS states that ‘within established residential areas it is imperative to

ensure that the proposed density of new housing development, together with its form, scale, massing and layout will respect local character and environmental quality as well as safeguarding the amenity of existing residents.’

18. The planning history of the application site indicates that planning permission has been refused for a single dwelling house on two separate occasions.

4

Impact on Character of the Area

19. PPS 7 - Quality Residential Environments sets out planning policies for achieving quality in new residential developments.

20. Policy directs that in established residential areas proposals for housing development will not be permitted where they would result in unacceptable damage to the local character, environmental quality or residential amenity of these areas.

21. The proposed site layout indicates a dwelling with a relatively small footprint

fronting onto Loughaghery Road. The surrounding context boasts larger dwellings set in generous plot sizes within a village context. The siting of the dwelling means that it would sit forward of 284 Ballynahinch Road and Nos. 2 & 4 Loughaghery Road.

22. Previous applications on the site under S/2003/0044/O and S/2001/1446/O

have been refused on the basis of development projecting beyond the existing building line, that development is out of character with the surrounding area and that there would be an impact upon the residential amenity of existing residents.

23. Policy requires residential development to respect the surrounding context and to be appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of layout, scale, proportions, massing and appearance of buildings, structures and landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

24. Given the specific nature of the application site and its position relative to No.

284 Ballynahinch Road to the west and Nos. 2 and 4 Loughaghery Road to the south, it is contended that a dwelling would not respect the surrounding context and that it would be inappropriate to the character of the area as it would sit forward of the 3 existing dwellings which themselves are set back off the Loughaghery Road. Furthermore, the small plot size proposed would be in contrast with the large plots that the existing dwellings are sited on.

25. Similar concern has been expressed previously in relation to other applications

in the locality most notably adjacent to No.3A Loughaghery Road. Refusal reasons in relation to applications S/2003/0268/O and S/2007/0173/O refer to overdevelopment, undesirable fragmentation of the existing curtilage and impacts on the character of the locality.

Impact on Residential Amenity

26. In assessing the application, concern was expressed in relation to the limited

separation distances to the rear garden of No.284 Ballynahinch Road. The view expressed was that windows on the rear elevation would have directly overlooked the private amenity space of the adjacent dwelling.

27. At its closest point the proposed dwelling would be 6 metres from the proposed rear boundary. Given the limited footprint the proposed dwelling may incorporate a first floor level similar to 3a Loughaghery Road, the potential for overlooking would increase.

5

28. In an attempt to address such concern the agent has forwarded a design for consideration which proposes only rooflights at first floor level on the rear elevation.

29. Whilst concerns with regards to overlooking have therefore been addressed to

a point, the design is reflective of the restricted nature of the application site. Layout/Design/Materials

30. The application is for outline permission therefore the design and detail are matters that would be provided at reserved matters stage.

31. That said, the design concept indicates that traditional materials are to be used to reflect the architectural style of the area. There is therefore no concern at this stage regarding layout/materials or design of the proposed dwelling. Provision of Open Space

32. It is contended that adequate provision for private amenity space at the rear of the proposed dwelling has been made and that this meets the minimum acceptable standards set out in policy and guidance.

Landscaping

33. With regard to landscaping considerations, the design concept statement seeks to retain wherever possible existing vegetation and plant additional boundary treatments wherever necessary. To this end the landscaping elements associated with the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. Access, Movement and Parking

34. PPS 3 and policy QD1 sets out policies to ensure that any development does not create a traffic hazard and contains adequate access and parking provision.

35. The proposed access is via the existing access to No. 284 Ballynahinch Road therefore there is no creation of a new access, but an intensification of an existing access.

36. It is considered that adequate provision is made for parking within the curtilage of the site to the side and rear of the proposed dwelling.

37. Transport NI are content with the proposal and as such, it is contended that

the proposal satisfies the relevant policy tests.

6

Conclusions

38. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that the proposed development does not satisfy all relevant policy tests insofar as it does not respect the surrounding character of the area.

Recommendation

39. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Reason for refusal

40. The following reason for refusal is recommended:

The proposed development is contrary to Policy QD1 of Planning Policy

Statement 7 in that it would be out of character in this locality and as a consequence would not respect the surrounding context.

7

Site Location Plan: LA05/2015/0111/O

APPENDIX 2(a)PM

APPENDIX 2(b)PM

Date: 6 April 2017

Dear Sir/ Madam

Caravan Site Licence Exemption Certificate

This letter is to advise you that the Irish Motor Caravanners’ Club, c/o Cuan Caoilte,

Kilknock, Ballon, Co Carlow, R93 PN30, has been granted a caravan site licence

exemption certificate.

The Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 allows the Department for Infrastructure to

grant a certificate of exemption from the requirement to obtain a caravan site licence.

An organisation can be exempted if its objectives include the encouragement or

promotion of recreational activities. The Irish Motor Caravanners’ Club has satisfied

the Department that it meets this criterion.

The certificate grants exemption from the requirement to hold a caravan site licence

for the purposes of paragraph 6 (meetings organised by exempted organisations) of

the Schedule to the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963.

If you have any questions please contact me on 028 90540571.

Yours faithfully

Estelle Taylor

Planning Policy Division

Room 1 - 18

Clarence Court

10-18 Adelaide Street

Belfast

BT2 8GB

APPENDIX 3PM

APPENDIX 4PM

APPENDIX 5PM

Appeal Reference: 2016/E0038. Appeal by: Mr. Bryan Kelly. Appeal against: The refusal to issue a certificate of lawfulness of proposed

development. Proposed Development: Construction of new access to farm. Location: 1 Horners Road, Ballynahinch. Planning Authority: Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. Application Ref. LA 05/2016/0580/LDP. Procedure: Written Representations. Decision by: Commissioner J.B.Martin dated 11 April 2017.

Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasoning 2. A Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (a Certificate) is a statement which

sets out development or use rights relating to a site, which are lawful for planning purposes on a specific date. A Certificate is not a decision on a planning application and consequently the planning merits of the development at issue are not considered. The onus in this case is on the appellant to satisfy the decision maker that the proposed development would have been lawful on the date of the application to the Council, that is 7 June 2016.

3. Before considering the appellant’s arguments under the Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order (NI) 2015 (the GPDO), it is appropriate at this point to deal with the objection raised by the Council under Section 59 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 (the Act) to the revised drawings submitted by the appellant showing a reduction in the height of the proposed pillars, walls and fencing.

4. Section 59 deals with matters which may be raised in an appeal under Section 58

of the Act. Section 58 however does not include appeals against the refusal to issue a Certificate and Section 59 therefore does apply. In any case the proposed reduction in height of the pillars, walls and fencing is a material consideration before me and the Council had the opportunity to comment on that amendment.

Appeal Decision

Park House 87/91 Great Victoria Street BELFAST BT2 7AG T: 028 9024 4710 F: 028 9031 2536 E: [email protected]

APPENDIX 6PM

5. The appellant’s argument is that the proposed works constitute permitted development under Part 7 Class ‘C’ in the GPDO - ‘Agricultural Buildings and Operations’. The purpose of the proposed development must therefore fall within the parameters of an agricultural operation. In this case the proposed access and laneway lead directly to the replacement dwelling under construction in the position shown on the appellant’s Appendix 2 ‘Site Plan’. On the same plan the existing outbuilding facing the front of the new dwelling is shown as a building to be demolished. The proposed lane also terminates at the new dwelling and does not continue to the new agricultural building under construction, which lies approximately 74m SE of the end of the proposed lane.

6. In the above context I do not consider the appeal proposal represents an

agricultural operation. Additionally given the lack of visibility splays and radii at the junction of the existing lane to the north of the appeal proposal, and its narrow width, it is inevitable that the appeal proposal would be used in preference to that lane in order to access the dwelling. I am reinforced in that view by the works proposed at the opening of the access to Ballycreen Road, which are indicative of an entrance to a dwelling rather than to agricultural land or buildings.

7. In these circumstances I judge the development proposed does not fall within

Part 7 Class ‘C’ of the GPDO. 8. The Council’s decision to refuse to issue a Certificate was well founded, albeit for

the reasons set out above and not those on its decision notice. This decision relates to the 1/2500 scale location map and to the amended site plan and access drawing submitted under s Appendix 5 in the appellant’s Statement of Case. COMMISSIONER J.B. MARTIN 2016/ E0038 2

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 24 April 2017

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 1 Application Reference

Y/2013/0245/F PAC Reference

2016/A0101

Description of Proposal

Erection of a single wind turbine generator, 30m to hub and 41.5m to blade tip, meter cabinet and associated infrastructure. Additional information (Shadow Flicker Assessment)

Location Land 240m to the North of 29 Lisnabreeny Road, Belfast, BT6 9SD.

Applicant

Rodney Young Agent Dr Roddy Yarr

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(a) and (vi) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy, as it has not been demonstrated that an unacceptable adverse impact on adjoining properties will not occur by way of noise.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(a) and (vi) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity by virtue of the loss of privacy or overshadowing of adjoining properties.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(b) and (i) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy, as it has not been demonstrated that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity and landscape character through materials, height and scale.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(b) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy as the cumulative effect when considered with existing wind turbines and other installations already in the area will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity and landscape character.

APPENDIX 7PM


Section 58 Appeals


LA05/2015/0721/O PAC Reference

2016/A0133


2 Proposed Dwellings with associated works

Location 2 Antrim Road Lisburn

Applicant

E A Beatty Agent McCready Architects


The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that it has not been demonstrated the proposed development will maintain or enhance the character of Wallace Park Area of Townscape Character, nor does it meet any of the exceptional circumstances in which proposals for the intensification of site usage in primarily residential parts of an Area of Townscape Character will be permitted.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy ATC2 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 6 Areas of Townscape Character in that it has not been demonstrated that the development maintains or enhances its overall character and respects the built form of the area.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Criteria H of Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 due to the adverse impact on existing and proposed dwellings.


Section 58 Appeals


LA05/2015/0122/F PAC Reference

2016/A0176


Temporary Planning Permission for Mobile Home

Location 1 Ballyvannon Road Upper Ballinderry BT28 2LB.

Applicant

John Farr Agent Robert Canning


The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY9 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal is not for the provision of temporary residential accommodation pending the development of a permanent dwelling nor has the applicant provided compelling and site specific evidence that a residential caravan/mobile home is a necessary response to the particular circumstances and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries/is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape.


Section 58 Appeals


Y/2014/0209/F PAC Reference

2016/A0216


Residential development of 8 No dwellings comprising (2 No 1 1/2 storey detached dwellings and 6 No 2 storey semi-detached) including 6 No domestic garages, associated site works, landscaping and all associated road works.

Location 29 Belvoir View Park Newtownbreda Belfast

Applicant

PWD Developments Ltd Agent TSA Planning


The proposal is contrary to Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7: 'Quality Residential Environments', as it is located within an established residential area and the site is unsuitable for the proposed development.

