MAGHERAFELT DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF Proceedings of a Meeting of Magherafelt District Council held in the Council Chamber, 50 Ballyronan Road, Magherafelt on Tuesday, 14 January 2003. The meeting commenced at 7.30 p.m.
Presiding: Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, MLA
Other Members Present: T J Catherwood P E Groogan O T Hughes J Junkin J F Kerr Miss K A Lagan J A McBride P H McErlean P McLean R A Montgomery H E Mullan S O’Brien J P O’Neill G C Shiels
Apology: J Kelly, MLA
Officers Present: J A McLaughlin (Chief Executive) J J Tohill (Director of Finance and Administration) C W Burrows (Director of Environmental Health) W J Glendinning (Director of Building Control) T J Johnston (Director of Operations) Mrs A Junkin (Chief Executive’s Secretary)
Representatives from Other Mr Edgar Jardine – Director, OFDFM Bodies in Attendance: Mr Billy Gamble – Director DRD Mr Ian Raphael – DRD Mr Norman Slater – Invest NI Mrs Joan Bryson – Planning Officer
1. MINUTES It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 10 December 2002 (copy circulated to each Member) subject to an amendment on Page 43 paragraph 21.3 – Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health, the resolution should read “that a contribution of £1,000 be made” not £200, be taken as read and signed as correct.
2
2. MATTERS ARISING The Chief Executive submitted the following OUT OF THE MINUTES letters from:
593/1/2003 2.1 Cookstown and Magherafelt Citizens Advice Bureau thanking the Council for the increased grant requested and the five year planned funding increase.
Noted.
56/1/2003 2.2 Emergency Medical Care thanking the Council for financial assistance.
Noted.
533/1/2003 2.3 Derry Minors Gaelic Football Team thanking the Council for the wonderful reception and gifts given to mark their success in winning the All Ireland Minor Football Final 2002.
Noted.
279/1/2003 2.4 Mr John McRobert dated 10 January 2003 writing to say farewell to the Council after twenty- one years as Section Engineer with the Roads Service in Magherafelt. He thanked the Members and Officers for their help and co-operation during his time working in Magherafelt. Mr McRobert has taken up a new position with the Roads Service in Omagh.
Noted.
280/1/2003 2.5 Mr William Duddy, the Water Executive, Ballymena advising that he was vacating his position as Divisional Water Manager of the Northern Division to take up a new role in Water Service as Director of Customer Services. He thanked the Members and Officers for their help and support during the past seven years and looked forward to developing relationships in his new position. He advised that Mr Joe Millar had taken over as Acting Divisional Manager.
Noted.
855/1/2003 2.6 Homefirst Community Trust in reply to the Council’s letter on the proposed new domiciliary meals scheme (copy circulated to each Member).
635/1/2003 2.7 Submitted for information letter and copy of a report prepared by The Royal Hospitals on clinical activity patterns and trends during 1998/9 – 2001/2 (copies circulated to each Member). 3
635/1/2003 2.8 Submitted letter from Omagh District Council enclosing a copy of the University of Ulster’s Briefing Paper on its independent Public Examination of the Department of Health’s Developing Better Services consultation document. The letter intimated that the report of the Public Examination Panel contained a number of important findings and conclusions on the proposal for the siting of the new acute hospital for Tyrone and Fermanagh (copy circulated to each Member).
3. CONGRATULATIONS 3.1 The Chairman, Councillor Rev McCrea congratulated William Trevor Curry on being 260/1/2003 awarded the Queen’s Police Medal in the New Year’s Honours List.
Noted.
3.2 Councillor Miss K A Lagan referred to the success of St Patrick’s College, Maghera on winning the Aer Lingus Young Scientists of the Year Award and requested that a message of congratulations be forwarded to the school.
Members agreed.
4. SYMPATHY 4.1 Councillor J Junkin referred to the recent death of Mr Hugh McKay, Chief Executive of the Planning Service. He said that he first met Mr McKay when he was the Divisional Planning Manager in Ballymena. He had been promoted to the position of Chief Executive at Planning Headquarters, in Belfast but he still maintained contact with him until his recent illness, through his membership on the Northern Ireland Drainage Council. He spoke of his pleasant and helpful manner in which he carried out his duties, and said that he would be sadly missed by his family, staff and colleagues.
4.2 The Chairman, Councillor Rev McCrea also referred to Mr McKay as someone he had known for many years.
4.3 Councillor Miss K A Lagan also expressed sympathy to Mr McKay’s family
4
4.4 It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: that the Chief Executive write to Mrs McKay expressing the Council’s sympathy on the death of her husband.
5. REFORM AND The Chairman welcomed Messrs Jardine, Gamble, REINVESTMENT Raphael and Sleator to the meeting to further discuss INITIATIVE – FORMER the regeneration of the RIR base in Magherafelt. He RIR BARRACKS, said that as a result of a resolution of the Council an MAGHERAFELT all-party committee had been formed to discuss the matter. 312A/1/2003 5.1 Mr Jardine, Director of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, thanked the Council for the invitation. He referred to the Draft Consultation Paper on Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order which had come about in order to address the substantial backlog of capital investment projects required to give Northern Ireland a first-class infrastructure, hence the formation of the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative. The two elements of the RRI were announced by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in May 2002, after negotiations with the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Firstly a Strategic Investment Board would be created to ensure that strategic infrastructure was planned and delivered in such a way as to make the most of the resources available. Secondly, some strategic military bases and security sites would be transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive allowing them to be used for economic and social regeneration of local areas.
Mr Jardine explained that this strand of the RRI (Reinvestment and Reform Initiative) provided for the transfer to the Executive, from the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office of a number of military bases and security sites free of charge, namely the following sites – Ebrington Barracks, The Maze Prison, Crumlin Road Gaol, Magherafelt RIR base, Malone Road, Belfast and Long Kesh. It was possible that further sites could be made available but may not be free of charge.
5
Mr Jardine referred to the potential use of the Magherafelt RIR base. OFMDFM had the power to develop the sites with the object of regeneration. The range of options could include the following:
• Trawled for Public Sector Interest • Sell the site • A Urban Re-development Corporation (for example, Laganside) would be required for larger sites • An appropriate partnership of relevant public sector and private sector interests.
Sites would be used for social and economic development opportunities and the Ministry of Defence would be monitoring their use.
The purpose of the Strategic Investment Board will be to ensure that public monies are deployed as effectively as possible. The operating costs could be £2-3 million. The operating costs of development corporations or regeneration companies could cost between £1-2 million.
Mr Jardine said that due regards should be given to the advice of the PSIB as legislation would move over the next number of weeks and Royal Assent would be granted in February.
5.2 Mr Ian Raphael, Department of Regional Development, said that the Regional Development document related to the physical development of the site. The Regional Development Strategy set an overarching strategic framework for planning in Northern Ireland, and was a Department of Regional Development and Department of the Environment function regarding the Area Plan. All development in Northern Ireland had to have regard to the Regional Development Strategy. He said that one of the key objectives of the strategy was to look at economic development. All development plans had to be consistent with the Strategy. The RIR base was an opportunity site which could be advanced.
5.3 Mr N Sleator from Invest Northern Ireland gave an overview of its work. He said that the Industrial Development Board (IDB), the Industrial Research and Development Unit (IRTU) and the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) had been brought together to form Invest NI.
6
Mr Jardine felt that there might be potential for the economic development of the RIR base in Magherafelt, although Invest NI had moved with the physical development of the industrial park at Creagh, Toomebridge. They had aspirations of forming a partnership with the Council and perhaps the private sector to develop the army barracks site. Invest NI could become an enabler or facilitator and look for opportunities.
In summing up Mr Jardine said that the Councillors had queries, the fact was OFMDFM had taken no decisions but were interested in the view coming forward and on the partnership point they were looking for genuine Department and local interests.
5.4 The Chairman thanked all the speakers for the overview. He said that the Council would not be discussing the issues tonight as the Council had a specific committee to make decisions. He enquired as to who was in control of the OFMDFM.
Mr Jardine explained that the Minister, Mr Ian Pearson, MP was in control.
Councillor J A McBride commented on the site not going to be “free” and asked if this could be enlarged upon. He asked if the site on the Castledawson Road which was a prime site, could be made available in some form as a sign of cooperation. Councillor McBride also referred to the possibility of Creagh Industrial Park being designated as a “Strategic Employment Location” and asked if this happened how would this affect the site on the Castledawson Road.
In reply Mr Jardine said that the site could be used for social economic and regeneration purposes. Sites came free but the developer/s would incur development expenses.
Mr Sleator gave an outline of the topography of the site and stated that he expected that costs incurred with conversion could be recouped.
Mr Jardine stated that he hoped to see decisions on Magherafelt RIR base made as quickly as possible so that the site could be put into use and could be moved on quickly.
7
Councillor Miss K A Lagan enquired what would happed if the costs were so high that it was better to sell the site and use the money to develop a site elsewhere. She then asked where would the money go?
Mr Jardine explained that in the event of the site being sold the money would be used for social economic and regeneration purposed in areas required.
Mr Sleator stated that there was a need to differentiate the industrial use of the site at Creagh and the RIR base.
Councillor P McLean enquired if the partnership aspect meant private sector or did it include the Council.
Mr Sleator said that the use of partnership was a challenge for different bodies to work together.
Mr Jardine gave the example of Ebrington which had chosen an Urban Redevelopment Corporation and would possibly include the Council. The challenge was to involve the right type of partners.
Councillor J F Kerr said that assuming the partnership exists and there were several options being considered, who was make the final decision.
Mr Jardine explained that procedures differed depending on the option, but whoever owned the site would have a significant say in the decision as would the funders.
Mr Slater commented that whatever option gave the greatest social, economic and regeneration benefit should be the winning scheme.
The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that District Councils were getting a more robust economic development role but this was something different because in reality this was a small site and could only be made workable if it served the best interests of the community. The requirements for Magherafelt would be less than in other areas.
Mr Jardine endorsed the Chairman’s comments.
8
In conclusion the Chairman said that the matter would be further investigated by the committee. The Council wanted to be an active participant and that this was the first part of the process.
Mr Jardine thanked the Council for its invitation and involvement.
Messrs Jardine, Gamble, Raphael and Sleator retired from the meeting at 8.15 p.m.
6. BUILDING CONTROL The Director of Building Control presented the DEPARTMENT Department’s report for the period 4 December 2002 to 7 January 2003 (copies circulated to each 210/1/2003 Member).
6.1 Mr Glendinning stated that during the period of the report thirty-four applications had been approved.
6.1.1 Two applications had been cancelled – MA/0990/0245 – Mr Joseph Coulter, 8 Princess Terrace, Magherafelt for an extension to a dwelling and MA/0990/0266 – Mr Michael McKenna, 134 Tirkane Road, Maghera for alteration to a dwelling, as they had gone beyond the four year period to commence work on site.
6.1.2 One application was found to be exempt – MA/2023/0041 – Rev Seamus O’Connell PP, 159 Glen Road, Maghera for a Bell Tower at St Patrick’s Church. Mr Glendinning explained that the erection of such a tower did not fall within Building Control regulations.
6.1.3 There was one extension of time was granted on application MA/0990/0323 – Mr Robert Cassidy, 17 Culbann Road, Portglenone for a single storey dwelling.
6.1.4 Fifty-eight applications had been commenced on site, and one-hundred and nine applications had been completed during this period.
6.2 Mr Glendinning referred to enquiries made by Councillor J A McBride at the December meeting if level access for disabled people had been made available at the new shop units off Rainey Street car- park, Magherafelt.
9
Mr Glendinning stated that on further investigation, level access was found at present at shop accesses but there did not appear to be dropped kerbs from the car- park allowing disabled persons to access the footpath. There appeared only to be dropped kerbs at the goods entrance and this was not always satisfactory or safe for disabled users. He suggested that the Roads Service should be consulted as the responsibility of level access to footpaths was its responsibility.
The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea pointed out that many shop premises were not easily accessible for disabled.
Mr Glendinning said that new shop premises or alterations to entrances should comply with the regulations for level access. There were difficulties when some streets were too steep a gradient, exceeding 1:12 and that the regulations could not be easily met in such circumstances. A step for ambulant disabled was sometimes the only option. The regulations only applied to work to new developments and not to existing premises where no alterations were proposed.
6.3 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J P O’Neill, Seconded by Councillor S O’Brien
RESOLVED: to adopt the report as submitted.
7. NAMING AND Mr Glendinning advised that Workspace NUMBERING OF (Drapestown) Ltd. had reconsidered the name for the STREETS industrial estate on the Magherafelt Road, Draperstown and had requested that it be called “Sperrin Industrial Park”. He recommended that the Council accept this name.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan Seconded by Councillor P E Groogan, and
RESOLVED: to name the industrial estate on the Magherafelt Road, Draperstown as “Sperrin Industrial Park”.
10
Mr Glendinning further advised that a request had been received from Glasnevin Developments Ltd., Maghera to have the development on Hall Street, Maghera named “Victoria House”. He recommended the name to the Council.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J Junkin Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to name the development on Hall Street, Maghera “Victoria House”.
