25 February 2018
Chairman: Alderman D Drysdale
Vice Chairman: Councillor O Gawith
Aldermen: J Dillon MBE JP, Alderman T Jeffers
Councillors: N Anderson, J Craig, A Girvin, A Givan, B Hanvey, L Poots, N Trimble
The Monthly Meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, on Monday 4 March 2019 at 10.00 am, for the transaction of business on the undernoted Agenda.
Please note that catering will be available in the Members Suite as follows: breakfast baps from 9.30 am and lunch at 1.00 pm.
You are requested to attend.
DAVID BURNS Chief Executive
Agenda
1. Apologies
2. Declarations of Interest
3. Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 4 February 2019
4. Report from the Director of Service Transformation
4.1 Replacement Planning Portal – Initial In Principal Investment
4.2 Report by the Head of Service – Planning and Capital Development
4.2.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined:
(1) LA05/2018/1026/F – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed distillery, tourist visitor centre, ancillary restaurant / café/ bar and gift shop, product storage units, access improvements, car parking provision and landscaping (in substitution of previously approved scheme LA05/2017/0902/F) located on lands approximately 135 meters north of Killaney Lodge, 19 Carryduff Road, Lisburn.
(2) LA05/2017/0388/F – Local Application (Called in) – Extensions and alterations to existing nursing home class 3(b) of the schedule of the Planning (Use classes) Order (NI) 2015, to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below (amended proposal) at Parkside Private Nursing Home, 4 North Circular Road, Lisburn.
(3) LA05/2018/0390/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed storey and a half dwelling with detached garage on a site west of no. 75 Grove Road, Dromore.
(4) LA05/2017/1298/F – Local Application (previously deferred) – Single dwelling house CTY10 on lands opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn.
(5) LA05/2017/1062/F – Local Application (Called in) – Retrospective application for the addition of 3 External air conditioning cassettes on the rear and side elevations, 1 pizza oven flue and a boxed-in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier on the roof of the Parsons’s Nose, 48 Lisburn Street, Hillsborough.
(6) LA05/2017/0921/F – Local Application (Called in) – Housing Development for 10 two storey detached dwellings at 30 – 32 Culcavy Road, Hillsborogh.
(7) LA05/2018/0167/F – Local Application (Exceptions Apply) – Proposed replacement dwelling with domestic garage located on land to the North East of No 59 Windmill Road, Hillsborough.
(8) LA05/2018/0980/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Proposed grass pitch, changing accommodation, fencing, ball stop fencing, retaining wall and re-grading off area located 120m north of 18 Maghaberry Road, Maghaberry.
(9) LA05/2019/0018/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Children’s play park consisting of forest style play equipment, crumb rubber surfacing, fencing, gates, picnic area including associated works located on lands to the south east of Hillsborough Lake, Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street, Hillsborough.
(10) LA05/2019/0019/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees, Introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables located at Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street, Hillsborough.
4.2.2 Pre-application Notices (PAN’s) in respect of potential major applications.
4.2.3 Planning Appeal Decisions as at 10 February 2019
4.2.4 Statutory Performance Indicators April – January 2019
4.2.5 Planning Notifications in respect of Telefonica’s proposed upgrades.
5. Confidential Report of the Director of Service Transformation
Members are requested to access the Confidential Report on Share-point under the Confidential Folder – Planning Committee
5.1 Cases with Court Proceedings for January 2019
(Confidential as it relates to information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and relates to information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings).
5.2 Legal Updates
(Confidential as it relates to matters to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings)
5.2.1 Drumkeen Retail Park 5.2.2 Ballydonaghy Road Cases
6. Any Other Business
--ooOOoo--
To: Members of Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
PC 04 02 2019
LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL
Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Offices, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn on Monday 4 February 2019 at 10.00 am
PRESENT: Councillor O Gawith (Vice-Chairman)
Aldermen J Dillon MBE JP, and T Jeffers Councillors N Anderson, J Craig, A Givan, B Hanvey, L Poots and N Trimble
OTHER Alderman J Tinsley MEMBERS: Councillors S Carson and A Redpath
IN ATTENDANCE:A Director of Service Transformation Head of Planning and Capital Development Principal Planning Officer (RH)) Senior Planning Officer (MB) Senior Planning Officer (MCON) Member Services Officer Attendance Clerk
Legal Advisor: Brendan Martyn - Cleaver Fulton & Rankin
Commencement of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman, Councillor O Gawith, welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Introductions were made by the Vice-Chairman and some housekeeping and evacuation announcements were made by the Director of Service Transformation.
1. Apologies
It was agreed that apologies from the Chairman, Councillor D Drysdale, and Councillor A Girvin be recorded and it was noted that Councillor N Anderson would be arriving late.
2. Declarations of Interest
It was highlighted that, with reference to application LAO5/2018/0507/F where the applicant was the Council, all members had the same interest and therefore paragraph 6.6 of the Code of Conduct applied and it was therefore not necessary for individual declarations of interest to be made.
The Vice-Chairman sought Declarations of Interest from Members and reminded them to complete the supporting forms which had been left at each desk.
1
PC 04 02 2019 No Declarations of Interest were made. However, during the course of the meeting, Councillor N Trimble advised that, with regard to application LAO5/2018/0507/F, his mother was a member of the Lagan Navigation Trust which would have offices within Navigation House. He did not consider that this constituted an interest in the application and he would be participating in the discussion.
3. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Monday 7 January 2019
It was proposed by Councillor N Trimble, seconded by Alderman WJ Dillon, and agreed that the above Minutes as circulated be confirmed and signed.
Later in the meeting, Councillor Poots, who was not present at this stage, requested and it was agreed that the following amendments be made to the minutes:
• At Page 8 of the Minutes, application LAO5/2017/0926/F, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence be amended to “He wished it to be put on record that neither he nor any member of his family had done business with the applicant or had used the facilities, despite allegations have been made to that effect, and that he had no interest to declare in respect of this application.” • At Page 9 of the Minutes, an additional bullet point be added to the comments of Mr P Catney MLA to advise that there had been 54,000 tons of silage stored at the site and 6,000 vehicular movements.
4. Report of the Director of Service Transformation
It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Director of Service Transformation be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below:-
4.1 Quarterly Budget Report - Planning Unit
The Committee was provided with copy and it was proposed by Councillor N Trimble, seconded by Alderman T Jeffers, and agreed to note the summary Budget Report for the Service Transformation Department for the year to 31 March 2019 as at 31 December 2018.
4.2 The Agreement of Local Development Plan Policies
It was proposed by Alderman WJ Dillon, seconded by Councillor A Givan, and agreed that the Committee note an update regarding agreement of local development plan policies and agree to continue to support this work.
In Committee
It was proposed by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor O Gawith, seconded by Alderman T Jeffers and agreed to go into Committee in order to receive legal advice in the absence of press and public.
Further information was distributed to Members regarding one of the applications on the schedule and the Members noted the advice received from the Legal Adviser. 2
PC 04 02 2019
4.3 Deferment of Item
At this stage, it was agreed to defer consideration of the next item on the Director’s Report, Report of the Head of Service (Planning and Capital Development), until later in the meeting and to proceed to consider the Confidential Report.
5. Confidential Report from the Director of Service Transformation
It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Confidential Report of the Director of Service Transformation be noted, subject to any decisions recorded below.
The Vice-Chairman reminded Members that they were still ‘in Committee’ and it was noted that the following items would be discussed ‘in Committee’ for the reasons indicated on the meeting Agenda.
5.1. Legal Updates
The Committee was provided with copy correspondence from Belfast City Council and it was agreed that the Committee note this correspondence as well as a verbal update on Court and PAC proceedings.
5.2 Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings
Having been provided with information on Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings in January 2019, it was agreed that the Committee note the information provided within the Report.
5.3 Quarterly Rolling Year Absence Figures for the Planning Unit
It was agreed that the Committee note information showing monthly absence figures for the Planning Unit and the steps being taken to address this.
Resumption of Normal Business
It was proposed by Councillor N Trimble, seconded by Councillor A Givan, and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed.
(Councillor DJ Craig left the meeting at 10.40 am.)
In the absence of Councillor Craig, the meeting was inquorate. The Vice- Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10.40 am and indicated that it would reconvene in an hour’s time when it was expected that, with the arrival of other Members, there would be a quorum.
(Councillor B Hanvey arrived at 11.40 am)
The meeting reconvened at 11.40 am.
6. Report of the Head of Service (Planning and Capital Development)
3
PC 04 02 2019 6.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined
The Vice-Chairman reminded Members that they needed to be present for the entire determination of an application. If absent for any part of the discussion they would render themselves unable to vote on the application.
The Legal Adviser highlighted paragraphs 43 - 46 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee which, he advised, needed to be borne in mind when determinations were being made.
The Vice-Chairman advised that there were a number of speakers in attendance making representation on some of the applications and therefore the Schedule of Applications would be taken out of order to enable these applications to be taken first.
(1) LA05/2017/0922/F – Local Application (Called in) – Removal of condition no 2 of planning approval LA05/2015/0765/F (the dwelling shall be occupied by Arthur Stringer and any dependents only) on lands to the rear of 44 Halfpenny Gate Road, Lisburn.
The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.
The Committee received Mr Patrick Johnson who wished to speak in support of the applications, highlighting the following:
• Mr Johnson read a statement out on behalf of Mrs Stringer • Mr Stringer’s mental health had deteriorated over the past 2 years • The couple were unable to finish the build as they could not raise a mortgage due to the condition attached to the planning approval • They continued to live in a cold and damp mobile home which had aggravated Mr Stringer’s other health problems –arthritis in his spine and wrists, a heart condition and he was on anti-depressants. • They had approached several financial institutions including Danske Bank, Ulster Bank and Progressive Building Society but had been refused a mortgage due to the condition attached to the planning approval. • Mrs Stringer was working two jobs; Mr Stringer was unable to work • The condition attached to the approval was a life-time one; if it was limited to a period of, say, 5 years, the applicants could work with it.
Mr Johnson responded to Members’ queries in which he clarified the following:
• When planning permission had been granted, the applicants had made some enquires about obtaining finance; they had opted to commence the build because of the poor conditions they were living in and in the hope of finding a bank or building society that would agree to lend money.
• At that time they did not fully understand the financial implications arising from the condition attached to the planning approval.
4
PC 04 02 2019 • The house was built to roof level but, having already borrowed from family to reach that stage, the couple had no further resources to complete the build. (Councillor L Poots arrived at 12.05 pm)
The Committee received Alderman James Tinsley who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The building had proceeded with planning permission but the problem was the clause around personal circumstances. • The family did not wish to be here having their financial situation laid bare. • The couple had built as far as they could which was up to roof level. • The house was there with planning permission and the couple wished to live in it; it was the condition around special circumstances that was the problem. • Alderman Tinsley suggested that a site meeting might be helpful for Members.