The proposal is contrary to Policy QD1 (h) of Planning Policy Statement 7: 'Quality Residential Environments' in that the development would, if permitted, create conflict with adjacent land uses in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing.


Section 58 Appeals



2016/A0222


Infill Dwelling and Garage

Location 100m North West of 95 Lough Road, Lisburn, BT27 6TT

Applicant

Trevor Baird Agent John Kirkpatrick Architect


The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the design of the proposed building is inappropriate for the site and its locality and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

Section 58 Appeals


S/2010/0967/F PAC Reference

2017/A0004


Change of house type and amended siting to that approved under S/2007/1181/RM.

Location 150m south of 2 Gortraney Road and 50m west of 2 Redfords Lane Ballinderry Upper Lisburn BT28 2GT.

Applicant

Mr & Mrs Graham McRoberts

Agent Nigel Coffey


The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.


Section 58 Appeals



2017/A0013


Dwelling as a replacement for part-implemented dwelling approved by S/2010/0299/F.

Location 175m Southwest of 292 Hillsborough Road Hillsborough BT26 6HN.

Applicant

Mr Brian Nelson Agent MBA Planning


The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY3 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that there is no structure that exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling and all external structural walls are not substantially intact, the overall size of the proposed replacement dwelling would have a visual impact significantly greater than the foundations it seeks to replace.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the development would, if permitted not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area and would therefore result in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that: 1- Health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site not visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm. 2- Verifiable plans exist to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s) to justify an alternative site not visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm.


Section 58 Appeals



2017/A0014


Site for Dwelling, with access from Bensons Road, Lisburn

Location Land between Nos. 76 + 78 Glenavy Road at the junction of Bensons Road and Glenavy Road, Lisburn

Applicant

J A Lunn, D Robb S Green

Agent Donaldson Planning


The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, New Dwellings in Existing Clusters in that: - the proposed dwelling is not located within an existing cluster of development consisting of 4 or more buildings of which at least three are dwellings; - the proposed site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster and does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure; - it has not been demonstrated that development of the site can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the addition of ribbon development along the Glenavy Road.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the development would, if permitted add to a ribbon of development along the Glenavy Road and would therefore result in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the development and the proposed development relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.


Section 58 Appeals



2017/A0015


3 No. housing sites within rural cluster with access from Bensons Road, Lisburn.

Location Land on Bensons Road east of No.76 Glenavy Road and north of nos. 70B 70C, 72 + 74 Glenavy Road Lisburn

Applicant

J A Lunn D Robb S Green

Agent Donaldson Planning


The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable development in the Countryside, in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

The proposal is contrary to Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, New Dwellings in Existing Clusters in that the development would, if permitted, significantly alter the existing character of the cluster and visually intrude into the open countryside.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement Policy and CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of ribbon development along Bensons Road.

The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the development to integrate into the landscape.

The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the development would, if permitted, result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and would create a ribbon of development that would therefore further erode the rural character of the countryside.

Pre Application Notices received since 1 March 2017

Reference Date Receiv ed Applicant Agent Site Address Proposal Description

LA05/2017/0305/PAN 24/03/2017 MS Drayne Ltd

MBA

Planning

Land south of Glenavy Road

and west of Brokerstown Rpad

(majority of BMAP housing

zoning LC 03/21) and junction

of Glenavy Road, Ballymacash

Rd, Nettlehil l Rd

Residential development, landscaping,

access roads, associated site works and

road improvements including

roundabout at site entrance on

Glenavy Road

LA05/2017/0329/PAN 31/03/2017

Royal Ulster

Agricultural Society

Clyde

Shanks

Lands at Balmoral Park

Halftown Road

Maze Long Kesh

Lisburn

Proposed pavil ion building for use as

conference and exhibition space.

LA05/2017/0393/PAN 13/04/2017

Lisburn and

Castlereagh City

Council

Lisburn and

Castlereagh

City Council

Dungoyne Park, Dundonald,

Belfast

Proposed relocation of grass soccer

pitch , construction of new multiuse

games are, construction of new

pavil l ion, carparking, floodlighting,

fencing, street l ighting and all other

APPENDIX 8PM

Pre Application Notices received since 1 March 2017

Reference Date Receiv ed Applicant Agent Site Address Proposal Description

APPENDIX 8PM

LA05/2017/0398/PAN 19/04/2017

Lisburn and

Castlereagh City

Council

Lisburn and

Castlereagh

City Council

Open space surrounded by

Stockdam Road

BT28 3SD- Magheralave

Grange

BT28 3BZ-Brookfield

BT28 3RT and Magheralave

Road- BT28 3BE

An open space for enjoyment by all

highlighting the site's natural habitats.