8. ENTERTAINMENT Submitted the following applications for LICENCES Entertainment Licences which were in order and recommended for renewal:-
E. 2 Moyola Park Football Club 16 Main Street, Castledawson – William Lennox E. 16 Castledawson Presbyterian Church 61 Main Street, Castledawson – Norman McMullan E. 17 St Mary’s Hall, Tamlaghtduff Park, Bellaghy – A Dolan E. 25 Wolfe Tones GAC Social Club 30 Ballyscullion Road, Bellaghy – Kevin Doherty E. 26 The Burnside Inn, 58 St Patrick’s Street, Draperstown – Teresa Fullen E. 33 The Johnston Hall, Rainey Endowed School 79 Rainey Street, Magherafelt E. 47 Greenlough Club-House/Pavilion Mayogall Road, Clady – Patrick McErlean E. 56 McAllister’s Bar and Lounge 76b Sixtowns Road, Draperstown – Peter McAllister E. 57 Maggie’s Bar 94 Main Street, Maghera – Raymond McCann E. 68 St Mary’s Parochial Hall Knocknagin Road, Desertmartin – P Crilly E.133 St John Bosco Youth Club Culbane Road, Portglenone – P Cassidy
11
E.145 Fairhill Snooker Club, 17 Hall Street, Maghera – Niall Regan E.146 Slaughneil Community Hall 18 Halfgain Road, Maghera – Bernard Kearney
8.1 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Seconded by Councillor
RESOLVED: that the applications as submitted be renewed.
9. PETROLEUM LICENCE Submitted the following application for a Petroleum Licences which was in order and recommenced :-
P.81 Straw Service Station, 76 Sixtowns Road, Straw, Draperstown Mr P McKenna
9.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the application as received be approved.
10. REGISTRATION OF Submitted copy of application for the Registration of A CLUB a Club as required under Schedule 2 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
SC.5 Magherafelt Masonic Hall
Noted.
11. BOOKMAKER’S Submitted the following application for the LICENCE provisional grant of a Bookmaker’s Licence. The Chief Executive reported that the premises had been inspected and found to be satisfactory and that sufficient and suitable sanitary accommodation was provided.
BG.2 L Stanley Ltd 2 Broad Street, Magherafelt.
12
11.1 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that the application as submitted by provisionally granted.
12. PLANNING SERVICE Submissions to be made to the Planning MANAGEMENT BOARD Services Management Board:
184/1/2002 12.1 H/2001/0516/O – Mr Francis Craig:
It is
PROPOSED by Councillor S O’Brien Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. History of Application:
An outline application was submitted for Mr Francis Craig for the site of a dwelling at the same address on 27 September 2001 under H/2001/0822/O.
That application indicated the access coming down an existing land to the south of the site, and there were a number of reasons for refusal as follows:-
a. No case on need b. Ribbon development c. Change in character d. Inadequate visibility splays.
The application was withdrawn on 23 November 2001.
A new application for the same site was submitted to the Department on 20 May 2002 under H/2002/0516/O. The only change in the application was that, due to the reason for refusal regarding the tree at the existing laneway preventing adequate visibility splays to the right hand side emerging, the access was indicated coming out of the north of the plot of ground.
13
The application was recommended for refusal and a site meeting was held on 5 August 2002. At that meeting, the Planning Officer indicated that there were three reasons for refusal:
a. Tendency to ribbon development b. Unsatisfactory pattern of development c. Build up/change in character – and no reference to “case or need” as the site was outside the Green Belt.
There was no reference to any Roads reason for refusal. The application was again recommended for refusal and the Council requested an Office meeting which was held on 19 September 2002.
As a result of a further recommendation for refusal, the Council asked that the application be referred to the Planning Service Management Board.
2. Description of Site:
In order to assist, two copies of a location map showing the position of photographs P1 and P7.
The site is to the west of the Ballymulligan Road which is arrived at when forking right off the Magherafelt / Ballyronan Road junction, approximately one mile further on.
Near the site there are a number of dwellings on both sides of the road with a large two-storeyed dwelling built a few years ago, known as No.11a, with a two storeyed dwelling and a single storey dwelling painted yellow. The single storey dwelling is known as No.11c and the two storeyed is No.11. When the application was made, No.11c was a dwelling house but is now demolished and footings with a sub-floor had been laid. The two storey dwelling is still in existence. Behind 11a and 11c is a yard and then a large high two storey farm shed, with the proposed site to the very rear or west of the plot of ground. Access is shown coming out to the north of No.11c.
At a recent inspection it was noted that steel stanchions were being erected just inside the boundary of 11a, to the north of 11c. It is not known what this building is intended to be.
14
The proposed site is located behind what were two dwellings and a large shed, with a hedgerow along the southern boundary of the laneway and a back-cloth of hedge when the application was made, but which has recently been trimmed, which will thicken the hedge and encourage it to grow in a short length of time.
It is understood that 11a, the large two storey house, is occupied by Mr Robert Brown, No.11, the two storey cottage still standing and which was the school-master’s house, is now occupied by his sister Alison Brown, and 11c was originally the old school-house, than a dwelling which was bought by the applicant, Mr Francis Craig.
3. Tendency to Ribbon Development:
The first paragraph of DES7 on page 130 of PSRNI states that “Ribbon Development is a line of dwellings extending along a road”. This proposal, which is set a considerable distance back from the road and hidden from it by existing dwelling and shed, could not be described as “extending along a road”.
It is accepted that buildings can be sited back from the road, but the same paragraph states that there is a provision that they must have a common frontage to the road. This site does not have a frontage to the road, merely an avenue approach.
Thirdly, the proposal is not in a roadside field and does not have a common frontage to the road, merely an approach avenue extending from the road to the rear of the field.
Due to the existing roadside buildings and now, taking into consideration the erection of some form of building in the adjoining lands of No.11a the proposed site will be well screened and will not be visually linked when viewed form the road.
The third paragraph refers to road safety objections in a ribbon development situation. No road safety objections apply in this instance.
15
4. Unsatisfactory Pattern of Development:
The Department does not specify in any detail as to how the proposal is an unsatisfactory form, and one is left to guess what that may mean. If it is because it is a dwelling set behind other dwellings and a shed, then one had only to look at the accumulation of dwellings built in the short avenue on the opposite side of the road, where there are a number of buildings including a shop.
To avoid this unsatisfactory pattern, what ever the Department may consider that to be, the applicant would intend to plant trees within his land along the boundaries and therefore the site will be well integrated and cause no problems.
5. Build Up/Change in Character:
The Department may consider build up to occur when there is a situation where there are a certain number of dwellings erected in a specific locality, and that one more would cause build up. This build up must have some starting point or criteria which can be applied in each individual circumstance, and each case taken on its merits.
Change in character occurs, according to Policy DES6, when
a. The proposed dwelling is unduly prominent – there is no reference in the reasons for refusal to prominence b. It would create an adverse impact on an area of countryside when added to the existing buildings in that area.
The irregular group of buildings in this are of two-storeyed dwelling houses large and small, a bungalow which was once a school and now demolished and rebuilt to ground floor level, a row of stanchions, a large rear shed with curved roof and other smaller outbuildings and concrete areas, could hardly be described as an area in which a traditionally designed dwelling would be likely to create an adverse impact.
16
The fifth paragraph states that each application will be treated on its merits, and planning approval will depend on local circumstances including the number of existing buildings in the area, and the vulnerability of the landscape as defined in the Development Plan Countryside Assessments together with the scale and design of the proposed development. Surely it cannot be claimed that this proposal will have an adverse impact on this area.
6. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.2 H/2001/1049/O – Mr S McKeever
Councillor J A McBride stated that the applicant had decided to forward this application to the Planning Appeals Commission. Noted.
12.3 H/2002/0285/O – Mr Gribben
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The proposal has been carefully sited against the backdrop of mature hedgerows and set into the landscape so as to respect the landform of the particular locations.
2. The site (which is located directly adjacent to the junction of the two minor roads and only 60 metres from the existing village settlement of Moorside Villas) is ideally located as part of the dispersed settlement area of Longfield of which Moorside Villas forms the western edge. The local playing fields are sited opposite the site, and the church and school to its west (approximately 500 yards further up the Longfield Road).
17
The Council feels strongly that a dwelling in this location is more appropriate than the “random ribboning” which has been permitted further along Longfield Road, which bears no relation to any settlement, and hence is more in keeping with the rural planning policy DES 6 than many of the sites in the locality.
3. The site in question has a number of features relative to it in “land-use” terms which have resulted in the settlement being sited here in the first instance –
i. The Longfield Lane/Longfield Road junction – sited adjacent ii. The playing field/gathering place iii. The housing which is a result of (i and ii) iv. DES7 states that ribbon development normally occurs on roads radiating from a settlement. The Council would argue strongly that the Longfield Road/Lane junction is in fact the core of the settlement in this particular location.
4. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.4 H/2002/0326 – Mr G Allen
It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: to forward the following submission to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The Site:
The application site is approximately 2 miles from Magherafelt, along the B road to Tobermore. The critical views into the site are from t he two approaches along Grange Road. The surrounding topography is quite flat, this being part of the Moyola River basin. The land is permanently waterlogged, and practically every field has a drainage ditch around its perimeter. Grange Water, a tributary of Moyola River, runs 100m North of the site, with 2m high flood protection embankments on either bank.
18
There are strong mature hedges along the roadside between Grange New Bridge and Luney Lane. They are about 5m high on average consisting mainly of hawthorn. There is very little vegetation on the other three site boundaries.
Grange Road sits about 4 feet above the level of the field, which includes the site. Access would be via a new laneway that would follow the southern field boundary, towards the back of the field. The site includes about 40% of the field’s total area. It omits the other 60% of land which is also within the applicant’s control. This 60% lies between Grange Road, the northern field boundary drain, the proposed laneway and the application site.
The applicant’s intention is to plant an orchard in this area, in order to reduce his maintenance requirement, to add to the site’s privacy and to reduce traffic noise.
A newly planted orchard would obviously need time to mature. In order to provide some instant height, the application proposes to create an over-planted earth mound along the line of the boundary hedge north of the site. The continuation of this boundary alignment aids integration of the site into the field pattern.
It is also proposed to plant along the northern and southern boundaries for shelter, aesthetics and integration.The
2. Lack of Integration:
An assessment of a sites possible integration into the landscape is properly undertaken from the critical viewpoints. In this case those viewpoints are travelling southward along Grange Road, travelling northward along Grange Road, from the junction at Luney Lane and from Rosegarron Road.
While travelling southward along Grange Road the site is completely hidden from view by the embankments either side of Grange Water, until the road user passes over Grange New Bridge. The bridge is 150m from the site boundary. Views toward the site from the bridge are interrupted by the mature roadside hedge on the north-eastern verge. 19
Angles of view toward the site are narrow; the road user is looking along the hedge rather than straight through it.
The hedge’s thickness and quality diminish over the last 25m of the approach to the proposed access position. However, by then the passer-by would need to turn his head 90 degrees to the left in order to have a view into the site.
No roadside hedge needs to be removed in order to provide sightlines to the right side, emerging from the proposed site access. In addition to the existing vegetation, the developer intends to form a landscaped mound along the line of the north-south boundary in the field immediately north of the application site.
This mound is intended to be 2-3m high and to be planted over in hawthorn, acer, sorbus trees with an under-storey of gorse, “whin bushes” which are indigenous. This mound would fit the local landscape perfectly well, given the proximity of the river embankments. It would add enough instant height to hide the walls of a singl storey house. Views of the roof would be filtered by the roadside vegetation and the new planting proposed on the mound. Further, the applicant is a retired bank manager. Neither he nor his wife want a large garden which would be difficult for them to manage in later years. The front, western, portion of the field containing the application site would be planted out as a woodland, or orchard. This offers the applicant three advantages. Firstly, it reduces the maintenance requirement. Secondly, it adds to the privacy the applicant seeks, and thirdly, it will help to reduce traffic noise.
The vantage point from the junction of Luney Lane with Grange Road offers no clear views into the site. Even in winter the roadside hedge along the north-eastern side of Grange Road would not permit into the site.
Further there is a field boundary hedge running at 60 degrees to the Grange Road, which protect the site from views into it. This can be discounted as a problem viewpoint.
Travelling northward along Grange Road there is a break in the roadside hedging at the end of Rosegarron Road. 20
The road user has fairly clear views across the landscape. However, he does not have a view into the site.
He could see the field east of the application site, but the site itself is screened by the roadside hedge and the field boundary hedge at about 60 degrees to the road some 40 to 60m south of the site boundary. Travelling closer to the site, the mature roadside hedge on the traveller’s right completely obscures the critical views. When he reaches the site entrance, the roadside vegetation is less protective.
From Rosegarron Road views into the site are restricted by the roadside hedge, and existing development.
Coupled with the separation distance from the site, and the landscaping proposed, views from here do not offer a prominence problem, nor a lack of integration.