It was proposed by Councillor A Givan and seconded by Alderman T Jeffers that a site meeting be held to consider the application further. On the proposal being put to the meeting, it was agreed by a majority of 4:2 with 0 abstentions not to proceed with a site meeting.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members’ queries, clarifying as follows:
• If CTY6 has not been invoked, the planning recommendation would be to refuse the application. The special circumstances was the material fact that had allowed the application to be approved. • In response to a comment that most people, like the applicant, would not have sufficient funds to complete a build without seeking financial support, the Head of Service advised that planners were bound by the restrictions within the planning policy and affordability would not outweigh the policy condition. • With regard to making the condition time limited, the Head of Service advised that there was no provision for this within the planning policy and officers had not found cases where such time limits had been applied.
(Councillor DJ Craig returned to the meeting at 12.20 pm)
During the debate which followed, Councillor A Givan and Alderman T Jeffers expressed sympathy with the applicant and indicated that they would be abstaining from the vote. Alderman WJ Dillon stated that, while all Committee Members were sympathetic to the applicant, the Committee had to comply with planning policy.
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 4:0 with 2 abstentions to refuse application LA05/2017/0922/F as outlined in the Officer’s report.
5
PC 04 02 2019 (Councillors DJ Craig and L Poots did not take part in the vote as they had not been in attendance for the entirety of the discussion.)
(2) LA05/2018/0898/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed site for new dwelling and garage to round off the cluster in accordance with policy CTY2A on Lands adjacent and 35m south east of 44 Crumlin Road, Upper Ballinderry, Lisburn The Senior Planning Officer (MB) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.
The Committee received Mr Ryan McBirney who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The reason for the refusal was based on the assumption that the application did not comply with CTY2A. • Planners had identified 3 key issues: that there was no cluster, there was no visual entity and the site was not surrounded on 3 sides. • A cluster of development must lie outside a farm and consist of 4 or more buildings. • This cluster comprised at least 10 buildings including an Orange Hall, older vacant dwellings and other buildings. • The cluster did form a visual entity within the countryside; it focused around the cross roads with a community hub in the form of the Orange Hall. • CTY2A required that the site provided a suitable degree of enclosure and was bounded on at least 2 sides by other development. • The Planning Officer’s report accepted that a dwelling on the site would not be a prominent feature and that there were natural boundaries around the site. • The site was bounded by No 44 Crumlin Road to one side and a joinery workshop across the road opposite the site. He referred to a previous planning application which allowed property on the road opposite to be included in the cluster. • He also referred to a decision by PAC which indicated that it was not always a requirement to meet all of the policy tests. • In this particular case, the development around the crossroads was so significant that development on this site would constitute part of the cluster. • The site was well enclosed and would not add to ribbon development.
(Councillor N Anderson arrived at 12.40 pm)
Mr McBirney responded to Members’ questions providing clarification on the number and type of dwellings located around the crossroads.
The Committee received Alderman J Tinsley who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The issue was whether or not this group of buildings formed a cluster. • There was very clearly a crossroads with community buildings, dwellings and other buildings. • He did not believe that the proposed building would create ribbon development. 6
PC 04 02 2019 • This development around a crossroads ticked all the boxes to meet the criteria of a cluster.
The Committee received Councillor A Redpath who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The issues were whether you considered there to be a cluster and whether the site was bounded on two sides by development. • There were a number of dwellings, in excess of 3 or 4, in close proximity to the crossroads. • The crossroads was clearly a definite focal point with several dwellings in the proximity. • With regard to development on two sides of the proposed site, the question was whether the road to the front was considered a break in development, • He referred to a recent planning case where the Council did not consider a road to create a break in development. • He considered this a strong application and would commend it to the Council for approval.
Mr Redpath responded to Members’ questions regarding the cluster and whether the property across the road from the site could be considered development to one side.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions regarding the make-up of the cluster and the issue of ribbon development.
During the discussion that followed, it was proposed by Councillor DJ Craig, seconded by Councillor N Trimble, and, by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstention, it was agreed to have a site meeting.
(Councillor N Anderson did not take part in the vote as he had not been present for the entirety of the discussion)
Adjournment of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 1.10 pm
Resumption of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman declared the meeting resumed at 1.41 pm
(3) LA05/2017/0388/F – Local Application (Called in) – Extensions and alterations to existing nursing home class 3(b) of the schedule of the Planning (Use classes) Order (NI) 2015, to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below (amended proposal) at Parkside Private Nursing Home, 4 North Circular Road, Lisburn.
The Senior Planning Officer (MB) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.