Residents who live around the site can

easily access this development. Within

the proposals are pathways,

boardwalks, a 30 space car park,

natural play area, sensory and memory

garden, art features depicting the

various natural habitats, landforms

allowing views and access, entrance

arches, kissing gates, outdoor trim

equipment and planting sensitive to

Development Management – Year End Statistics (April 2016 – March 2017) Live Application Numbers as of 31 March 2017

Applications and length of time in the system as of 31 March 2017

Applications Received Applications Received

Q1

(Apr-Jun)

Q2

(Jul-Sept)

Q3

(Oct-Dec)

Q4

(Jan – Mar)

Total

Major 2 3 4 1 10

Local 325 252 237 267 1081

Total 327 255 241 268 1091

Decisions Issued

Decisions Issued

Q1

(Apr-Jun)

Q2

(Jul-Sept)

Q3

(Oct-Dec)

Q4

(Jan – Mar)

Total

Approvals 276 231 287 278 1072

Refusals 11 9 26 17 63

Total 287 240 313 295 1135

Source: Data extracted from Northern Ireland Planning Portal

Application Category

Total

Overall 658

Number/Length of Time

Under 12 months

Over 12 months

Total

Total 508 150 658

APPENDIX 9PM

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4

Short Term (2015-2021) Medium Term (2021-2027) Long Term (2027-2040)

AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support

DW Aim 1 DW 1E: Remove lead pipes and fittings from drinking water supply systems

DW 1E (iii) An education programme should be delivered to highlight the risks posed by lead ( including lead in internal plumbing) and how exposure to lead from drinking water can be reduced / eliminated

Short NIWDfI / DAERA

(DWI) / PHA / Local Councils

EH/BC

Update

DW Aim 1 DW 1F: Manage water quality risks from defective water fittings

DW 1F (ii) Educate and improve public awareness of the importance of compliant water fittings and using licensed plumbers (Watersafe).

Short NIWDfI WDPD /

Local CouncilsEH/BC

DW 1F (iii) Ensure all publically owned drinking water systems comply with the Water Fittings regulations

Medium NIW Local Councils

Long‐Term Water Strategy ‐ Actions for Local Councils Key to abbreviations can be found at the bottom of the spreadsheet

– The Council strongly supports moves to remove lead from drinking water supply systems. In relation to private supply pipes, the action

plan should identify links with Council’s statutory nuisance role and the range of mandatory and discretionary grants from NIHE (DfC) that

may be used to address problems in private dwellings.

PROGRESS STATUS ‐ PLEASE SELECT CURRENT STATUS OF OVERALL OUTPUT

Page 1


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

DW Aim 1 DW 1G: Manage water quality risks from private water supplies

DW 1G (i) Maintain an effective water quality monitoring programme for private supplies

Short DAERA (DWI) Local Councils EH

DW1G (ii) Work with water regulators, Local Councils and private supply owners to further develop risk assessments at private water supplies to ensure Water Safety Plans are in place at private water supplies (PWS)

Short DAERA (DWI)Local Councils /

PWS owners

DW1G (iii) Increase public awareness of, and how to protect groundwater. Educate private well owners on how to protect their well source.

Medium DAERA (DWI) Local Councils

– The Council concurs with the importance of the management of water quality risks from defective water fittings. However, it must be

recognised that the specialist knowledge of plumbing, water fittings, design and installation standards and associated legislation sits

within NIW and not local councils. The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009, already exists and with some

additions/amendment could be utilised to control the water quality and efficiency of water fittings. This leaves the administration and


Page 2


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

DW Aim 1 DW 1H: Manage water quality risks for domestic distribution systems

DW 1H (i) Continue monitoring and regulation of domestic distribution systems

ShortDAERA (DWI)

& NIW

Local Councils / Health & Safety

ExecutiveEH

DW 1H (iv) Promote the use of a Water Safety Plan approach within buildings where water is made available to the public in line with WHO principles

Medium DAERA (DWI)NIW / Local

Councils

Update

– the Council's role as an agent for DWI is noted. DW 1G (iii) should recognise the Council’s role in improving public awareness of risks

due to extensive training in risk assessment of Private Water Supplies which can now be transferred over to single well supplies.


– It is noted that the Council's and the HSENI are suggested as partner organisations likely based on the health & safety enforcement

responsibility for these premises. It is important that enforcement agencies are engaged with prior to the introduction of any addition

duties or guidance in relation to this aspect.

DW AIM 2: Meet the Water Demand needs of Society, the Economy and the Environment

Page 3


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


DW Aim 2 DW 2A: Provide access to efficient, safe, secure drinking water supplies

DW 2A (ii) Consider improved mechanisms to ensure that NI Water and Planning Authorities effectively integrate water investment and development plans and ensure customers' water needs are efficiently met

ShortNIW / Local

CouncilsDAERA (RU) /

CCNI

Update

DW AIM 2 DW 2E : Deliver water efficient residential and commercial development

DW 2E (i) Consider regulatory options in which all future residential development is water efficient and achieves a

i ti fi f

Medium DfI WDPDDAERA (DWI) /

NIW / Local Councils

EH/BC

DW 2E (iii) Consider amending the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations (NI) 2009 to include a performance rating for water fittings

Short DfI WDPD Local Councils

Update


Council supports the effective integration of water investment and development plans; however this is reliant on effective and

meaningful engagement, including the release of data and information from NIW in a timely manner in order to inform Local

Development Plans. The Council agrees with greater integration of water investment Plans and Local Development Plans, to be led by

Central Government.


Council notes that the previous 2014 Long Term Water Strategy consultation had identified how England & Wales had used a buildings

target based approach to reduce average consumption to 130 l/h/day by 2030. Council supports the need for a long term water

consumption target, however unlike England & Wales, Northern Ireland is not considered a region of water scarcity and any decision on

the means of reducing water consumption should reflect that status. Council would

FRMD Aim 1: Deliver Sustainable Flood Resilient Development

Page 4


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


FRMD Policy 1A

FRMD 1A (i) Prevent inappropriate development in high risk areas and ensure that future development does not increase flood risk

Short Local CouncilsDfI Rivers

Agency / NIW EH/PL

FRMD 1A (ii) Land-Use planning decisions must continue to be informed by up-to-date information on the risk from all significant sources of flooding

Short

DfI Strategic Planning

Division / Local Councils

DfI Rivers Agency

FRMD 1A (iii) Any exceptional development permitted within high flood risk areas must make provision for adequate mitigation measures commensurate with flood risk to the development and elsewhere

Short


Division / Local Councils

DfI Rivers Agency / NIW /

WI

FRMD 1A (iv) Where possible surface water drainage systems (e.g. from roads, housing developments and car parks) should not be connected to the

Short NIWLocal Councils /

Transport NI

Update

To ensure land-use planning decisions are informed to help minimise flood risk.