Planning Policy DES5 advised applicants that their choice of site would be unacceptable if it were “unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for t he building in the countryside”. The argument is made that this applicant either has suitable enclosure, or is capable of providing it.
3. Access Difficulties:
The sightline on the left side emerging from the site passes over a grass verge. This verge is in public control. There are at present no obstacles to view. Roads Service is concerned with a summer period during which the grass on the verge could grow high enough to obscure visibility. Their fears are not based on published policy hoever.
Roads Service has suggested that part of the verge be reduced in level to 250 mm or so above the adjacent carriageway. DCAN 15 does not call for this. It requires the developer to provide sightlines from the driver’s level of between 1.05m to 2.0m, to an object height of between 0.26m to 1.05m. For minor access such as this one, the relaxed standard is appropriate. It is indicated in the longitudinal section how that standard clears the existing verge by the length of grass at all points along its length. 21
If the lower object height applies, and the developer has to reduce the verge height, he can do so, since that verge is in public ownership.
If the verge had to be reduced to 250mm above road level, there would be a possibility of undermining some of the trees in the verge. However, that would not apply to any more than two trees along the entire splay. Their protection could be conditioned in an approval notice, requiring an arboriculturist’s report. The higher standard asked by Roads Service is invalid. It assumes a viewer’s eye level of 250mm, instead of 1.05m. DCAN 15’s criteria are satisfied.
4. This application satisfies the criteria laid down in PSRNI and DCAN 15. Both reasons offered for refusal of planning permission are invalid. This Planning Service opinion would not stand at a Planning Appeals Commission hearing and propose that the Management Board approve this application.
5. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.5 H/2002/0423/O – Mr S Smyth
It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The site is located on a quiet rural country road that runs to a dead end for a distance of approximately 2 miles.
The site in question is located at the end of the road close by the applicant’s existing house. There are no objections to this propose dwelling from the neighbours or anyone else for that matter. If it was approved the presence of a dwelling in this location would interfere with no one but the applicant as he is the last occupier of a dwelling on this quiet end road and the only passer-by of the site on the road.
22
2. Integration:
The dwelling is well integrated into the local landscape as it is completely surrounded by well- elevated hills and undulating countryside.
Its location is impossible to be seen from any vantage point, as the site location is hidden 2 miles from any main thoroughfare or main road.
3. Build-up:
The erection of a dwelling on this site does not cause build-up to the area, as existing housing is very sparse. Evidence in the areas by way of homesteads identifies the present of a local community, which no longer exists. The building of a dwelling on this site would still not create the numbers of dwellings and families which once existed as a community in this area. Indeed the building of this dwelling would help to return a sense of community on this road and remove the deadness that has existed since occupation of the local derelict houses ceased.
4. The applicant does feel somewhat aggrieved by the refusal to allow a dwelling on this site and feels that planning has treated him unfairly . Within 2 miles of this site, on a road very similar to this and in surrounding countryside much the same in outlook, in the same town land, 10 houses have been approved in close proximity to each other, therefore, the applicant feels that it is only fair that the same equal treatment be afforded his site.
5. The application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.6 H/2002/0700/O – Mr M Hegarty:
Councillor J A McBride explained that this application was not being forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board but that the application was being resubmitted with an amended plan.
Noted.
12.7 H/2002/0711/O – Mr D Moore
Councillor J A McBride reported that he understood that this application was being withdrawn, pending negotiations with the applicant’s neighbour. 23
12.8 H/2002/0734/O – Mr Donal Moore
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The Site:
The application site is on the northern side of Ballymaguigan Road, which connects that dispersed rural community of Ballymaguigan to the hamlet of Gracefield. It is an area, which has seen a degree of development pressure in recent years. Planning Service in Ballymena have drawn a line in the sand, and said no more development should be allowed. Such a blanket determination is inappropriate, in that each application is not longed deal with on its own merit.
A wedge shaped thicket separates the site from the road. This small woodland is approximately 25m deep at the north-eastern end of the site, narrowing to nothing uniformly along the length of the site. This south-eastern landscape buffer does not belong to the applicant, save the party boundary hedge. There is therefore no possibility for him to remove it. The farmer who owns it has shown no interest in clearing it during the past few decades, during which grant- aid would have been available. He is extremely unlikely to farm it at any time in the future. This visual screen is likely to hid any dwelling built north of it for another few decades at least.
The two other site boundaries are not presently defined by hedging, but they are less important in terms of providing integration at this site than at most other sites. There are only two other boundaries because it is proposed to replicate the wedge shape of the woodland.
The eastern boundary would be defined by a number of semi-mature trees of native species, planted along the line of the former field boundary, which had been removed with the benefit of a government grant a number of years ago. 24
Its line would follow that of the existing farm laneway, which runs perpendicular to the road, along the eastern boundary of the copse referred to above. The north-western boundary would be on a new line. The line has been deliberately chosen to minimise the visual impact from the critical viewpoints. Again it is proposed to plant native species.
The topography of the site, and the road for approximately 100m to either side is flat. Beyond the distance, the road rises to a crest about 150m to the east, but remains flat to the west all the way to Lough Neagh, over a mile distance.
2. Lack of Integration:
As with other assessments by Planning Service, integration into the landscape is measured from viewpoint of public importance. In this case there are two critical viewpoints, namely on the approaches to the site along Ballymaguigan Road from either direction.
Approaching from the west, there is a narrow opportunity of view into the site at the higher crest, 150m from the site boundary. However this view is currently filtered by two hedges, one along the roadside and a second roughly parallel to the road but some 20-40m further back. There are two more hedges, either side of the farm laneway, which run perpendicular to the road. All of this existing vegetation together with the copse completely mask a single storey dwelling in the position proposed.
The short boundary planting proposed at the site’s eastern boundary, which would look perfectly in keeping with the copse, would hide the entire site from this eastern viewpoint.
Further, Planning Service, in their infinite wisdom, have approved two roadside dwellings on the northern side of the road within the area across which they now judge there to be an integration problem. The two dwellings approved will, when built, hide the laneway, the hedge 20-40m back from the road and part of the copse. The application site will be completely hidden from view.
25
Travelling east toward the site, views to the driver’s left into the site become more and more difficult.
As the hill is descended, the roadside hedge become more of an obstacle, as does the copse. There is absolutely no possibility of seeing a dwelling, even in winter.
The views into the site from the south-eastern approach are equally narrow. Until the road user passes No.26 there is no opportunity for viewing the site. As soon as he passes No.24 views are again obscured by the copse.
The critical viewpoint is along a stretch of Ballymaguigan Road about 40m long approximately equivalent to the frontage of No.24. The roadside fence and trees within the private garden of No.24 filter that view. With a gable presentation as proposed in the application, the extent of visibility into the site would be a filtered view 8m wide gable, along a limited length of the unclassified minor road.
If the site were approved, with landscaping conditions, the north-eastern boundary landscaping could completely conceal a single storey dwelling.
A mistake often made by regional Planning Service officers, and subsequently corrected by the Planning Appeals Commission, is to make an assessment of the enclosure that exists, rather than that which could be provided. This site was chosen to take advantage of a long established thicket as the principal boundary definition. The shape of the site was intended to minimise the impact of a new dwelling with its garden, on the local environment. The Council contends that the applicant achieves these objectives without any additional effort, but with his proposed landscaping, a new house would be imperceptible. What better integration than invisibility?
3. Ribbon Development:
The key to any assessment of ribbon development is visual linkage between buildings. That is not a valid proposition in this case.
26
At present, the western approach to the site had no dwellings erected. There is therefore no visual linkage form this critical viewpoint.
If the outline planning approvals along this western approach road were granted they would aid integration. That is because they would hide the proposed site even better than the existing vegetation does. Ribboning to the west of the site is an invalid argument.
A map-based assessment of the eastern side fo the site might suggest that ribboning could be a consideration. Of course that would be invalid. Only visual assessment is relevant. The existing roadside vegetation hides No.26 quite effectively. There is practically no visual linkage between it and its existing neighbour at No.24. It has been reasoned that on that eastern approach that the road user must pass No.26 before No.24 becomes visible at all. By then he would have to look 90 degrees to his right to see No.24 in doing so, the proposed site is out of view. Alternatively, if he looks directly toward the proposed building, even if he could see it through the vegetation, No.24 would be outside even his peripheral vision.
Travelling south-eastward past the copse, by the time the road user can see No.24, the proposed house is already behind him.
4. Change of Character:
An assessment that a particular development proposal would cause a detrimental change to the rural character of an area should again be a visual assessment. Too often planning offers simply count houses on a map and determine that enough have been built or approved already. Further, in Ballymena division at least, current planning applications are included in that assessment, whether determined or not. This is contrary to the first principles repeated innumerably in the Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland that say each application will be treated on its own merits.
The possible integration of this site into the landscape has previously been explored.
27
If the Board agree that a single storey dwelling would barely been seen, if visible at all, then its effect on the rural character of the local area would be benign, and not cause a change of character.
The Planning Appeals Commission overturn weak determinations of a detrimental effect on rural character more often than any other reason, suggesting that a correction of interpretation is necessary.
5. The applicant had made a previous application which was refused planning permission. His site included the current application site, but extended to the party boundary with No.24. There was no indication of a position of a dwelling or of any landscaping. He it been approved, ribboning could have been an issue. Planning Service have failed to consider this application on its own merits, and have instead rehashed the previous consideration. Clearly this is invalid.
The Senior Planning Officers in Ballymena division have decided that there are too many houses already built in the Lough Shore area, which includes this site, and have openly stated that they intend to resist all additional applications for housing. This is implied criticism of the previous regime, which approved most of the recent development under the same strategic guidance. It is also contrary to policy HOU 8, which sets up a positive presumption for rural housing applications not in CPA’s.
Perhaps the new regime in Ballymena is making presumptions about the upcoming Area Plan in relation to this area. Many of the personnel would be aware that that the neighbouring Cookstown Draft Area Plan established a CPA extending some distance back from the shore of Lough Neagh, and might predict that the same is to happen in the area near this application site. Of course, Magherafelt Draft Area Plan is far from publication, so such considerations would be invalid.
It is contended that the consideration of this application has been influenced by matters which are not properly relevant, and that the applicant should be granted outline planning permission. 28
6. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.9 H/2002/0743/O – Mr D Kidd
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. An outline planning application was submitted to the Planning Service, under the above Planning reference on 31 July 2002
This application was recommended for refusal and a site meeting was held on 17 September 2002.
The application was subsequently considered and again recommended for refusal, whereupon an office meeting with the Acting Chief Officer, Mr Clifford McIlwaine was held in County Hall, Ballymena on 30 October 2992. It was again recommended to the Council for refusal.
The Council again supported the application and asked that it be referred to the Planning Service Management Board.
2. The three reasons for refusal, were namely lack of integration, build up and creation of ribbon development.
3. Curr Road is a short length of road which leads from the main Desertmartin/Magherafelt Road, known as Roshure Road to the main Desertmartin/Moneymore Road known as Moneymore Road. Referring to the enclosed application 1:2500 scale location maps the proposal is in keeping with the existing development which comprises quite a number of dwellings on both sides of the road.
29
Commencing at Roshure Road, in the north east, there is a small two-storey cottage, marked No.1, which presently is occupied, then a pair of semi- detached two-storeyed elevated cottages, Nos 5 & 7, with an adjoining field which would be capable of taking another dwelling on the basis of in-fill, followed by a recently constructed single storey dwelling.
Outline planning permission being granted to Mr Michael Heggarty, with a further site approved in the garden of No.11 a further bungalow at the road junction, known as No.26 Moneymore Road, but with the access coming on to Curr Road.
Commencing again at Roshure Road to the south is a two storeyed dwelling opening on to the main road but with the additional access on to Curr Road, followed to the south west by a completely new bungalow, built by Mr McBride, known as No.2, then a laneway, serving three dwellings, well spaced apart and leading away from the road, known as Curr Lane. Immediately after and extending to the laneway entrance is No.4 opening on to Curr Road and finally a bungalow with two separate accesses opposite No.11 – the number of this bungalow is not known.
As a consequence along the northern side of the Curr Road there are presently six numbered dwellings and one approved site and to the south four dwellings. Due to the topography of the area none of these dwellings can easily be seen from either of the main roads and due to the two bends in Curr Road, are not all seen together, but do exist along the road.
4. The site of the dwelling, shown outlined in red, has a narrow frontage to the Curr Road, which is the width of the present access to the laneway, so none of the site is fronting on to Curr Road.
The site extends approximately 26m along the side of Curr Lane, and extends to the rear of No.2, being approximately three quarters of an acre in extent.
The Curr Lane leaves the roadway nearly at right angles before bending to the west and then to the south and has a high mound between it and the roadside hedge along the curtilage of No.4. 30
When standing opposite No.5 it is not possible to see over the hedge into the site, which falls from north to south west slowly at first for a third of the way before dropping to the south western boundary by a total of approximately 2.5m.