7
PC 04 02 2019
The Committee received Mrs Elizabeth Ramsey and Mr Raymond Lowry who wished to speak in opposition to the application highlighting the following:
• The planners had underestimated the impact of the proposed extension on neighbouring properties. • The extension would be a very high 3 storey building right up to Mrs Ramsey’s boundary fence. • The proposed extension would lie 3.6 metres from Mrs Ramsey’s boundary fence and 9.9 metre from her living area. • The new building would be more than 19 metres long and would extend the whole length of her boundary line. • The living area of Mrs Ramsey’s house had large rooms with picture windows facing out to the nursing home. • The planners had stated that existing trees and shrubs would be retained but there were no trees and shrubs on the nursing home side of the boundary and all planting was on Mrs Ramsey’s side. • The proposals included a massive car park on an already crowded site • The proposal was out of character with the surrounding area; no other building was located so close to houses behind them; the general character of houses of the area was rear garden facing rear garden. • Mrs Ramsey did not object in principle to an extension of the nursing home rather she objected to the scale of the proposed extension. • She suggested that Members might wish to attend a site meeting to better assess the impact the proposed building would have on neighbouring properties. • Mr Lowry stated that he had occupied his home for 45 years. • There had been 4 or 5 extensions to the nursing home and there had been a pattern whereby once the owners obtained permission for an extension, they then sold up and new owners came in. • The extension would be life changing for those living in adjacent properties. • He indicated that the proposed building would be 60 ft long and 40 ft high.
Mrs Ramsey responded to Members’ questions, clarifying the following:
• The proposed extension would completely fill the space behind the existing nursing home and Mrs Ramsey’s property. • Mrs Ramsey’s view from her living areas would be a 3 storey high building. • There would be loss of sunlight particularly in the winter months and loss of visual amenity. • What screening currently existed between Mrs Ramsey’s house and the nursing home had been planted by Mrs Ramsey; there would be no open space to the side of the proposed extension that would allow further screening. • Other houses in the vicinity had garden areas, the proposed nursing home would have little open space on the site.
The Committee received Councillor S Carson who wished to speak in opposition to the application highlighting the following:
8
PC 04 02 2019 • The proposal would have adverse impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. • It was important to note that objectors were not opposed to an extension on the site; a previous application for a 2 storey extension along the full length of the site would have less impact than the current proposal. • He stated that rooms which the planners said overlooked the courtyard would be also looking into Mrs Ramsey’s property. • Although additional landscaping was proposed, one would struggle to see where that could take place on the crowded site. • The Creating Spaces document specified a minimum distance of 15 metres between the rear of a building and the shared boundary; in this case the distance was 9.9 metres between the nursing home and Mrs Ramsey’s property – not even her boundary. • There was a degree of open space associated with other properties in the area but Nos 2 and 4 North Circular Road had oversaturation which was out of character with the surrounding area.
The Committee received Trevor Lunn MLA who wished to speak in opposition to the application, highlighting the following:
• Mr Lunn would echo what other speakers had said. • Planners had rejected all objections to the extension. • He would challenge the planners’ assessment that the distance from the proposed extension to Mrs Ramsey’s boundary was acceptable. • The proposal would be the 5th extension to the property in recent times. • He stated that Wallace Park was an area of townscape character and that development should respect the character of the surrounding area. • No 6 North Circular Road sat at a lower level than the nursing home and the extension would be overbearing in respect of that property. • 9.9 metres was an unacceptable distance between the two properties.
Mr Lunn responded to Members’ comments.
It was then proposed by Councillor DJ Craig, seconded by Councillor N Anderson, and agreed by a majority of 9:0 with 0 abstentions, to request that a site meeting be arranged to include a visit to the neighbouring properties as well as the applicant’s site.
(4) LA05/2017/1298/F – Local Application (previously deferred) – Single dwelling house CTY10 on lands opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn. The Senior Planning Officer (MB) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report. It was noted that this application had been considered by the Planning Committee on 3 December 2018 and had been deferred for a site meeting which had taken place on 8 January 2019.
The Committee received Mr John Hinds who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
9
PC 04 02 2019 • The application had been submitted by Mr Hinds’ father but was to enable Mr Hinds to farm the lands. • The planners’ reasons for refusal were to so with siting of the dwelling and with farming activity. • The Committee was provided with an outline of the flood plain. • The site was located away from existing farm buildings which had been flooded on many occasions but it did use an existing farm access. • The farm had been active for 6 years with maintenance of the land in good agricultural condition. • Planning policy did not require participation in the single farm payment scheme. • There has been a private agreement with a local farmer and that agreement was submitted to the planners with the planning application. • DAERA had indicated that this agreement would confirm farming activity the agreement was submitted to the Planning Office in 2014 and was acceptable to them at that stage. • DAERA were helping Mr Hinds to resubmit an application for the single farm payment.
The Committee received Councillor A Redpath who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The issues to be considered were the site of the proposed building and the nature of the farming business. • Since the lands were liable to flooding, the prudent and most sensible course of action was to locate the proposed dwelling on the highest point of the site and away from the flood plain. • The ongoing nature of the farm business was evidenced by the fact that the lands were in good condition and hedges had been maintained. • There were in effect two agreements in place, one relating to the conacre arrangement and the other to the maintenance of the lands; but because these had been melled into one agreement, the Planning Officers were stating that there was insufficient evidence of farming activity.
Councillor Redpath then responded to Members’ queries clarifying as follows:
• A planning application submitted in 2018 was not refused for agricultural reasons but on siting reasons which would perhaps indicate that the decision in respect of the agricultural issue was finely balanced.
The Committee received Mr Trevor Lunn MLA who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• This farm had been in the family’s ownership since the late 1800s and there had been ongoing farming activity since that time. • Since 2009, because of the age of Mr Hinds Snr, the land has been let out in conacre. • The proposed site was located on the highest point of the land, about 1 metre above the level of the River Lagan. • The site was as near as possible to the existing farm property but without encroaching on the flood plain. 10
PC 04 02 2019 • There were a lot of houses on the Halftown Road. This site had a natural boundary on 2 sides and would be visually integrated into the surrounding area.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members’ questions providing clarification on the flood plain and indicating that it was the planner’s view that it was the person taking up the conacre rather than the applicant who would be eligible to benefit from the farming activity.