1A(i)Council supports FRMD Policy 1A and acknowledges the key role of DfI (Rivers Agency and NIW in the delivery of the actions. It is

important that Council are informed with up to date information on the risk of flooding and receive expert advice on pre‐application

discussions and planning applications which are subject to flood risk or such proposals, which are accompanied with a drainage

assessment.

Page 5


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


FRMD Policy 1B

Make space for surface water management in development plans

FRMD 1B (i) Engage with Councils on developing guidance on how development proposals (including land use zonings in LDPs) can incorporate large surface water drainage schemes

Short & Medium DfI WDPD


Division / Local Councils / DfI

Rivers Agency / NIW

EH/PL

FRMD 1B (ii) Consider developing arrangements for the funding, construction and maintenance of large surface water drainage schemes in advance of development

Short & Medium DfI WDPD NIW / Local

Councils / DfI Rivers Agency

Update

FRMD Policy 1C

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are the preferred option for managing s rface ater in

FRMD 1C (i) Clarify responsibilities for long-term maintenance, ownership and liability associated with SuDS

ShortDfI WDPD & DAERA (RU)

SMG (other members)

EH/PL/BC

FRMD 1C (ii) Implement the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's Managing Stormwater report.


SMG (other members)


Council would welcome meaningful engagement in relation to developing guidance on how development proposals can incorporate large

surface water drainage schemes and how this will work in practice. .


Page 6


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

FRMD Policy 1D

Design for drainage exceedance to be incorporated into all new drainage infrastructure.

FRMD 1D (iii) Consider if 'Design for Exceedance' should be a requirement in all new developments Short DfI WDPD

DfI Planning Policy Division / Local Councils / NIW / DfI Rivers

Agency / TNI

T&E - general comment

Update

FRMD 2B Manage rural land within catchments to reduce surface run-off and provide flood storage

FRMD 2B (i) Publicly owned rural land across the catchment should be managed to reduce surface run-off and provide

i t fl d t

Medium DfI WDPD

DfI Rivers Agency / Land-

owning organisations / Local Councils

Parks

Update

The Council agrees that SuDS is the best option for managing surface water in new developments but would have concerns about the

design and later maintenance of soft‐SuDS systems.It appears clear that the current waste water infrastructure cannot keep accepting

additioanl load without major reinvestment. Alternative means of disposal of storm water are being investigated through development of

SuDS. The Water & Sewerage Services Act (NI) 2016 provides NIW with the means to refuse a mains connection. Serious thought


it is noted that DfI Planning Group and Local Councils are detailed as suggesting supporting organisations. It is suggested that detailed

engagement takes place with Council Planning Departments as it is envisaged that the delivery of this policy objective will be a

development management matter (which may or may not come from a planning policy direction).


LCCC would support the application of this Design Standard as Good Practice and should be incorporated where relevant into all new

developments. In considering the use of publicly owned land it is crucial that the public utility and benefit of the land is considered so

that key land would not be put out of use for several months after use as flood storage nor would give rise to large re‐instatement costs.

The Council agrees that SuDS are the best option for managing surface water in new development. However further guidance would be

Page 7


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


FRMD Policy 2C

Manage urban areas to reduce surface water run-off and provide flood storage.

FRMD 2C (i) Where appropriate publicly funded drainage schemes should include SuDS. Short

DfI WDPD & DAERA (RU)

SMG (other members)

Parks

FRMD 2C (ii) Consideration could be given to utilising public green spaces (e.g. parkland) and low impact areas (e.g. car parks) should be used to s stainabl manage rain ater


DfI Rivers Agency / NIW / Local Councils

FRMD 2C (v) Consider developing and implementing a strategy for retro-fitting SuDS measures such as rainwater recycling and green roofs into existing properties and the use of permeable surfaces should

MediumDfI WDPD & DAERA (RU)

SMG (other members)

Update

FRMD Policy 2D

Effective education and public awareness on sustainable drainage

FRMD 2D (i) Carry out public awareness and education campaigns to promote the benefits of sustainable drainage systems and flood storage in

ShortDfI WDPD /

DAERA (RU)

SMG (other members) / Climate NI

EH

2C(v) – Consider developing and implementing a strategy for retrofitting SuDS measures such as rainwater re‐cycling and green roofs

into existing properties and the use of permeable surfaces should be encouraged.


Page 8


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


FRMD 2D (ii) Publicise Flood Maps NI (formerly Strategic Flood Maps) and provide information on flood risk to enable and support communities to be better prepared to face the

ShortDfI Rivers

Agency

Regional Community

Resilience Group (RCRG) /

Climate NI / Local Councils

Update

FRMD Aim 3A

Establish a strategic overview for flood risk management and integrated drainage

FRMD 3A (iii) Put in place clear arrangements for SuDS design approval, adoption / ownership and on-going maintenance.