The application, as submitted, indicates the proposed dwelling being sited in the area shown “hatched”, but the applicant would be prepared to site the dwelling to the south western portion of the site, which would be lower and practically invisible from Curr Road to any other critical view point.
5. Photographs :
One set of photographs, numbered P1 to P9 are enclosed and are marked on the location maps.
P1 – heading south west along Curr Road, shows the bend at the entrance with existing laneway going in before the hump with a car behind.
P2 – shows the bungalow, No.2, its imposing entrance, which has two large sheds to the rear.
P3 – taken from the Curr Road, opposite the side of No.4, is looking across to the proposed site and the car, shown in photograph No.1, is sitting behind the hedge and is unseen. This gives an idea of the screen which this hedge would provide for a bungalow in the south western corner when approaching from the south west.
P4 – is taken further west along Curr Road and further emphasises the tree, hedge and bungalow screening which the proposed site would have the beneit of.
P5 – shows the new bungalow fairly recently built.
P6 – shows the access to the laneway with the top end of the site in front, but the south western portion hidden behind the roadside hedge between the road and the lane.
P7 – shows the trees which have been planted along the south western boundary.
31
P8 – is taken some distance to the south along Curr laneway looking towards the entrance and the car, referred to above, is shown sitting in a grass layby on the side of the lane roadway. The mound at the entrance also contributes to a screen to the proposed site and the applicant suggests that a clump of trees be planted in the area in the north western corner of the site.
P9 – taken from the roadway, standing at the same point as P6, shows a bungalow site under preparation to the north with access off the Roshure Road.
6. Lack of Integration:
A continuous row of trees approximately 2-3m high have been planted along the south western or rear and the south eastern boundaries of the site, which in a few years will have matured and additional planting will be carried out in the near future if the Planning Service so desire.
The third paragraph of DES5, page 126 states, “the capacity of different areas depends largely upon the land form, vegetation and the existing pattern of settlement”.
The proposal complies with the existing pattern of development of dwellings closely knit along Curr Lane. In this instance, furthermore, the proposed sit is even better integrated than those which have been approved in recent times as the site is completely hidden from view, being off a laneway and not the main road. It would be completely hidden if sited in the south-western corner of the site when driving from the west along the Curr Road, due to the presence of bungalow No.4 and the high hedge and mound between the road and laneway, on to which the site enters.
It is noted that the fourth paragraph of DES5, dealing with prominence, is not a reason for refusal and it is agreed that the site is not prominent.
It would blend sympathetically with land form, use existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features to integrate into the countryside and could not spoil any scenic aspect nor detract from the visual appearance of the countryside.
32
It does not occupy a prominent, sky-line or top of slope or ridge location, as other can be seen when standing from the entrance laneway to the proposed site.
Finally, reference is made in the tenth paragraph, Page 127, to a large rectangular plot being cut out of the frontage of a roadside field, being unacceptable.
First of all the new bungalow No2, garage and large shed was cut out of the frontage of a roadside field, filled in and brought up to road level, whereas this proposal is not cut out of the frontage of a roadside field as it does not front on to the road, but on to Curr Lane and is separated from the road by the lane and No.4. The tenth paragraph on page 127 states, “a site is more acceptable if it opens on to a farm lane”. This site does.
The applicant confirms that if approval is granted he would be prepared to accept a condition that the dwelling be single storey, site on the south western corner of the field and having only one dwelling erected within the entire field.
7. Build Up:
No reference can be found in PSRNI to the phrase “build up” which has become a reason for refusal in recent times. Surely some buildings built are up and the news of wars and rumours of wars massive dimensions being comtemplated, if might not be a bad idea if buildings were built well down! In this particular instance a single storey dwelling of 5.7m ridge height, set in the south western courner of the field would be unlikely to be seen from either direction on the Curr Road and would not add to the existing build-up, which has been permitted along this road in recent times. It certainly would be comparatively low compared with the build up of development at No.2, comprising three individual units.
8. Ribbon Development:
This proposal is not in a line of buildings.
33
It uses an existing laneway, which serves three other dwellings, so therefore, it does not comply with the second condition on the first line of DES7, paragraph 1. It does not extend along the road being accessed to an existing laneway.
It is noted that Ribbon Development states that buildings can be sited back from the road etc. if they have a common frontage on the road . This application does not front the Curr Road.
Finally, the dwelling would not be visually linked with other buildings, set in the south western corner, of single storey, when viewed from the road. In the position indicated, shown hatched, it would not have contributed to the creation of Ribbon Development, but could have been “Tending to Ribbon Development” due to the high thick hedge between No.4 and Heggarty’s buildings on the corner.
The fourth paragraph on page 130 it states, “if the developer can produce a design solution to integrate the new building into the landscape, permission can be granted”. The solution suggested is that the dwelling should not be built as shown hatched, but in the opposite corner.
9. DES 6 – Change in Rural Character:
It is noted that the Department had not used DES6, Change in Rural Character as a reason for refusal, so it must consider that:
a. The proposed dwelling is not unduly prominent, and b. Would not cause an adverse impact on an area of countryside when added to the existing buildings in that area.
This dwelling, sited as now proposed and designed in traditional rural style, would not cause demonstrable harm to the countryside in general or this area in particular.
34
12.10 H/2002/0852/O – Mr J Higgins
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board:
1. The Site:
The site lies just outside the green belt surrounding Magherafelt. The initial assessment by the original officer dealing with the application suggested that it was within the green belt, and that without a justification of need to live in the green belt, a refusal should issue. When that error was pointed out, two new reasons for refusal were found.
Luney Road has a relatively high density of housing, for a rural road. It has a little bit of everything. There are houses along the roadside, a terrace of public authority houses, farm yards, large detached properties set back some distance from the road, clusters of houses up laneways, and just about any other form of rural development imaginable.
The application is toward the southern end of the road. It sits over 100m back from the public road. Access would be by means of a laneway, which would hug the existing hedge lines to the north of the site. Egress to the public road would be via a paired access on a bend. The access position does not require the removal of any hedging.
The site is part of 3 acre meadow, which falls away from north-east to south-west, toward a stream, defining the meadow’s boundary. The site’s north-eastern boundary is defined by a fence, separating the meadow from the 7 acres arable field which runs to the road. The fence approximately represents the extent of the green belt. The south-eastern and south-western site boundaries are not currently defined.
35
2. Change of Character:
An assessment that a particular development proposal would cause a detrimental change to the rural character of an area should be a visual assessment. Too often planning officers simply count houses on a map and determine that enough ha ve been built or approved already. Further, in Ballymena division at least, current planning applications are included in that assessment, whether determined or not.
This is contrary to the first principles repeated innumerably in the Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland that say each application will be treated on its own merits.
To determine that a development proposal would cause an unacceptably detrimental change to the rural character, one must firstly make an assessment of that locality’s character, and secondly, consider which other buildings would be visually linked to the proposal.
It has already been suggested that Luney Road has a hotchpotch of development types and contends that the rural character of the area has long since been eroded, particularly on the northern stretch of the road.
A lack of integration, or prominence in the landscape has not been cited as reasons for refusal of planning permission. The inference is that the proposed development does integrate satisfactorily into the landscape. This is not surprising since it would be invisible from the northern approach, and its setback from the road, the roadside hedge, the backdrop of mature hedge and the relative low level when viewed from the public road make it difficult to see from the southern approach.
Given this degree of absorption into the landscape, the opportunity to see a dwelling on the proposed site along with some other is minute. From the northern approach there are two field boundary hedges and a roadside hedge hiding this site from the closest approved site. The field boundary hedges are both mature hawthorn hedges of around 5m in height. There is no visual linkage with any other buildings, because the application site is invisible to the road user until he has past the site. 36
At that stage there is obviously no link with the buildings behind his, and although he may see the next house in front of him, he could not make the connection. He would be unable to see the application site without looking backward over his shoulder.
From the southern approach, the field boundaries referred to above obscure views of any houses north or north-west of the site.
The only possible consideration could be the large bungalow and approved site approximately 200m south-east of this site. Any closer to the application site than 200m these other two dwellings would be in one’s rear view mirror, and no longer a consideration. Any further away than 200m, the narrow angel of the view along the roadside hedge, added to the field boundary to the north-west of the existing large bungalow, and the relative ground levels (the application site lies about 6m below road level) makes it difficult to see the application site at all, never mind seeing it with others.
Planning Service cannot simply determine that there are too many houses along a particular road, and refuse all new applications regardless of their individual merit. If a new dwelling is integrated into the landscape to the extent that it could scarcely be detected, and it cannot be visually connected to any significant degree with its neighbours, then its impact on the rural character of an area is benign.
The Planning Appeals Commission overturn weak determinations of a detrimental effect on rural character more often than any other reason, suggesting that a correction of interpretation was necessary.
3. Unacceptable Pattern of Development:
Luney Road has no discernable development pattern. Short sessions of the road may have seen similar patterns during history, but it is unfair to say that one pattern has dominated.
Considering recent development, or planning approval in the vicinity, consideration should be limited to a length of around a quarter mile either side of the application site.
37
There had been two sites of dwellings approved either side of the site during the past three years. All four of these sites are just over 100m back from the roadside. The two furthest from the site are already built. To the north is a large two- storey house. To the south is a 4,000 sq ft bungalow. The two sites closer are respectively 100m north-west and 200m south-east of the site under consideration.
It seems that the same Planning Service officer, applying the same development control criteria along the same half-mile stretch of road, has had a change of mind about what is an acceptable pattern of development. This change of tack has no basis in published policy or strategy. It is therefore unfair, and likely to be frowned upon by the Planning appeals Commission.
4. This application satisfies the criteria laid down in PSRNI. It should never have been brought before Council with a negative opinion.
Ballymena Planning Service division are now bringing 40% of their opinions about rural applications in the Magherafelt District to Council as refusals. In an areas where there are few areas of special development control, such as CPA’s and Green Belts, this is an incredibly high percentage. It is suspected that this increasing percentage is partly based upon assumptions about the imminent Draft Area Plan, and partly upon an interpretation of planning strategy, which transgresses the specific criteria in published policy. Some of the decisions are extremely weak and indefensible. They clearly rely upon the unwillingness of many applicants to commit further in pursuit of a Planning Appeal.
5. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
12.11 H/2001/0909/O - Mr & Mrs J McPherson:
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor G C Shiels Seconded by Councillor
RESOLVED: that the following submission be forwarded to the Planning Service Management Board: 38
1. Factors to consider of existing site:
- The site is white land and is not part of Countryside Policy Area, Rural Policy Area or Greenbelt
- Area of site overall is 0.66 acres (2.3 of acre)
- The above is not agricultural ground but vacant and baron, whilst the site to the right is good agricultural land.
- The site is not subject to flooding.
- There are no objectors to this application.
- Existing site has well established boundaries (not a cut out of a field) with natural trees and hedges, species of ash, alder, beech and hawthorn - all retained with this proposed development.
- North/East Boundary (front) – Mature hawthorn hedge of 3 metres high with regular mature trees of alder and ash averaging 8 metres high.
- South/East Boundary (adjacent no.214 Hillhead Road) there is existing planting of trees and hedges. The proposal is to retain all landscape features and enhance the boundary with additional hawthorn hedge and trees of alder and ash.
- North /West boundary (adjacent vacant fields) Well established hawthorn hedge 6 metres high with trees of alder and ash at 6-8 metres high.
- South/West boundary (rear boundary) – this boundary is at the edge of the stream and contains well matured mixture of alder and ash at regular intervals ranging 6 – 12 metres high and providing the background to the proposed site.
39
- Use of existing access point to the site for proposal without disruption to existing landscape.
- Excellent visibility splays without removal of existing trees or hedges (Road Service objection removed at site meeting on 27 November 2001.
- The above front boundary gives good established screening of natural species of hedges (hawthorn) and trees of ash at regular spacing – height 8 metres approximately.
- Level The site falls from the road towards the stream. Road to proposed site level is 3.92 metres (approx 13 feet) of a fall. In addition there is a background of trees to the site of 6 – 12 metres high and a further background to the proposed site of rising topography in the distance.
- The gap between the access of this site and that to the dwellings to the right of the site is some 110 metres and the gap between the dwelling and that of neighbouring dwelling would be approximately 120 metres.
- The above is confirmed by photographs, levels taken on site and site maps (please note photo are taken in January with species having no foliage)
- Apart from retaining all existing landscaping and topography features, this site can be naturally enhanced.
- The existing access can be enhanced by the formation of a lane bound by hawthorn hedge resembling an access to farm dwelling (see drawing no.2).
- The existing front boundary will be strengthened by addition of new tree planting and tree grouping to increase screening.
40
- The hawthorn hedge to the lane can be taken across the site to increase screening together with additional trees, thereby leaving approximately 1/3 of an acre to the front in natural landscape with the other 1/3 being developed for the proposed dwelling (see drawing no.2).
- The dwelling can be set back from road edge by 41 metres.
- The dwelling ridge height can be controlled by the Planning Service to be below existing tree heights at river edge (back of site), i.e. normally for a single dwelling approximately 5.7 metres. Knowing that there is already a fall in the site from road level to proposed site level of 3.92M) (13 feet).