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 6:3 with 0 abstentions that the recommendation of the Planning Officer to refuse the application would not be upheld.
In Committee
It was proposed by Councillor N Anderson, seconded by Councillor L Poots, and agreed to go into Committee in order to receive legal advice in the absence of press and public.
Adjournment of Meeting
While in Committee, the Vice-Chairman declared an adjournment at 3.50 pm
Resumption of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman declared the meeting resumed at 4.00 pm. The meeting continued in Committee.
The Members noted the advice received from the Legal Adviser.
Resumption of Normal Business
It was proposed by A Givan, seconded by Councillor DJ Craig, and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed.
It was then proposed by Councillor N Anderson, seconded by Councillor A Givan and agreed that, in accordance with Para 55 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee, further consideration of application LA05/2017/1298/F would be deferred for a period of 1 month.
(6) LA05/2018/0388/O – Local Application (Called In) – Construction of a dwelling on a farm (Policy CTY10) on lands immediately North East of 4 Magheramesk Lane, Moira.
The Senior Planning Officer (MCON) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.
The Committee received Mr Bleakney who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
11
PC 04 02 2019 • Evidence of active farming had been submitted and these included details of purchase and sale of bullocks in 2016 and tuberculosis results in 2016. evidence of farm business insurance had been submitted recently. • Whilst there had been no livestock on the farm in recent years, the land had been maintained and there had been silage production. • He had submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was an active farmer. • The alternative site was not an option as access was along a very narrow lane, one car wide and with no verges on either side.
(Councillor Poots left the meeting at 4.23 pm)
Mr Bleakney responded to Members’ queries regarding farming activities on the land.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members queries regarding the evidence submitted in respect of farming activity.
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions to refuse application LA05/2018/0388/O as outlined in the Officer’s report.
(8) LA05/2017/0054/F – Local Application (Called In) – Proposed 2 no. agricultural sheds and retention of laneways and access on lands North West of St Patrick’s Church, Barnfield Road, Lisburn.
The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.
The Committee received Ms Christina Skentos and Mr Matthew Johnson who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The application was made based on a precedent that had been established at appeal. • The applicant wished to rear cattle on the land but DAERA would not allow a higher number of cattle unless there were two agricultural sheds. • If planning permission for the sheds was granted, the applicant would then be in a position to purchase more land and to increase her livestock. • The applicant currently had 25 sheep and 5 cattle on the land, which was the limit allowed by DAERA on her current land holding. • The land was not suitable for crops.
(Councillor Poots returned to the meeting at 4.49 pm)
Ms Skentos and Mr Johnson responded to Members’ questions, clarifying that the farm currently comprised 7.5 acres; the applicant was unable to get a DARD number until they had a larger herd; and the farm had a business ID for a Category 3 business.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members’ queries.
12
PC 04 02 2019
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 6:1 with 1 abstention to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.
(Councillor Poots did not take part in the vote as he had not been present for the entirety of the discussion)
(9) LA05/2018/0255/F – Local Application (Called In) - 2 storey dwelling with attic conversion and re-use of existing non-residential building (CTY4) for use as a dwelling with 1no. double garage, landscaping and associated site works at Site 120m west of 24 Edentrillick Hill Road, Hillsborough.
The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.
The Committee received Mr David Law who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• Mr Law gave some personal background details and advised that he was a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. • He advised that he had many years’ experience of dealing with old buildings. • He queried the planners assertion that, with regard to conversions, the planning policy never envisaged a new building wrapped around an old building. • He stated that Mr Matthew Slocombe, Director of SPAB, supported this type of conversion and referred to one of the examples included in the planners’ presentation which was an award winning conversion in the Midlands. This application followed along the same lines in wrapping a new building around a ruin. • The application involved the retention in its entirety of what was already there. • The extant approval involved the erection of a 3 metre retaining wall on the site whereas the current application was for a building that followed the differing ground levels.
Mr Law then responded to Members queries, providing clarification on the proposed height of the building and the topography of the site.
The Committee received Councillor S Carson who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:
• The key issues were the definition of a conversion and the interpretation of planning policy. • The planners held that concealing the ruin was not within the spirit of the policy but concealing the structure ensured its retention and maintenance. • The structure on site was a ruin but it would be made safe within the confines of what was being proposed. • The proposal involved the adaptation of a building for a new use.
13
PC 04 02 2019 • This was a unique application with unique features within it.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members queries clarifying that it was the planners’ view that the character of the existing building on the site should not be lost in the overall development scheme. He also advised that the building had been an agricultural outbuilding rather than a dwelling.
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 7:2 with 0 abstention to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.
7. Amendment to Minutes
At this stage, Councillor L Poots advised that he had not been present earlier in the meeting when the Committee had been considering the previous month’s meetings.
At his request, it was agreed that the amendments detailed at Item 3 above should be included in the Planning Committee minutes of 7 January 2019.
(Councillor L Poots left the meeting at 5.50 pm)
Adjournment of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman declared an adjournment at 5.50 pm
Resumption of Meeting
The Vice-Chairman declared the meeting resumed at 5.55 pm
8. Report of the Head of Service (Planning and Capital Development) (Continued)
8.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined (Continued)
(5) LA05/2018/0507/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Refurbishment and extension to stable block to provide educational workshop & classroom space. Proposed construction of new structure to partially cover existing courtyard to provide lobby/ flexible working space. Proposed change of use to Navigation House to provide office accommodation with provision of disabled parking at 148 Hillsborough Road, Lisburn.