ShortDfI WDPD /

DAERA (RU)SMG (other members)

BC

FRMD 3A (iv) If required, make the necessary legislative changes to give effect to these arrangements

Short DfI WDPDSMG (other members)

Update


FRMD Aim 3: Provide Sustainable Integrated Drainage in Rural and Urban Areas


The Council's and their Local Development Plans should be considered as supporting organisations towards this aim.

The Council strongly supports the view that the successful implementation of SuDs requires such clear roles and responsibilities and

ideally a central approval body, within government dealing with the design, assistance and maintenance required for successful SuDS

It appears clear that the current waste water infrastructure cannot keep accepting additioanl load without major reinvestment.

Page 9


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


FRMD Policy 4C

Reduce the number of properties at risk of sewer flooding

FRMD 4C (iii) Continue NI Water 'Bag it and Bin it' education campaign.

Short NIW

Partners against pollution - This group includes Local Councils,

CCNI, DfI Rivers Agency, DAERA (RU), DfI WDPD

and UREGNI

EH

Update

FRMD Policy 4E

Promote the use of Individual Property Protection IPP

FRMD 4E (i) IPP public awareness and education campaigns should be developed and targeted at residents living in high flood risk areas.

ShortDfI Rivers

AgencyLocal Councils EH/BC

FRMD 4E (iii) Proposed redevelopment should consider the need for Individual Property Protection in areas of significant flood risk X

ShortDfI Rivers

Agency Local Councils



Page 10


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

FRMD Policy 5C

Effective flood emergency planning and delivery structures

FRMD 5C (i) Put in place sub-regional emergency planning structures and plans between all drainage providers, emergency services, the Flooding Incident Line, Councils and others to support coordinated local response to flooding.

ShortDfI Rivers

Agency

Regional Community

Resilience Group / Local Councils

EH

FRMD 5C (ii) Continue to support local Community Flood Forums where appropriate. Short DfI WDPD

DfI Rivers Agency / Local

Councils

Update

The Council are supportive of the use of IPP, particularly where flooding is common. It is important that support is provided to home‐

owners and property owners, particularly where vulnerable groups are involved.

This will depend on advice/ guidance from agencies in relation to IPP proposals but should be designed with current Building Regulations

in mind.


Being intimately involved in this role, the Council strongly support the need for effective planning and delivery structures. These must be

adequately resourced to achieve satisfactory outcomes in the event of major flooding incidents.

Emergency Planning resources were reviewed under the Review of Civil Contingencies in Local Government 2015 and current structures

EP AIM 1 : Sustainable Environmental Policy and Regulation

Page 11


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


EP Policy 1A

Sustainable environmental policy

EP 1A (iv) Policy makers should work closely with key stakeholders to develop affordable environmental policies which can be programmed into investment

Medium DAERA (RU) &

DfI WDPD

NIW / UREGNI / WI / Local Councils

T&E - general comment

Update

EP Policy 1B

Sustainable environmental regulation

EP 1B (vi) Increase capacity of River Trusts operating in Northern Ireland.

Medium DAERA (WMU)Local Councils /

Waterways Ireland

Econ Dev

EP 1B (vii) Organise community events to encourage the local community to participate in protecting their environment and to raise awareness of issues.

Medium DAERA (WMU)

Local Councils / NIW / RCN /

NICVA / Groundwork NI /

WI



Page 12


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

EP Policy 2B

Sustainable catchment management to reduce diffuse pollution

EP 2B (v) Following commencement of the Review of Old Mineral Permission legislation, review existing planning conditions on old mineral planning permissions to ensure they operate in an environmentally sustainable manner

LongDfI Planning

Policy Division Local Councils PL/EH

Update

EP Policy

2C

Reducing diffuse pollution from surface water run-off in urban areas

EP 2C (i) Environmental quality requirements should be factored into future guidance on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).


DfI Rivers Agency / DfI

Planning Policy Division / Local Councils / SMG (other members)

PL

We support the aims to increase local community awareness and participation in protecting their environment.


The Council's role following the Review of Old Minerals Permissions is noted in this regard.

Page 13


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


EP 2C (ii) Environmental quality regulators should work closely with flood risk management and drainage agencies in the design and specification of future SuDS systems.


NIW / Local Councils / SMG (other members)

Update

EP Policy 3A

Educating consumers to prevent inappropriate items entering the sewerage network

EP 3A (ii) Continue education programmes and public awareness campaigns on the importance of correct disposal of FOG and highlight how this can reduce the risk of pollution.

Short NIW

NI Education Board / CCNI / DAERA (RU) / TIDYNI / Local

Councils

EH

EP 3A (iv) Consider measures to effectively enforce the new detergent regulations to ban the sale of domestic detergents containing more than 0.5% phosphorous to reduce the amount of phosphorus entering

Short Local Councils EH


The successful implementation of SuDs requires such clear roles and responsibilities and ideally a central approval body, within

government dealing with the design, assistance and maintenance of SuDs. “Flood risk management” should also form part of the

consultations into the Council’s Development Plan.

EP Aim 3: Effective and Efficient Wastewater Collection and Treatment


Page 14


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

EP Policy 3B

Efficient, effective and compliant wastewater treatment

EP 3B (v) Future development plan zonings should make provision for both wastewater treatment facilities and sustainable drainage systems (FRMD Polic 1B)

Short

Local Councils / NIW / DfI WDPD /

DAERA (RU)

DfI Strategic Planning Division

PL

EP 3B (vi) NI Water to work with the Planning Authority (Councils) to complete studies (during PC15) to determine locations where new/upgraded WWTWs are needed to help ensure this does not prohibit

Short NIW Local Councils

Update

EP Policy 3D

Sustainable and compliant private sewers and treatment systems

EP 3D (ii) Put in place arrangements to ensure prospective homebuyers will have assurance that the sewerage systems (and on-site waste water treatment systems) are constructed to appropriate

Short DfI WDPDNIW / Council for Building Control

EH/BC

In principle should provision be made, this must be linked to a clear investment plan from NI Water and cannot merely be aspirational.