- The size of the dwelling can also be controlled by Planning Service to a modest dwelling of 1500 sq ft.
- The dwelling will be of rural design in accordance with “A Design for Rural Northern Ireland”
- The proposed dwelling will be designed to appear that it has always been there, and can be easily integrated into the landscape due to the proposed location, screening and site level difference from road to site.
- The proposed dwelling would be difficult to view due to the proposal, location, screening and level.
2. Other Factors:
1. Mr & Mrs McPherson’s daughter suffers from Sub Aortic Stanosis and this dwelling will be designed for future disability.
Mr McPherson and wife wishes to be close to their daughter while their daughter and her husband and child wish to maintain independence.
41
2. Concerns – the site will be sold as there will be no other use for the site and new site owner or change in Planning (policies/planner) may see a new owner obtain Planning Permission
Mr McPherson had originally purchased this adjacent site along with his site at 214 Hillhead Road, with is dwelling designed and constructed in 1989/90 with the intention as when his daughter would mature, the adjacent site could be developed.
3. In taking the above factors into account the Applicant, Agent and Council are of the opinion that the site and dwelling could be approved by the Planning Service and integrated into the rural landscape.
The applicant is willing and seeks Planning Service advice and accepts conditions that by different design solution may make the proposal more acceptable, but trusts that this outline approval can be approved and that details can be finalised with the Planning Service at reserve matters application.
4. This application has the support of Magherafelt District Council.
13. PLANNING SERVICE Submitted the Divisional Planning Service report dated 14 January 2003 (copy circulated to each 185/1/2003 Member). The following applications were taken into special consideration:-
13.1 New Applications:
H/2001/0771/F – Heron Bros. The Planning Officer advised that one objection and a petition of objection containing three names had been received. The main objections were noise, vibration, dust and gas, traffic, general disturbance and it was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This was a small site of 0.85 hectares. Approval would be subject to conditions limiting the hours of operation. Roads Service had no objections and the Council’s Environmental Health Department had no objections, but would be subject to screening. This would be a 2 years scheme. The planning opinion was still approval. 42
H/2002/0772/F – Ms A Molloy The Planning Officer advised that one objection had been received mainly in connection with land ownership which had been clarified, and secondly, regarding a workshop applied for in the original application.
The Planning Officer advised that the workshop was really a hairdressers and therefore was termed a shop. The planning opinion was still approval.
H/2002/0873/F – Mr & Mrs McGurk The Planning Officer advised that one objection had been received regarding the access which was too close to the objector’s dwelling, therefore the impact of loss of view and light. The planning opinion was still approval.
13.2 Applications where the Opinion is Refusal:
H/2002/0678/F – CDM Construction: Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 10.00 a.m. Councillors J A McBride, Miss K A Lagan and P E Groogan to attend.
H/2002/0792/F – Ms F Craig Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 20 January 2003 at 12.25 p.m. Councillors S O’Brien and J A McBride to attend.
H/2002/1013/F – W Nesbitt Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged. Councillor G C Shiels to attend.
H/2002/0944/O – Mr W Barfoot Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged. The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea and Councillor G C Shiels to attend.
H/2002/1011/O – Mr S Ward Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 2.10 p.m. Councillor J A McBride to attend.
H/2002/1024/O – Mr S Sloan Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 10.00 a.m. Councillor T J Catherwood to attend.
43
H/2002/1025/O – Mr D Sloan Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 10.00 a.m. Councillor T J Catherwood to attend.
H/2002/1032/O – Mr S McGlade Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 12.30 p.m. Councillors P E Groogan and Miss K A Lagan to attend.
H/2002/1037/O – Mr G McNamee Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 11.45 a.m. Councillor P E Groogan to attend.
H/2002/1038/O – Mr R McTeague Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 10.40 a.m. Councillor P E Groogan to attend.
H/2002/1041/O – Mr R Hurl Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged. Councillor G C Shiels to attend.
H/2002/1048/O – Mr S Higgins Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 1.00 p.m. Councillor Miss K A Lagan to attend.
H/2002/1058/O – Mr A Brooks Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 20 January 2003 at 12.00 noon. Councillors Miss K A Lagan and J A McBride to attend.
H/2002/1063/O – Mr J O’Neill Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 1.30 p.m. Councillor O T Hughes to attend.
H/2002/1065/O – Mr E McGoldrick Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 12.10 p.m. Councillors J P O’Neill and O T Hughes to attend.
H/2002/1066/O – Mr J Murphy Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 20 January 2003 at 10.35 a.m. Councillors S O’Brien and J A McBride to attend.
H/2002/1069/O – Mr E Madden Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 9.30 a.m. Councillor J P O’Neill to attend. 44
H/2003/1070/O – Mr J P Mulholland Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 20 January 2003 at 9.30 a.m. Councillors O T Hughes and P H McErlean to attend.
H/2002/1071/O – C Heron Deferred on the request of Councillor P E Groogan.
H/2002/1072/O – A McIvor Deferred. Councillor P E Groogan stated that he understood that this application was to be withdrawn.
H/2002/1077/O – Mrs J McCann Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 2.50 p.m. Councillor J A McBride to attend.
H/2002/1079/O – Mr A Mulholland Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged. Councillor J Junkin to attend.
H/2002/1090/O – Mr H Henry Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Wednesday, 22 January 2003 at 11.40 a.m. Councillor O T Hughes to attend.
H/2002/1104/O – W Watterson Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged. The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to attend.
H/2002/1110/O – Mr C McKendry & Ms C Brennan Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 27 January 2003 at 3.00 p.m. Councillor Miss K A Lagan to attend.
H/2002/1117/O – Mr S O’Neill Deferred. Site meeting to be arranged for Monday, 20 January 2003 at 10.15 a.m. Councillor J A McBride to attend.
13.3 Applications Deferred from Previous Meeting:
H/2001/0563/O – Mr D McEldowney Approval.
H/2001/0657/F – Market Yard Trustees Deferred. The Planning Officer confirmed that the fence was accurate according to the drawings.
45
The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm. McCrea stated that the fence might be the proper shape but questioned the public right-of-way and requested that the application be deferred to allow Mr Johnston to investigate the matter.
H/2001/0774/O – Edendale Properties Deferred. Councillor J A McBride reported that his information was that the application had been forwarded to the Planning Appeals Commission under Article 33 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Chairman queried as to who would have sent the application on and requested that the application be deferred for clarification.
H/2002/0109/O – Mr P Mawhinney Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor O T Hughes.
H/2002/0244/O – Mr G H Fleming Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 February 2003.
H/2002/0254/O – Miss I Sinclair Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council t be held on Tuesday 11 February 2003.
H/2002/0297/O – Mr N McQuillan Approval.
H/2002/0323/F – Mr K Convery Deferred. Councillor Miss K A Lagan reported that this application was to be withdrawn.
46
H/2002/0453/O – Mr J McNally Approval.
H/2002/0493/F – Mr E Scullion Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor P H McErlean.
H/2002/0523/O – Mr D O’Connell Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor J A McBride.
H/2002/0549/F – PSNI Estates Services Business Unit Approval. Councillor P McLean confirmed that the proposal had been accepted by the objector and he had agreed to let the application proceed.
H/2002/0593/O – Mr S Kirkwood Deferred. It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that a submission be made to the Planning Service Management Board at the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 11 February 2003.
H/2002/0647/O – DH Building Contracts Ltd Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor Miss K A Lagan.
H/2002/0681/O – Ms M Lawrence Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea to allow for a withdrawal.
H/2002/0690/O – Mrs H Henry Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor T J Catherwood.
H/2002/0698/O – O’Connor Family Approval.
H/2002/0707/O – Kevin & Sean Convery Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor J A McBride.
H/2002/0744/F – Mr G McCloskey Approval.
H/2002/0745/O – Mr E O’Kane Approval. 47
H/2002/0755/O – Mr P O’Kane Approval.
H/2002/0757/O – Mr D O’Neill Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor J A McBride.
H/2002/0788/O – Mr T Heaney Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor Miss K A Lagan.
H/2002/0788/O – Mr F Lennox Approval.
H/2002/0798/O – Mr P McNally Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor P E Groogan.
H/2002/0802/O – Mr J Duffy The Planning Officer stated that the Department had withdrawn the application from the schedule.
H/2002/0817/O – Mr T Hartley Approval.
H/2002/0824/O – Mr P Boyle Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor Miss K A Lagan as there had been a change of agent.
H/2002/0825/O – Ms A Fleming Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea who was seeking an office meeting.
H/2002/0841/O – Representatives of the late Robert Henry Approval.
H/2002/0849/F – Mr McCreadyMr McCready Approval.
H/2002/0827/O – Mr K Crossett Deferred. Councillor G C Shiels requested an office meeting.
H/2002/0892/O – Mr D Toner Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor P E Groogan.
H/2002/0926/O – Mrs C Convery Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor P E Groogan.
48
H/2002/0931/O – Miss E Colgan Deferred. The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea requested an office meeting.
H/2002/0941/F – Mr & Mrs McMaster Deferred. Councillors J Junkin, P McLean and the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea requested an office meeting.
H/002/0946/O – Mr P Toner Approval.
H/2002/0950/O – Mr E Higgins Approval.
H/2002/0957/O – B McTeague Three weeks to withdraw or refusal issued on the request of Councillor J A McBride
H/2002/0977/O – Mr L Lagan Deferred for one month on the request of Councillor Miss K A Lagan.
H/2002.0984/F – Mr Phillip & Diane Dripps The Planning Officer advised that this application had been withdrawn from the schedule.
H/2002/0989/O – Mr J Farmer Deferred on the request of the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea.
H/2002/0992/O – Mr J McCartney Deferred for an office meeting on the request of Councillor J A McBride.
H/2002/0995/O – Mr R Overend Approval.
H/2002/0996/F – Mr D McKenna Deferred. Councillor P E Groogan requested an office meeting.
H/2002/1009/O – Mr P Kelly Deferred for one month. Councillor P E Groogan stated that he understood that the application was to be withdrawn.
49
13.4 On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the Council concur in the opinions expressed in the Planning Manager’s report dated 14 January 2003, subject to the above conditions and amendments.
14. ENVIRONMENTAL Submitted report for the month of December 2002 HEALTH DEPARTMENT (copy circulated to each Member). The following matters were taken into special consideration:- 196/1/2003 14.1 Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 Mr Burrows in referring to his report stated that, since the circulation of the report, he had prepared an update on this item and handed it out to each Member present.
Mr Burrows advised that a complaint had been received on 9 May 2002, relating to a metal bolt, which was found in an ice-cream cone purchased by a 12 year old girl from a retail outlet in the Magherafelt Council area. An officer from the department carried out an investigation into the complaint.
The complaint item was taken to the Public Analyst for identification. The report stated that:-
“The bolt measured approximately 32 millimetres in overall length and 9.7 millimetres in diameter over its threaded shank. It was made from stainless steel and weighed 24.157 grams. The head of the bolt was hexagonal n shape measuring 17 millimetres across the flats. There was raised lettering on the top face of the head, “A2-70” appearing at one point and “THE” diametrically opposite. The perceived “H” was distorted and may have been another letter.”
The product was manufactured in England and transported to a wholesaler in Northern Ireland by a distribution company. It was then supplied to the shop by a franchised driver on behalf of the wholesaler.
The manufacturer was notified of the ocmplaint and the Council in whose area the product was manufactured (the originating authority) was contacted regarding the metal detection systems within the premises and any other measures in place to prevent this type of complaint occurring. 50
Information had been received from the originating authority that the cone production line contained a similar type of bolt, which was part of the adjustment mechanism for the spraying of chocolate into the cones. This line was installed in March 2000 but metal detection was not put in place until July 2001. In the interim period visual checks were undertaken to check the machinery for missing spray nozzles. These checks were stopped around the time of the installation of the metal detector.
Mr Burrows said that the relevant product had a nine months shelf life and therefore the earliest date of manufacture was August 2001, which was after the metal detector was installed. The cones were packed in boxes of 24, known as “impulse” boxes designed for sale to the final consumer from freezer cabinets. Further information received had revealed that these boxes were too large to pass through the present metal detection system. As all metal detection in the factory took place after packaging this particular type of packaged product would not undergo any metal detection.
Mr Burrows further stated that the company did not have a written procedure in place detailing what to do in the event of a “potential” foreign body being noted missing during hourly quality control checks. They did, however have a metal detection failure procedure and a foreign body log, copies of which had been requested, but not received.
Article 13 (1) of the 1991 Order states that “ any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser shall be guilty of an offence”.
Article 19 of the 1991 Order, which deals with offences due to the fault of another person states that “where the commission by any person of an offence under any of the preceding provisions of the Part is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence; and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this article where or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person”.