The Senior Planning Officer (MCON) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.
The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer, agreed by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions to approve the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.
14
PC 04 02 2019 (10) LAO5/2018/0402/O – Local Application (Called In) - Proposed 2 storey replacement dwelling with detached garage on a Site 80m NE of no.26 Comber Road, Hillsborough, BT26 6LN
It was noted that this application had been removed from the Schedule for consideration.
It was noted that the following application on the Schedule of Applications would be determined at a future meeting of the Committee.
(7) LA05/2018/0390/O – Local Application (Called In) – Proposed storey and a half dwelling with detached garage on a site west of no. 75 Grove Road, Dromore
8.2 Pre-Application Notices (PANs) in respect of Potential Major Applications
8.2.1 Pre-Application Notice - Proposed mixed use development on a site to the north of no. 60 Rathfriland Road and south of no. 52 Rathfriland Road, Dromara, Dromore.
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed that Members note the information provided in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.
8.2.2 Pre-Application Notice – Proposed erection of 66 no. dwellings (comprising detached and semi-detached dwellings) with garages, open space, landscaping, access and associated site works on lands immediately adjacent to and north of 104 to 120 Millreagh Avenue, Dundonald.
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed that Members note the information provided in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.
8.2.3 Pre-Application Notice – Proposed redevelopment of Dundonald International Ice Bowl
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed that Members note the information provide in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.
In response to a query by Councillor DJ Craig, the Legal Adviser provided clarification in respect of Declarations of Interest by Council Members.
8.3 Planning Appeal Decisions as at 23 January 2019
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed to note the findings of Planning Appeals Decisions & Costs Decisions dated 16 January 2019 in relation to the following planning applications:
• LA05/2016/1050/F for the erection of 4 no. detached dwellings with double garages including new vehicular accesses and all other associated site works on a site to the South West of No. 4 Beanstown Road, Aghnahough, Lisburn
15
PC 04 02 2019 • LA05/2016/0686/F for the erection of 5 no detached dwellings with double garages including new vehicular accesses and all other associated site works on a site to the east of No7 Beanstown Road, Aghnahough, Lisburn, BT28 3QS and to the north of 94-102 (evens) Sir Richard Wallace Walk, Aghalislone (Upper Massereene), Lisburn.
The Head of Planning and Capital Development responded to Members’ comments and queries regarding application LAO5/2016/1050/F.
8.4 Statutory Performance Indicators April-December 2018
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed to note a draft monthly performance indicator from the Department of Infrastructure.
8.5 Further Consideration in respect of LA05/2017/0926/F
The Committee was provided with copy and it was agreed to note a report setting out further consideration in respect of a late representation received in relation to Front Road, Drumbo.
9. Any Other Business
There were no matters of any other business arising.
There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 6.20 pm.
______CHAIRMAN / MAYOR
16
LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2019
REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF SERVICE TRANSFORMATION
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to set out for Members’ consideration a number of Planning Matters.
The following reports are to be given consideration with decisions required on matters pertaining to the planning schedule:
1. Replacement Planning Portal – Initial in principal Investment 2. To consider the Planning Report by the Head of Service.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. REPLACEMENT PLANNING PORTAL – INITIAL IN PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT
Members will be aware of the need to replace the current NI Planning Portal as the current system is no longer supported past 2020. The Department for Finance are currently leading on an initiative on behalf of the 11 councils and themselves on this project of which they are due to contribute 40% of the capital costs as well as the annual revenue contributions for support and maintenance. We have received an updated business case which was presented to the Heads of Planning.
Over the ten year period the council’s contribution will is proposed to be £160K but is still subject to further consideration and ultimately a tendered return. Included within this figure is the development of a full specification, procurement, data migration and project management costs. The system will include both an improved management information system but also importantly an improved customer interface. Importantly there will be process efficiencies also incorporated.
As previously reported it is proposed that the apportionment of costs across the 11 councils is on an equal basis. Through SOLACE these matters are still being negotiated and in that regard attached at Appendix 1 is a letter from DfI offering an additional £1 million. A further report will be brought through the Development Committee in relation to LCC’s investment.
Recommendation It is recommended that Members note the further contribution by DfI and that through SOLACE the apportionment across the councils is to be agreed by the Chief Executives.
ITEM FOR DECISION
2. REPORT BY THE HEAD OF SERVICE
Attached at APPENDIX 2 is a Planning Report by the Head of Service.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the Planning Report by the Head of Service.
DONAL ROGAN DIRECTOR OF SERVICE TRANSFORMATION 25 February 2019 Appendix 1
APPENDIX 2 LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 4 March 2019
REPORT BY THE HEAD OF SERVICE
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to set out for Member’s consideration a number of recommendations specifically relating to the operation of the new Council.