Local Councils are only able to include new zonings for wastewater treatment facilities once we are informed by NI Water where

new/upgraded WWTWs are needed. Consultation with NI Water on the provision of future infrastructure requirements will be an

important part of the new LDP.

The Council are supportive in principle of this education policy and will continue to give advice in all situations where this behaviour is

occurring.

EP 3A (iv)


Page 15


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

EP Policy 5B

Protect and improve coastal water morphology

EP 5B (i) Develop and implement measures in the marine environment to achieve good environmental status

ShortDAERA (Marine Division)

NIW / DfI TPSLD / Coastal Local

Councils

Update

EP Policy 5C

Effective management and control of alien species

EP 5C (i) Manage alien species introductions and control, contain or eradicate existing alien species through the implementation of a co-ordinated management framework across the whole of

Long DAERA (NED)

NICS, AFBI, NPWS, RSPB, Ulster Wildlife Trust, NI and other relevant NGO's, Local

Council

PKS / T&E general comment

EP 5C (ii) Help deliver the aims and objectives of the Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Northern ireland to minimise the risk of invasive alien species to the economy environment and

Medium DAERA (NED)

DfC, DfI, Public Bodies, AFBI, NPWS, RSPB, UWT, NI and other relevant NGOs, Local


The Council are supportive in principle of a system which could deliver such assurances but it is unclear what mechanism could be used to

achieve same. This has been specifically identified for Building Control support. However, Building Control will never be in a position to

make any assurances on any aspect of construction even when they are controlled by the regulations. The Building Control role is as an

enforcement body. We can only make reasonable enquiry into compliance. The responsibility for compliance remains with those cited in


Page 16


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


EP 5C (iii) The strategy should also have a key objective of contributing to the Convention on Biological Diversity and EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020

Long DAERA (NED)

DfI, DAERA, NICS, AFBI,

NPWS, RSPB, Ulster Wildlife Trust, NI and other relevant NGO's, Local

EP 5C (iv) Develop risk assessments and management plans for invasive alien species that are established or likely to become established.

Long DAERA (NED)

DEFRA, NICS, Public Bodies, AFBI, NPWS,

RSPB, UWT, NI and other

relevant NGOsEP 5C (v) Target eradication of alien species at a catchment scale for Giant Hogweed and Japanese Knotweed and Spartina Anglica

Long DAERA (NED)

DfC, Public Bodies, AFBI, NPWS, RSPB, UWT, NI and other relevant NGOs, Local Councils, WI

Update


The Council would be supportive of such an objective. NI Water should be aware of the DAERA consultation on dereliction and

dilapidation which speculates on the possibility of introducing broad legislation which could be taken to cover the presence of alien

species. A

biodiversity audit of LCCC sites is taking place and is due to be completed by April 2017. Information collected through the phase one

Page 17


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


EP Policy 5E

Protect and improve biodiversity

EP 5E (i) To develop a more integrated ecosystem approach to terrestrial, marine and freshwater conservation to help safeguard ecosystem services.

Medium DAERA (WMU)

NIW, Public Bodies, NPWS, RSPB, UWT, NI

and other relevant NGOs, Local Councils

Parks / T&E general comment

EP 5E (ii) To address key actions for NI priority habitats and NI priority species.

Medium DAERA (NED)

Public Bodies, NPWS, RSPB, UWT, NI and other relevant NGOs, Local

Councils

EP 5E (iii) To contribute to the achievement of a favourable condition on designated sites

Medium DAERA (NED)


Councils

EP 5E (iv) By 2020, measures should be in place to conserve the freshwater pearl mussel and other water dependent protected species.

Short DAERA (NED)DAERA / Local

Councils

Page 18


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


EP 5E (v) Halve the rate of loss of water dependant natural habitats and halt their degradation by 2020.

Medium DAERA (NED)


Councils

EP 5E (vi) Promote the eradication of existing alien species through stakeholder engagement and the implementation of a co-ordinated management

Long DAERA (NED)

NICS, Public Bodies, NPWS, RSPB, UWT, NI

and other relevant NGOs, Local Councils

EP 5E (viii) Promote policies to help ensure long-term sustainable management of ecosystems and delivery of their services

ShortDAERA

(RNRPD)

DfI, NIW, WI, Public Bodies, Local Councils

Update


The baseline data gathered from the Biodiversity Audit of LCCC sites will summarise all NI priority habitats and NI priority species present

this alongside the LCCC Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) will outline work require to achieve the necessary protection and

conservation of habitats and species at a local level, which in turn will contribute to conserving biodiversity at a national and even

international level.

Page 19


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


WSS Policy 1C

Transform water and sewerage assets and infrastructure through sustainable solutions

WSS 1C (v) Identify and secure sufficient land early in the project phase to give the option of the selection of larger footprint process solutions that typically result in lowering operating costs. This includes purchasing land to

Medium & Long NIWLocal Councils /

DfI WDPD / UREGNI

PL

Update

WSS Policy 2A

Provide high service levels to all water and sewerage services customers

WSS 2A (iv) Continue to educate consumers on the importance of not flushing inappropriate items or substances into sewers to prevent the flooding and pollution incidents caused by

Short NIW

Local Councils / CCNI / other Government

Departments / UREGNI

PKS


The Council are supportive in principle of lower energy treatment systems. In the out‐workings of this action, NI Water should seek to

incorporate the full scope of land within committed investment plans so that this can link to the Council’s Local Development Planning

process.