51
Mr Burrows said that the investigation into this complaint had been protracted due to the length of the supply chain and the fact that the product was manufactured by a company on behalf of another, thus requiring numerous statements for witness. The complicated nature of the case also necessitated assistance from the Council’s legal advisers. He said that having taken into consideration the criteria contained in the Council’s Food Safety Enforcement Policy in relation to prosecutions, he recommended that the Council consider the institution of legal proceedings against the manufacturer of the ice-cream cone, Fredericks Dairies, Prospect Place, East Pimbo, Skelmersdale, Lancs WN8 9QD for the alleged offence under the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, as set out in Article 13 (3), of selling to the purchaser’s prejudice food which was not of the substance demanded by the purchaser.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to adopt the Director of Environmental Health’s recommendation and institute legal proceedings against the manufacturer of the ice-cream cone, Fredericks Dairies, Prospect Place, East Pimbo, Skelmersdale, Lancs WN8 9QD for the alleged offence under the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, as set out in Article 13 (3), of selling to the purchaser’s prejudice food which was not of the substance demanded by the purchaser.
14.2 Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 Mr Burrows advised that an application had been received from Mr E Coleman owner/occupier for his dwelling at 30 Lough Road, Magherafelt to be inspected.
An inspection of the property revealed that the following matters were considered prejudicial to the health of occupants of the dwelling:-
1. Penetrating dampness to the dwelling via missing and boast plasterwork at the roof tile/wall junction at the left gable, right gable, rear return and front porch.
Mr Burrows recommended that the Council consider issuing a Statutory Abatement Notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the following remedial work within six months. 52
1. Remove defective plasterwork; re-plaster areas as necessary; restore roof tiles as necessary.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor G C Shiels Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the Council issue a Statutory Abatement Notice on the owner requiring him to carry out the recommended remedial work within six months.
14.3 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor J Junkin, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: to adopt the remainder of the report which was for the information of Members.
15. OPERATIONAL Submitted report by the Director of Operations for SERVICES the month of December 2002 (copy circulated to each DEPARTMENT Member).
315/1/2003 Development Services:
15.1 Sperrin Tourism Limited Mr Johnston advised that the press release issued by Sperrin Tourism Limited announced that they had become the delivery agency for the Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative (NRRTI). He understood that the press release had been circulated to all the local newspapers throughout the region, and in the District was published by the Mid-Ulster Mail and possibly the Northern Constitution in December 2002.
He said that Sperrin Tourism had informed him that they would become the delivery agent for £3.49m NRRTI funding and that the exact amount to be allocated to each theme had been determined.
15.2 Lower Bann Co-ordinating Committee Mr Johnston referred to (Appendix 1 to this report) a copy of the Lower Bann Development Strategy 2002, compiled by Lestas Consulting on behalf of the Lower Bann Co-ordinating Committee. Its purpose was to provide a five-year sustainable development strategy for the Lower Bann catchment area.
53
In his opinion it outlined a focused approach and addressed the required structures to ensure it complemented value to other initiatives impinging on the catchment area.
Mr Johnston said that the recommended action in the document had a specific emphasis on securing funding through the Department of Agriculture’s Sectoral Progamme and stated that the strategy had been endorsed by the Lower Bann Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee.
Officers would suggested that there could be a number of funding opportunities arising from the report that could directly benefit this Council, for example, Newferry Recreational Facility or the extension of the Lower Bann Coarse Fishing facility. Indirectly there could be opportunities under such headings as Marketing, Education and Awareness and Community Development. Mr Johnston said that by endorsing the report the Council did not commit itself to any funding, however, one of the major proposals in the report was the setting up of a committee to be called the “Lower Bann Partnership” to oversee the implement of the report. It suggested that one elected member (serving as a Director) and one officer (acting as an adviser) be nominated by each Council to form this Committee.
Mr Johnston said that if the Council approved the report in principle, he would recommend that Mr Michael Browne, the Council’s Development Officer be the officer representative and that the Council elect a Member to serve in the capacity of director.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: to adopt the “Lower Bann Development Strategy 2002” compiled by Lestas Consulting.
It was also
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that Mr Michael Browne, the Council’s Development Officer be elected to the “Lower Bann Partnership” as the Council’s officer representative.
54
It was further
PROPOSED by Councillor G C Shiels Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that Councillor J Junkin be elected to serve on the “Lower Bann Partnership” as the Member to serve in the capacity of Director.
Community Relations:
15.3 Requests for Grant Aid Mr Johnston advised that eight written requests for funding had been received from the following:-
(a) Bellaghy Historical Society To pay speakers at their monthly meetings and to help with running costs. It was recommended that £200 be paid.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P H McErlean, Seconded by Councillor O T Hughes, and
RESOLVED: to make a subscription of £200 to Bellaghy Historical Society.
(b) Desertmartin Local History Group To publish a book of photographs of the parish and have some social events. It was recommended that £200 be paid.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: to make a contribution of £200 to Desertmartin Local History Group.
(c) Gig ‘n’ The Bann Festival 2003 Towards the festival which would take place from 5-7 September 2003. It was recommended that £500 be paid.
55
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: to make a subscription of £500 towards the “Gig ‘n’ the Bann Festival 2003”.
(d) Corrymeela Financial assistance towards the Corrymeela Community.
Mr Johnston advised that the Group had an overdraft of £150,000 and that they would like financial assistance to reduce or clear their overdraft. The Council’s opinion was sought on this request.
On consideration it was agreed to mark the request “read” as the Council felt it could not give financial help to Corrymeela Community as it was located in Ballycastle and therefore outside the Council’s area.
(e) Victim Support Funding to train volunteers in Magherafelt Mr Johnston advised that this request was discussed at the Council’s December meeting when it was suggested that Magherafelt Area Partnership could support this project. The matter was discussed with Mr Chris McCarney, Development Manager, but the application could not be supported. The request was discussed with Ms Felicity McCartney, Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT) to see if they could help. They did have funding for Victims of the Troubles, but this particular request was to help all victims. In view of this NIVT felt that they could not support this application. The request was now being resubmitted to Council.
The Officers believed that the project could be funded through Community Relations under the measure “Training for Groups” budget, however Victim Support was still requesting the full amount of £1,380.
After discussion it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P McLean
That a contribution of £200 be made.
It was pointed out that if the Group did not receive the full funding, the project could not go ahead. 56
The Chairman pointed out that the Council could not possibly grant the full funding request.
It was agreed that a contribution of £200 be made to the Group provided they could obtain additional funding and the programme was implemented.
(f) Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice Mr Johnston advised that the application from Mr Brendan Walshe to finance his 140 miles run across the Moraccan Sahara Desert to raise funds for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice, was discussed at the December meeting.
The Council resolved that as Community Relations funding could not be paid to individuals, the application be resubmitted by the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice.
Mr Johnston reported that the letter of application was on its way and so it could be considered at the February meeting of the Council.
It was agreed that the matter be deferred until the formal request arrived.
(g) Loughshore Singing Club Financial assistance for the renting of Ballymaguigan Hall by the club, which was established in 2002 and for the fees of singing tutors for young singers to pursue their singing talents. It was recommended that £200 be paid.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that a grant of £200 be made to Loughshore Singing Club.
(h) Community Initiatives for Citizenship Education Regionally Organised (CICERO) For eight members of the Magherafelt Group to attend a conference in Brussels from 3 – 7 March 2003. It was recommended that a grant of £300 be made.
57
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P H McErlean, and
RESOLVED: that a grant of £300 be made to Magherafelt CICERO Group.
Leisure Services:
Mr Johnston reported that December was a good month for Leisure Services with the total income increased by 3%. Greenvale Leisure Centre, Tobermore Golf Driving Range and Meadowbank Recreation Centre performed well. Maghera Recreation Centre suffered a surprising decline and it was hoped that it would improve greatly when the new centre opened at the end of January.
Mr Johnston stated that the remainder of the Leisure Services report was for information with the exception of Page 6 paragraph 4 where it was reported that the Northern Partnership of the Physical Activity Management Sub-group had met at Spruce House, Ballymena. The planning of the Physical Activity Conference was the main item. The conference would be entitled “A New Agenda for Health” and would be held on 6 February 2003. Each Council would be requested to mount a display and an invitation would be extended to the Chairman, Chief Executive, Director of Operations and Head of Leisure Services.
Mr Johnston also asked Members to note that in the following paragraph it should read that a meeting with the Sports Council had taken place on Friday, 13 December, not the Squash Council.
Noted.
Technical Services:
15.4 Mr Johnston referred to the report on the usual spate of vandalism, fallen animals and bulky refuse collections.
15.5 The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea referred to the many acts of vandalism and particularly to the damage carried out to the Draperstown Christmas Tree.
58
Bulbs were broken and a seven foot section of the top of the tree was broken off. On Christmas night a transformer was removed from the tree, then smashed on a near-by footpath and the broken remains discarded in the market yard. He described these acts as disgusting and very dangerous.
15.6 Winter Maintenance of Roads/Footpaths Mr Johnston stated that the Members would be aware that in November 2002 a proposal was submitted in the form of a draft agreement from the Department of Rural Development whereby during extreme conditions, following heavy snow falls or prolonged freezing the Council would assist the Department with ice and snow removal from footpaths and pedestrian areas. The decision of the Council was to seek the response of other Councils, through the Technical Advisers’ Group (TAG) to obtain legal opinion on the draft agreement.
Mr Johnston confirmed that a response had been received from TAG and the Council’s Solicitor. TAG said that they raised issues with the Department at the initial stage of consultation and it was regrettable that they did not appear to have been addressed in the proposal, therefore TAG could not support the proposal and recommended further negotiations with the Department prior to any formal agreement being finalised.
The Council’s legal adviser had instructed that in order to protect the interests of the Council, major amendments were required to at least 5 of the 9 clauses that formed the draft agreement. He was particularly adamant that the Council should not accept Clause 8 as drafted.
Mr Johnston explained that it seemed that if this clause was allowed to stand a pedestrian who fell or was injured on a footpath or pedestrian area cleared or treated by the Council would potentially have a claim against the Council.
In view of the statements from TAG and the Council’s legal adviser, Mr Johnston recommended that the Council did not support the agreement as drafted, to assist the Department of Rural Development for ice and snow removal from footpaths and pedestrian areas.
Discussion took place on the financial implications for the Council should they decide to support the agreement. 59
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor P McLean, Seconded by Councillor G C Shiels, and
RESOLVED: to adopt the recommendation of the Director of Operations and not support the agreement as drafted, to assist the Department of Rural Development for ice and snow removal from footpaths and pedestrian areas.
15.7 Ulster in Bloom Mr Johnston reported that in accordance with the Council’s instructions he had written to the Co- ordinator of the Ulster in Bloom competition regarding the Judges’ comments made in respect of the towns and villages entered by the Council. He advised that the Council were somewhat surprised by the tone of the Judges’ comments and that whilst some were appropriate a number were harsh and inaccurate. He suggested that it would be more appropriate if judging took place later in the year when flowerbeds and hanging baskets had a chance to mature naturally rather than be force grown for early judging. He concluded his letter by advising that the Council welcomed constructive criticism and advice and despite our concerns would continue to support next year’s competition. He did suggest that in view of the informal approach the Council had to the competition the Judges’ comments could be better packaged for presentation to the Council. A copy of the reply from Ulster in Bloom was circulated with the report (Appendix 2 to the report).
Mr Johnston commented that he felt the reply was “an attempt to mend fences” and suggested that the matter be put to rest for the time being.
Noted.
15.8 Waste Management Funding Mr Johnston said that he had enclosed for the Council’s attention a breakdown on how the Department of the Environment proposed to allocated their “possible” waste management budget of £11.9m during the financial year 2003/2004 (Appendix 3 to the report). He said that the amount awarded to each individual Council was shown on the attached sheet (Appendix 4 to the report). Magherafelt District Council’s share was £172,063. This figure included an as yet to be decided amount that would be “ring- fenced” for the disposal of fridges/freezers and end of life vehicles. 60
15.9 Landfill Tax Credits Scheme Mr Johnston reported that he had enclosed a document entitled “Information note on changes to the Landfill Tax Credits Scheme” (Appendix 5 to the report). He advised that the major change brought about by the document was that Landfill Tax would be pooled and allocated by the Department mainly for waste management projects. With regard to suggestions that the cost of landfill tax could increase sharply over the next few years, it seemed that there were proposals to increase the levy by £3 per tonne per year to a long-term rate of £35 per tonne, with the target being £30 per tonne by 2010. The proposals were being suggested for Great Britain and it remained to be seen if they would be applied in Northern Ireland.
Noted.
15.10 Pedestrian Crossing at Meadowbank Mr Johnston advised that on 13 December 2002 he wrote to Mr McFarlane, Section Engineer, Department of Rural Development, Roads Service, Magherafelt to request the provision of a pedestrian crossing on the Ballyronan Road at the entrance to Meadowbank Recreation Centre.
Mr McFarlane in his reply, stated that the Roads Service intended to provide traffic calming measures on the Ballyronan Road at the location during the 2003/2004 financial year and that provision of enhanced pedestrian facilities would be considered at this stage. Noted.