The following decisions are required:
1. To consider the Schedule of Applications to be determined. 2. To note Pre- Application Notices (PAN’S) in respect of potential Major Applications. 3. To note the Planning Appeal Commissions decision. 4. To note Statutory Performance Indicators April – January 2019. 5. To note planning notifications in respect of Telefonica’s proposed upgrades
ITEMS FOR DECISION
1. SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
1.1 LA05/2018/1026/F – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed distillery, tourist visitor centre, ancillary restaurant/ café/ bar and gift shop, product storage units, access improvements, car parking provision and landscaping (in substitution of previously approved scheme LA05/2017/0902/F) located on lands approximately 135 meters north of Killaney Lodge, 19 Carryduff Road, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.1 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.2 LA05/2017/0388/F – Local Application (Called in) – Extensions and alterations to existing nursing home class 3(b) of the schedule of the Planning (Use classes) Order (NI) 2015, to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below (amended proposal) at Parkside Private Nursing Home, 4 North Circular Road, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.2(a) is an addendum report detailing consideration of matters associated with the deferral / site visit. Attached at APPENDIX 1.2(b) is a copy of the initial report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.3 LA05/2018/0390/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed storey and a half dwelling with detached garage on a site West of no. 75 Grove Road, Dromore. Attached at APPENDIX 1.3 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.4 LA05/2017/1298/F – Local Application (previously deferred) – Single dwelling house CTY10 on lands opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.4(a) is an addendum report detailing consideration of matters associated with the deferral. Attached at APPENDIX 1.4(b) is a copy of the report detailing consideration of matters associated with the site visit / initial deferral. Attached at APPENDIX 1.4(c) is a copy of the initial report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.5 LA05/2017/1062/F – Local Application (Called In) – Retrospective application for the addition of 3 External air conditioning cassettes on the rear and side elevations, 1 pizza oven flue and a boxed-in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier on the roof of the Parson’s Nose, 48 Lisburn Street, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.5 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.6 LA05/2017/0921/F – Local Application (Called in) – Housing Development for 10 two storey detached dwellings at 30-32 Culcavy Road, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.6 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.7 LA05/2018/0167/F – Local Application (Exceptions Apply) – Proposed replacement dwelling with domestic garage located on Land to the North East of No 59 Windmill Road, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.7 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.8 LA05/2018/0980/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Proposed grass pitch, changing accommodation, fencing, ball stop fencing, retaining wall and re-grading off area located 120m north of 18 Maghaberry Road, Maghaberry. Attached at APPENDIX 1.8 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.9 LA05/2019/0018/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Children's play park consisting of forest style play equipment, crumb rubber surfacing, fencing, gates, picnic area including associated works located on Lands to the south east of Hillsborough Lake, Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.9 is a copy of the initial report together with a location map in relation to this application.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Head of Service and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
1.10 LA05/2019/0019/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees. Introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables located at Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.10 is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.
ITEMS FOR NOTING
2. PRE-APPLICATION NOTICES (PAN’S) IN RESPECT OF POTENTIAL MAJOR APPLICATIONS
2.1 Attached at APPENDIX 2.1(a) is a report in relation to a Pre-Application Notice (LA05/2019/0056/PAN) received in respect of a potential major application for a proposed Fertiliser Storage Compound Extension (to Greenfield Fertilisers), fencing, landscaping/bunding, access and ancillary site works. Lands approx. 20 metres south of the existing Greenfield Fertilisers factory at 20 Glenavy Road, Ballynanaghten, BT67 0LT and north of Soldierstown Road. The PAN Form and Site Location Plan are attached at APPENDIX 2.1(b).
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee note the information submitted with the above Notice.
3. PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS AS AT 10 FEBRUARY 2019
Attached at APPENDIX 3.1 is a Planning Appeals Decision dated 28 January 2019 in relation to planning application LA05/2017/0597/O for Two infill dwellings located Between stable and potting shed at 17 Old Coach Road, Hillsborough. The appeal was dismissed. No application for costs was submitted by the appellant or the Council.
Attached at APPENDIX 3.2 is a Planning Appeals Decision dated 18th February 2019 in relation to planning application LA05/2018/0604/O for a proposed infill dwelling in a small gap site in a substantially built up road frontage on lands between 69b & 71 Lisburn Road, Glenavy. The appeal was allowed. No application for costs has been submitted by the appellant or the Council.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee notes the appeal decisions.
4. STATUTORY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS APRIL – JANUARY 2019
Attached at APPENDIX 4 is a draft monthly performance indicator from the Department of Infrastructure.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee notes the information.
5. PLANNING NOTIFICATIONS IN RESPECT OF TELEFONICA’S PROPOSED UPGRADES
Attached at APPENDIX 5 is notification in respect of Telefonica’s intention to install electronic communications apparatus on land to the rear of Sion Hill, 10 Ballygowan Road, Hillsborough, Co Down.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Committee note this information.
CONOR HUGHES HEAD OF SERVICE 25 February 2019 APPENDIX 1.1
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2018/1026/F
Date of Application 25 January 2019
District Electoral Area Downshire East
Proposal Description Proposed distillery, tourist visitor centre, ancillary restaurant/café/bar and gift shop, product storage units, access improvements, car parking provision and landscaping (in substitution of previously approved scheme LA05/2017/0902/F)
Location Lands approximately 135 metres north of Killaney Lodge, 19 Carryduff Rd., Lisburn BT27 6T
Applicant/Agent Killaney Estates Ltd./Clyde Shanks
Representations One
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation Approval
Summary of Recommendation
1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.
2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee in that it has been called-in.
3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is considered that the proposed development when weighed against the planning history is not materially different. In fact the scope and nature of the proposal seeks to build on and enhance the potential of the proposed tourist attraction by offering additional facilities.