WSS Aim 2: Provide High Quality Services to All Water and Sewerage Customers


WSS Aim 1: Provide Efficient and Affordable Water and Sewerage Services

Page 20


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

WSS Policy 2C

Effective customer education and public awareness

WSS 2C (i) Assess the outputs of previous education and public awareness campaigns to enhance future proposals that will reach a wider audience

Short NIWCCNI / PHA /

Local Councils / UREGNI

TE

Update

WSS Policy 3C

Helping vulnerable customers in the community

WSS 3C (i ) Continue to promote the Customer Care register to ensure those who need to avail of these services are aware of them.

Short NIW

CCNI / Local Councils /

UREGNI / Health & Social Care organisations

Update


The Council would initiate a promotional campain on approiate flushing within Sports Services.


The Council would initiate a promotional campain on approiate flushing within Sports Services.

WSS AIM 3: Provide High Quality Customer Service and Customer Information

WSS Aim 4: Provide Resilient and Secure Water and Sewerage Services

Page 21


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


WSS Policy 4B

Effective incident planning and preservation of services

WSS 4B (i) Maintain and review effectiveness of emergency plans, systems and process to preserve service delivery during

j i id t

Short NIWDfI / DAERA /

Local Councils / UREGNI

EH

Update

WSS Policy

5A

Manage the NI Water estate to promote recreation, biodiversity and cultural heritage

WSS 5A (i) NI Water should develop and implement a long-term estate management strategy in partnership with key stakeholders to enhance the recreational biodiversity and

Short NIW

Local Councils / DAERA /

Tourism NI / DfC / Environment

NGOs / Heritage Groups /

PKS/SS

WSS 5A (ii) Permit access to NI Water land/assets to facilitate recreational activities where it is safe to do so and financial resources permit taking into account the need to safeguard water quality and protect the

Short NIW Local Councils


The Council support the maintenance and review of emergency planning procedures. It should be noted that this function is currently

performed through the multi‐agency flood groups and Emergency Preparedness Groups.

WSS Aim 5 : Utilise NI Water Assets to provide wider benefits for the environment and the

Page 22


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


WSS 5A (vi)Adopt and implement the Protocol for the Care of the Government Historic Estate and develop a long term plan to bring assets covered by this, where necessary, up to a suitable standard and maintain

Medium NIW Local Councils

WSS 5A (vii) Explore opportunities to celebrate the local water industry's influence on the social, cultural, industrial and natural heritage of Northern Ireland.

Short NIW

Local Councils / DAERA /

Tourism NI / DfC / Environmental NGOs / Heritage

Groups

Update

WSS Policy 5B

Using surplus water and sewerage assets to provide recreational benefits for the community

WSS 5B (ii) Develop policy to ensure surplus water and sewerage assets with recreational value are transferred within the public

Short NIWLocal Councils /

UREGNISS



Page 23


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Update

Key: AFBI Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute

BCC Belfast City Council CCNI Consumer Council for Northern

IrelandCEOG Customer Engagement

Oversight GroupCNI Climate Northern IrelandDAERA Department for Agriculture, the

Environment and Rural AffairsDAERA (DWI) Department for Agriculture, the

Environment and Rural Affairs - Drinking Water Inspectorate

DAERA (EPD) Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs - Environmental Policy Division

DAERA (NED) Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs - Natural Environment Division)

Whilst being supportive in principle of this policy, Council's would insist upon a clear understanding of liabilities and costs before the

taking on of any such assets could be considered.

Page 24


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


DAERA (RNRPD) Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs - Regulatory and Natural Resources Policy Division

DAERA (RU) Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs - Regulation Unit

DAERA (WMU) Department for Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs - Water Management Unit

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DfC Department for CommunitiesDfE Department for the EconomyDoF Department of FinanceDfI Department for InfrastructureDfI Planning Group Department for Infrastructure

Planning Group

DfI TPSLD Department for Infrastructure - Transport, Policy, Strategy and

DfI WDPD Department for Infrastructure - Water and Drainage Policy Division

ECHO NI Water's call centre provider

Page 25


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


Environmental NGOs Environmental Non-Governmental organisations - lead organisation is the Northern Ireland Environment Link

NIAPA Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association

NICVA Northern Ireland Council on Voluntary Action

NIW Northern Ireland WaterNPWS National Parks and Wildlife

Service (Ireland)PHA Public Health AgencyRA DfI Rivers AgencyRCN Rural Community NetworkRCRG Regional Community Resilience

GroupRSPB Royal Society for the Protection

of BirdsSMG Stormwater Management Group

(David Jackson, Chief Executive, Causeway Coast & Glens Borough Council

TNI DfI Transport Northern IrelandSIB Strategic Investment BoardUFU Ulster Farmers UnionUKWIR United Kingdom Water Industry

Research

Page 26


AIM POLICY ACTIONS

ACHIEVEABLE

TIMEFRAME

(Short / Medium

/ Long)

LEAD

DEPARTMENT

DELIVERY BODY

SUGGESTED

SUPPORTING

DEPARTMENT /

ORGANISATION

Lead/ Support


UREGNI Utility Regulator for Northern Ireland

UWT Ulster Wildlife TrustWI Waterways IrelandWRC Water Research

Page 27