15.10 Tidy Northern Ireland – Litter Survey Mr Johnston said that he was sure Members were aware that a recent press release by Tidy Northern Ireland was less than complementary to the Council and the residents of the district regarding the amount of litter they said was visible throughout the Council area. In the press release Tidy Northern Ireland’s General Director, Mr Cole, stated that Northern Ireland streets have suffered a sharp decline over the last year and that this was the disappointing conclusion to a survey carried out by his group. They stated that they had scoured 26 local authority areas for litter, dog fouling, vandalism and graffiti and found that well over half of the Councils had fallen below the standard set in a similar survey last year. In the case of Magherafelt he said that the drop was alarming.
61
Mr Cole went on to say that he hoped that the results of the survey would “shake” Councils and their residents up as much as it did him.
Mr Johnston stated that these were strong words when it was considered that they were based on one morning’s visit to each area. He said that the Council could accept that litter was a problem but he found it unacceptable that such a strong press release was issued based on one snapshot visit. Mr Johnston said that he could accept that on a given morning or mornings there could well be litter on the streets but it was certainly not the norm as was portrayed in the report. Constructive criticism and advice were indeed welcomed, but to suggest that Magherafelt had an alarming problem was in his opinion over the top. He pointed out that based on this one visit by Tidy Northern Ireland, Magherafelt had dropped 12 places from its position last year that nothing was being done any different in terms of street cleansing squads or frequencies, etc. and little or no complaints had been received from members of the public.
Mr Johnston advised that it was ironic that this year’s winners had jumped 12 places from last year, from twelfth place to first and he was convinced that they were doing nothing different from the previous year.
He suggested that the press release was a slight on the Council’s street sweeping squads who consistently strived to keep the streets and roads free from litter. Mr Johnston was pleased to report that since the press release a number of the Council’s street cleansing staff had been complimented by members of the public who also felt the statement was an unfair and inaccurate assessment of the overall situation on the ground. He recommended that the Council accept the view of these ratepayers and residents of the District and advise Tidy Northern Ireland accordingly.
The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea said that the report was unacceptable. He referred to the problem with litter outside chip shops and suggested that the problem was insufficient bins.
Councillor R A Montgomery requested that chip shop owners be brought to task for litter problems outside their premises.
62
The Chairman also referred to the unsightly problem of chewing gum on footpaths and pedestrian areas and it was suggested that Mr Murtagh should go to the secondary schools and talk to pupils of this problem.
Councillor Miss K A Lagan spoke of the problem with litter in Maghera especially when pupils got out of school at lunchtime.
15.11 Waste Management Site Licensing Mr Johnston advised that in accordance with the Council’s instructions he had written to the Department of the Environment in relation to waste management site licensing. In his correspondence he had pointed out that the Council in view of comments/rumours that were currently circulating, was concerned about what the Department would do when they took over the licensing of waste management facilities. Mr Johnston stated that in his correspondence to the Department he had stated that clarification of the issue was crucial to allow the Council to respond to a request from Strabane District Council to accept waste for a further six months, from 31 March 2003.
Mr Johnston sought clarification on the following points:
• When would the Department take over the licensing of waste management? • When the Department took over licensing would it mean the immediate closure of dilute and disperse landfill sites, or would there be a phased closure, for example, 2/3 years. • Was there any other pending legislation that would affect the life of dilute and dispense landfill sites?
In concluding his correspondence to the Department, Mr Johnston indicated that he would appreciate any guidance or information that would assist the Council in taking a decision on how to respond to Strabane District Council’s request, and he confirmed that the Council hoped to take a decision on the request at the 14 January 2003 Council meeting. When the report was circulated he had no reply but since then, on the 10 January, a reply had been received.
63
The reply basically stated that it was anticipated that the new Pollution Prevention and Control legislation (IPPC for short) would be operational on 1 April 2003. Under this legislation existing landfill sites may be required to apply for a permit to operate. Mr Aston went on to say that it was anticipated that by the Autumn of 2003 responsibility of licensing landfill site would be transferred to the Department and that after this the Landfill Directive Regulations were anticipated to be transposed in late 2003. Mr Johnston advised that in his opinion the Landfill Directive would then become all important.
This Directive would require all landfill site operators to complete “site conditioning plans detailing how these sites meet the directive’s requirements and any remediation measures that could be carried out to meet the Directive’s requirements”. On the basis of this site-conditioning plan the Department would decide if the site met the Directive’s requirements. If a site did not meet the requirements it would be required to close.
Mr Johnston continued by saying that given the limited capacity left in the dilute and disperse part of the Council’s site it may not be cost effective to even consider compliance with the landfill directives to operate this part of the Council’s site. The Landfill Directive, amongst other regulations, stated that all sites must have control measures to prevent surface water and ground water entering the site, a geological barrier or artificial sealing layer to prevent water or leachate migrating off the site, and facilities for the treatment of leachate and landfill gas. The cost of £3-4m to install these measures could not be justified on the basis that there were at most 1 to 2 years capacity left in the dilute and disperse part of the Council’s site. It should however, be borne in mind that under the Landfill Directive closure of the site may require the Council to implement a number of the measures.
Mr Aston, in his letter, answered the question on timescale by saying that the timing of how long the Department would permit operators of landfill sites to prepare site-conditioning plans, how long the Department would have to consider this and the timing of subsequent closures could not be determined until the Landfill Directive Regulations were available in the Autumn. Mr Johnston comments that on this point the Council was no further forward with the timing of closure of the dilute and disperse part of the Council’s site. 64
Mr Johnston suggested that if the ICCP regulations were enacted in April, as indicated in the letter, the first hurdle may be to get a permit to operate the site and this may not be given for the dilute and disperse part of the Council’s site. If this was the case, the Council could not take Strabane’s waste for a further six months after March 2003. Mr Johnston also suggested that if the Landfill Directive was enacted in the Autumn, Councils would have to take a decision on whether to upgrade or close dilute and disperse sites. If the Council’s decision at that time was to close this part of the site, and realistically it was the only decision that could be taken, Mr Johnston assumed that the Council would be allowed a few months to carry out the procedure. In this scenario it would be of benefit to the Council to take Strabane’s waste for a further six months. If all the legislation was delayed for a couple of years, as would be the norm for the Department, then it would be in the Council’s interest not to take Strabane’s waste beyond March 2003 as the capacity could be filled by the Council’s own waste.
Mr Johnston stated that Mr Aston’s letter did not clarify the situation to any great extent and therefore recommended that before the Council took any decision on whether or not to accept Strabane’s waste for a six months extension, the opinion of the Council’s consultants should be sought on Mr Aston’s comments, and their views, sought on the pending legislation, and then bring a further report to the Council’s next General Purpose and Finance Committee meeting when a final decision would have to be taken on whether or not to take Strabane’s waste for a further six months.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor S O’Brien, and
RESOLVED: to accept the recommendations of the Director of Operations and to seek the consultant’s views on Mr Aston’s comments before making a decision on the request from Strabane District Council to accept their waste for a further six months from 31 March 2003.
65
15.12 Fly Posting Mr Johnston advised that Derry City Council had asked the Department of the Environment, Planning Service to review the scope of Article 18 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Northern Ireland Order 1985, which provided District Councils with discretionary powers to deal with indiscriminate fly posting within a Council area. They had highlighted difficulties in operating the current legislation and indicated that the issuing of notices had little or no deterrent value to offenders. They suggested that the Department adopt an approach similar to that used in the South of Ireland where fly posting was defined as an offence under their Litter Pollution Act. Under this legislation Councils in the Republic of Ireland could remove posters instantly and punish offenders by issuing them with a fixed penalty notice.
Mr Johnston recommended that the Council support Derry City Council in asking the Department to adopt legislation similar to that used in the Republic of Ireland.
On consideration it was agreed to defer taking a decision on this issue until clarification was obtained regarding the position with election posters.
15.13 Skip Sites and Duty of Care Mr Johnston reminded Members that as part of the Council’s commitment to the North West Waste Management Plan it was agreed that the Council’s current skip sites as currently constituted were no longer viable and that they would be restructured and redefined as major, medium or minor civic amenity or recycling sites. When these decisions were taken they were based solely on the need to achieve the recycling targets set out in the Northern Ireland Waste Management Strategy and it was the intention to implement these proposals in a phased programme over the next three years.
Mr Johnston advised that the introduction of the new “Duty of Care” legislation, in October 2002, means that the Council had to review the programme and more or less introduce these proposals immediately. Under Duty of Care Councils had a responsibility to ensure that all waste being deposited at skip sites, transfer stations or landfill sites was accompanied by a transfer note detailing the quantity, type and source of the waste. The only exception to this rule would be householders depositing their own waste.
66
The Council could not deliver this responsibility at unmanned skip sites which to date were continually abused by commercial outlets, traders, contractors, etc. If the current situation was allowed to continue the Council would not be compliant with the Duty of Care and would be liable to fines imposed by the Department of the Environment.
In view of these developments the officers were seeking permission to immediately implement the proposals already agreed by the Council to develop and restructure the skip sites at Magherafelt, Maghera, Draperstown, Castledawson, the Landfill Site, Tobermore, Bellaghy and Upperlands.
Mr Johnston advised that in his opinion the Council had no choice but to immediately implement the proposals.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J A McBride, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that in order to meet its requirements imposed by the new “Duty of Care” legislation, the Council’s skip sites at Magherafelt, Maghera, Draperstown, Castledawson, Tobermore, Bellaghy, Upperlands and the Landfill Site be restructured and developed immediately as major, medium and minor civic amenity or recycling sites, as previously agreed by the Council.
15.14 Tobermore United (Junior) Football Club Mr Johnston advised that he had received correspondence from Tobermore United (Junior) Football Club requesting priority booking for the new football pitch at the Golf Driving Range, Tobermore. It was recommended that the Council agree to this request.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P McLean, Seconded by Councillor J P O’Neill, and
RESOLVED: that the Council agree to the request from Tobermore United (Junior) Football Club to receive priority booking for the new football pitch at the Golf Driving Range, Tobermore.
67
15.15 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor P H McErlean, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that the report as submitted be adopted.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting for a five minutes comforts break at 9.45 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9.50 p.m.
16. VALUE FOR MONEY Submitted letter dated 22 December 2002 from NILGA on “Value for Money Studies: People 915/1/2003 Management in Local Government” and stating that there was still some value in reassessing the opinions of Councils in view of the lack of clarity between the Civil Service interpretation and Local Authorities on a Value for Money approach and since events had moved on from May 2002 (copy circulated to each Member).
The Minister for the Department of the Environment had agreed to review the information and make her decision in early January.
After much discussion it was agreed that the Chief Executive write a letter back to NILGA strongly opposed to its approach.
17. PAYMENT OF Submitted Statement of Expenditure setting out ACCOUNTS payments to be made during the month of January 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). 1/2003 17.1 The schedule provided for £585,860.11 out of the Revenue Account and £313,458.39 out of the Capital Account.
17.2 It was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the Statement of Accounts as submitted be approved.
68
18. FINANCIAL Consideration was given to the following letters of CONTRIBUTIONS request for financial contributions:-
56/1/2003 18.1 Northern Ireland Milk Cup: Submitted a letter from the Milk Cup PRO requesting assistance for the two County Londonderry games to be played at a venue in the Council’s area (copy circulated to each Member).
The letter intimated that the Organising Committee had decided to extend the Tournament into a second week and introduce different ideas to mark its 21 st Anniversary in 2003.
It was visualised that the two teams would arrive in the Council’s area on Friday 18 and stay for two nights at the hotel in the area. The games would be played on Saturday 19 July with a back-to-back format allowing the Council to promote the games as a family day with pre-match and half-time entertainment. In the evening it would be advantageous for the Council to host a function/reception when the two visiting teams and the two County teams would attend.
The financing would be met by a combination of three sources viz (a) the gate money; (b) a contribution from the Milk Cup Organising Committee and (c) a contribution from the Council.
The Council’s involvement would be
• £3,000 • hosting a reception on the Saturday night • organising entertainment pre-match, half-time and between games.
After much discussion it was agreed to mark the contents of the letter “read”.
18.2 NILGA: Submitted a letter from the Chief Executive of NILGA enclosing NILGA’s Development Proposals and requesting the Council’s Subscription for 2003/2004. The letter intimated that the Executive members had approved Option B for the Council’s payments (copies circulated to each Member).
The Chief Executive advised that NILGA was seeking a subscription of £5,024.
69
After much discussion it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan
That the Council pay the subscription of £5,024 to NILGA.
Councillor P McLean requested that monitoring be carried out over the next financial year of NILGA’s work. It was agreed to include this in the original proposal.
On a vote being taken 9 Members voted for the proposal, 5 Members voted against and 1 Member abstained, voting being by show of hands. The Chairman declared the proposal carried.
18.3 Cancer Research Northern Ireland: Submitted an additional request to host a Breakfast on Friday 7 March 2003 for Cancer Research Northern Ireland’s “Britain’s Biggest All Day Breakfast” (copy handed out to each Member).
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: to make a total payment of £400 towards Britain’s Biggest All Day Breakfast, the amount being made payable to the organisers of Big Breakfasts in Maghera and Magherafelt towns.
19. ECONOMIC Submitted the following funding requests for DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Projects:
19.1 Economic Appraisal for Design Centre & Woodworking Training Centre: The Chief Executive explained that Magherafelt Business Forum would establish a “Design Centre” which would act as a focus and catalyst to establish the Magherafelt Area as a leading European Centre for interior furnishings or public buildings.
This building would be the flagship project for the Council’s LED Programme and could cost up to £3-4 million funded through INTERREG, LEDU, IFI etc. In order to progress an economic appraisal required to be carried out and a business plan prepared for the project.
70
The project had been tendered and awarded to Venture International in the sum of £11,000.
Magherafelt Area Partnership recommended that an offer of £11,000 be made to Magherafelt Business Forum to cover the cost of carrying out an Economic Appraisal on the Design Centre project.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: that £11,000 be granted to Magherafelt Business Forum to cover the costs of carrying out an Economic Appraisal on the Design Centre project.
19.2 Project Officer for Magherafelt Business Forum: The Chief Executive explained that this project involved the recruitment of a Projects Manager on a three-year contract. The salary scale would be £22,000. The duties involved were listed on the report (copy circulated to each Member).
Magherafelt Area Partnership recommended that an offer be made to Magherafelt Business Forum of £50,000 to cover the cost of employing a Projects Manager for the first eighteen months.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor R A Montgomery, Seconded by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, and
RESOLVED: that the Council make an offer to Magherafelt Business Forum of £50,000 to cover the cost of employing a Projects Manager for the first eighteen months of the three year contact.
19.3 Development Plans for Magherafelt and Maghera Towns Programme: The Chief Executive explained that in the previous year the Chamber of Commerce had been awarded £2,000 and commissioned the Wholesale & Retail Training Council and Muldoon & McAllister to undertake similar tasks (copy circulated to each Member).
71
It was proposed to proceed and draw up a Development Plan for both Magherafelt and Maghera towns based on the findings of the initial audit carried out by WRTC/Muldoon and McAllister. A breakdown of the projects costs of £31,900 was given.
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that Magherafelt Area Partnership be allocated £31,900 to undertake development plans for Magherafelt and Maghera towns.
20. CONFERENCES AND Consideration was given to the nomination of COURSES delegates to attend:
268/1/2003 20.1 CIWM Conference & Exhibition: Submitted details of the Annual CIWM Conference to be held from 10-13 June 2003 in Paignton, Torbay. The conference fee for a CIWM member was £256 plus VAT for two workshop sessions and £320 plus VAT for non-CIWM members for two workshop sessions (details circulated to each Member).
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor J F Kerr Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that three officers, Mr T J Johnston, Mr B Kissick and Mr D Murtagh attend the CIWM annual conference and exhibition in June 2003.
It was further
PROPOSED by Councillor J Junkin Seconded by Councillor R A Montgomery, and
RESOLVED: that Councillors Miss K A Lagan and P E Groogan attend as they were the Council’s representatives on the North West Waste Management Group.
72
20.2 UK Broadband Fund – Workshop for Local Councils: Submitted letter of invitation from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry to a half-day workshop to be held on Wednesday 29 January 2003 commencing at 9.30 a.m. in a venue to be arranged in the Cookstown area (copy circulated to each Member).
On consideration it was agreed to leave nominations open to this workshop.
20.3 National Association of Councillors Conference: Submitted details of a conference to be held in Ayr, Scotland on Friday 7, Saturday 8 and Sunday 9 February 2003 on “Transport, Tourism & Energy” (details circulated to each Member). The fee for the conference was £250 plus VAT per delegate for NAC members
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillors G C Shiels Seconded by Councillor J Junkin, and
RESOLVED: that the three Members of the Association of Councillors attend, that is, Councillors R A Montgomery, P H McErlean and S O’Brien.
20.4 Holiday World Show – Dublin: It was
PROPOSED by the Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea, Seconded by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, and
RESOLVED: that Councillor R A Montgomery attend in association with Sperrins Tourism Limited the Holiday World Show in Dublin on 23 and 24 January 2003 and that he be paid the appropriate overnight subsistence.
20.5 European Year of People with Disabilities: Submitted details of the launch of the European Year of People with Disabilities in Grosvenor House, Belfast on 22 January 2003 (copy handed out to each Member).
73
On consideration it was
PROPOSED by Councillor P McLean, Seconded by Councillor J F Kerr, and
RESOLVED: that Councillor Miss K A Lagan attend the launch of the European Year of People with Disabilities.
21. CONSULTATION 21.1 Consideration was given to the following: DOCUMENTS (a) Letter from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to an inquiry on “the illegal drugs trade and drug culture in Northern Ireland” seeking comments (copy circulated to each Member). (b) Letter and Consultation Paper on the Implementation of Directive 1999/22/EC on the Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos: Consultation on New Northern Ireland Regulations prepared by the Department of the Environment and seeking comments by 31 January 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). (c) Letter and report on the Environmental Aspects of the Nitrates Directive in Northern Ireland prepared by A DoE – DARD Scientific Working Group (copy circulated to each Member). (d) Letter and Proposal for a Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order seeking comments by 13 March 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). (e) Letter and draft Co-operating to Safeguard Children guidelines prepared by the Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety seeking comments by 14 February 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). (f) Letter and Draft Pollution Prevention and control Charging Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2003 prepared by the Department of the Environment seeking comments by Friday 21 February 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). (g) Letter and consultation document on Partnership, Priorities and Professionalism – A proposed strategy for enhancing veterinary surveillance in the UK seeking comments by 4 March 2003 (copy circulated to each Member). (h) Letter and consultation paper Developing a 2-year Regional Strategy for Health and Social Services prepared by the Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety seeking comments by 28 March 2003 (copy circulated to each Member).
74
(i) Letter from the Department of Regional Development and draft copy of Planning Policy Statement 13 – Equality Impact Assessment (EQ1A) on Transportation and Land Use seeking comments by 28 March 2003 (copy circulated to each Member).
21.2 It was agreed that if any Member of party grouping wished to make comments on any of these documents they should forward them to the Chief Executive who would then arrange to have them sent to the appropriate body.
22. PRESENTATIONS TO The Chief Executive advised that the following COUNCIL bodies had requested to make presentations to the Council:
• The Water Service • The Fire Service • Eaga Partnership on Warm House Scheme • Mid 106 FM • NILGA
22.1 On consideration it was agreed that the Chief Executive arrange for all five groups to make short presentations of approximately 15 minutes at the February, March and April meetings of the Council.
22.2 It was further agreed that a Joint Meeting of the Recreation and Tourist and General Purpose and Finance Committee be held on Monday 27 January 2003 at 7.30 p.m.
23. NOTICES OF MOTION 23.1 In accordance with his Notice of Motion it was proposed by: 212/1/2003 Councillor OT Hughes:
“That due to the consistent frequency of road accidents which had taken place on the bend outside Bellaghy Chapel that the Roads Service should as a matter of grave urgency immediately institute a scheme to both straighten and widen the road at this point – before the inevitable fatal accident takes place.”
The motion was seconded by Councillor S O’Brien.
75
Councillor O T Hughes stated that he had organised a petition of some 1,000 signatures as well as support from many of the main hauliers who travelled on the road from Bellaghy to Ballymena. A recent meeting had been held with Roads Service to consider the problem with this dangerous corner and the need for the road to be straightened and widened at this point. Councillor Hughes sought the support of the Council on this matter.
Councillor J Junkin enquired where was the available land?
In reply Councillor Hughes said that there had been a site meeting to discuss the matter.
Councillor Junkin then enquired if the Church wall could be moved to make the land available to straighten the corner.
Councillor Hughes said that it was not possible as there were graves just inside the wall surround and suggested the use of land on the other side of the road.
Councillor Junkin was of the opinion that this might not be possible.
Councillor P H McErlean said that the corner currently was a big problem. There had been an increase in traffic over the past number of years. Many heavy goods vehicles crossed over “the white line” when negotiating the corner and numerous accidents had occurred, particularly since the recent renovations to the Chapel. He feared that there would be a fatal accident if the Roads Service did not take action quickly.
The motion was adopted by the Council.
The Chairman, Councillor Rev Dr R T Wm McCrea commented that whilst the Council had supported the motion, any operations on the ground would have to be through negotiation.
23.2 In accordance with her Notice of Motion, it was proposed by:
76
Councillor Miss K A Lagan
“That this Council in line with current policy takes the necessary steps to procure land adjoining Watty Graham GAA for an additional playing field.”
Councillor Miss Lagan said that there were 4 acres of land adjoining Watty Graham which could either be purchased or leased to Watty Graham GAC. The Club would apply for funding to the Sports Council for help with a long-term lease of 25 years. It was proposed that the Council seek a valuation for either purchasing or leasing of possibly 25 years.
It was further proposed that the Council seek a valuation for either renting or buying.
The motion was seconded by Councillor J A McBride.
On a vote being taken 8 Members voted for the motion, 0 Members voted against, 6 Members abstained, voting being by show of hands. The Chairman declared the motion carried.
23.3 In accordance with his Notice of Motion, it was proposed by:
Councillor P H McErlean
“That the Council supports the setting up of a voluntary retirement scheme for farmers.”
Councillor McErlean stated that the voluntary retirement scheme was not a hand-out of money to farmers. The countryside suffered if there was a decline in farming and it hindered rural development. He referred to the mid-term C.A.P review and said that this was an opportune time to consider the new entrants scheme. He also intended that the Council write to the relevant Ministers.
The Chairman stated that the Northern Ireland Assembly had supported the retirement scheme and it was a very worthy scheme. He said that the farming community were in need and seconded the motion.
Councillor J Junkin also spoke in support of the motion.
The motion was unanimously adopted by the Council.
77
24. ROADS SERVICE Submitted letter dated 4 December 2002 including map and schedule detailing proposed waiting 279/1/2003 restrictions on the A29 Coleraine Road, Maghera (copies circulated to each Member).
Noted.
25. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED “IN COMMITTEE” PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor J A McBride, and
RESOLVED: that the Council proceed “In Committee”.
Council “In Committee”
26. STAFF MATTERS This item was taken “In Committee”.
27. LEGAL MATTERS This item was taken “In Committee”.
28. RESOLUTION TO It was PROCEED IN “OPEN COUNCIL” PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that proceedings be resumed in “Open Council”.
Proceedings in “Open Council”
It was
PROPOSED by Councillor Miss K A Lagan, Seconded by Councillor P McLean, and
RESOLVED: that the foregoing proceedings of the Council “In Committee” be and they are hereby approved and adopted.
78
29. SEALING OF The seal of the Council is hereby affixed to the DOCUMENTS following documents:-
29.1 Form of Agreement for the supply and delivery of one Iveco 5 tonne GVW Crew Cab tipping lorry from Eamon Bradley Car Sales, Garvagh in the sum of £17,073.90 plus VAT.
29.2 Grant of Right of Burial Plots A52 and A53 in the names of Mrs Adeline Elizabeth Kane and Mr R J Kane, 35 Westland Road, Magherafelt.
30. ITEMS FOR The following items were submitted for the information of Members:-
a) Minutes of Meeting of the North-Eastern Education and Library Board. b) Minutes of Meeting of the Northern Health and Social Services Council held on Wednesday 6 November 2002. c) Minutes of Meeting of the Northern Group Building Control Committee held on Wednesday 4 September 2002. d) Minutes of Meetings of Magherafelt Arts Trust (copies circulated to each Member). e) Executive Briefing – Report from the Board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive held on Wendesday 27 November 2002. f) The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Over 30 months scheme – monthly throughput for October 2002 (copy circulated to each Member). g) Copy of Monitoring Report No.12 prepared by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland – A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce – Summary and Returns 2001. h) Copy of “The Northern Ireland Motorway Achievement” published for the Motorway Archive Trust by Roads Service. i) Copy of the Northern Ireland Housing Market – Review and perspectives 2003-2006 which was recently launched by the Housing Forum. j) Copy of report by the Northern Ireland Drinking Water Inspectorate.
79 k) Copy of “Snippets” published by the Sustainable Northern Ireland Programme. l) Copy of “Countdown” published by Special Olympics World Games Ireland 2003. m) Letter and copy of Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2002-2003 (copy circulated to each Member). n) Letter from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure enclosing a copy of the consultation document setting out a proposal for a Geographical Information Strategy for Northern Ireland. o) Corporate Reports:
1. Queen’s University, Belfast 2002-2007 p) Annual Reports:
1. Public Appointments in Northern Ireland – Central Appointments Unit of the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister, NIHE. 2. Home Energy Conservation Strategy for Northern Ireland, NIHE 3. Heritage Lottery Fund and National Heritage Memorial Fund. 4. Building Control North-Eastern Group – Group Chief Officer’s Annual Report 5. Ofreg – Customer Services Standards Report 6. Roads Service 7. Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland.
The meeting concluded at 10.45 p.m.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
The foregoing Minutes are hereby Confirmed.
______(Chairman)
______(Date)