1
1. It is also contended that the proposed development will serve to complement the existing tourism asset of Killaney Lodge and Killaney Estates and enhance its interest as a tourist destination.
2. The proposal is considered an exception to the protected routes policy and the access is designed not to compromise the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety.
3. Furthermore, the proposal is not likely to cause detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties by reason of noise, nuisance or smell.
Description of Site and Surroundings
4. The site is located along the Carryduff Road. It comprises a paddock, an agricultural field and an area of hardstanding.
5. The site is set in the grounds of Killaney Lodge, a listed dwelling with associated outbuildings and courtyard. There is an existing access into the site from the Carryduff Road, with a separate access to the dwelling.
6. There are 12-15 metre high trees along part of the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the paddock. These trees also run along the western boundary of the paddock. The field is enclosed with ranch fencing. This fencing runs along either side of the lane towards the northern part of the site.
7. The boundary of the site along the road consists of a post and wire fence and a 2m high hedge. The site is relatively flat, being at a lower level than the adjacent dwelling and stables.
8. The site is located in the countryside. The area is rural in character, with individual farms and dwellings scattered throughout the landscape.
Proposed Development
9. The application is for a proposed distillery, tourist visitor centre, ancillary restaurant/café/bar and gift shop, product storage units, access improvements, car parking provision and landscaping (in substitution of previously approved scheme LA05/2017/0902/F).
10. Due to business requirements and an ambition to exploit an obvious growing and emerging market, the earlier scheme has been revised and increased in scale. The new elements namely the restaurant/café and gift shop are to be ancillary to the primary use of the site as a distillery with associated visitor centre and tourist attraction.
2
Relevant Planning History
11. The relevant planning history includes the following:
Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/2001/1347/F Retention of use of garden/craft centre Application Withdrawn 26.06.2002 S/2008/0184/F Erection of 1074sqm multi-purpose Permission agricultural building Granted 09.02.2009 LA05/2017/0902/F Proposed whiskey distillery, tourist visitor Permission centre, access improvements, car parking Granted provision, landscaping and ancillary site 13.12.2017 works.
Planning Policy Context
12. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) - Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 – Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 16 - Tourism . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside
Consultations
13. The following consultations were carried out
Consultee Response DfI Roads Unable to fully support the application due to the Protected Routes Policy. Conditions provided if planning deem an exception under policy. NI Water No objections subject to informatives in relation to connection to sewerage and water infrastructure.
3
Consultee Response NIEA Water management No objections subject to informatives and agreement of NI water to connect to main sewers. Environmental Health No objections. Provided condition relating to noise control. NIEA Natural Heritage No objection, subject to informatives NIEA Water Management No objection Unit Tourism NI Supportive of the application Rivers Agency No objection Historic Environment No objection Division
Representations
14. One representation has been received in respect of this application. The following issues were raised: . Work has commenced on site . Previous PAD deemed it to be a major application . Proposed facilities would not be made available to the public (restaurant/café/bar) and it would be difficult to ensure a condition relating to these facilities was enforceable . Facilities are already provided for by the Temple Golf Club so they would not benefit the tourist industry or locality nor would there be an exceptional argument given the proximity.
Consideration and Assessment
15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Planning History . EIA Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Tourism Development - Tourist Amenities in the Countryside - Criteria for Tourism Development - Safeguarding of Tourism Assets . Economic Development . Access, Movement and Parking . Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Natural Heritage Interests . Water and Sewerage Infrastructure
4
Local Development Plan 16. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
17. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 had in its entirety not been lawfully adopted.
18. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however, draft BMAP remains a material consideration.
19. In this case the application site lies within the open countryside as designated in both the LAP 2001 and draft BMAP.
Principle of Development 20. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
21. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to date development plan should be approved and a proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
22. Strategic Policy directs that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
23. The SPPS acknowledges that tourism makes a vital contribution to the Northern Ireland economy in terms of the revenues it generates, the employment opportunities it provides, and the potential it creates for economic growth.
24. The Programme for Government and the Northern Ireland Executive's Economic Strategy contain key strategic targets for tourism that recognise its potential to deliver significant economic growth in the future and supports the local tourism sector's long terms aspiration to grow tourism into a £1billion industry in Northern Irelands by 2020.
5
25. The regional strategic objectives for tourism are to: - facilitate sustainable tourism development in an environmentally sensitive manner; - contribute to the growth of the regional economy by facilitating tourism growth; - safeguard tourism assets from inappropriate development; - utilise and develop the tourism potential of settlements by facilitating tourism development of an appropriate nature, location and scale; - sustain a vibrant rural community by supporting tourism development of an appropriate nature, location and scale in rural areas; and - ensure a high standard of quality and design for all tourism development.
26. Strategic Policy also states that the guiding principle should be to ensure policies and proposals facilitate appropriate tourism development in the countryside, and that these proposals must demonstrate exceptional benefit to the tourism industry and sustainable benefit to the locality, and that a countryside location is required by reason of its size or site specific or functional requirements.
27. The distilling of alcohol (either whiskey or gin) and the brewing of craft beer is recognised by the tourism industry to be a tourist attraction in its own right and a growth sector for attracting and retaining repeat visitors to Northern Ireland.
28. The proposal seeks development of a distillery, tourist visitor centre with ancillary restaurant/café/bar and gift shop, product storage units, access improvements, car parking provision and landscaping on a rural site beyond any defined settlement limit.
29. Having considered the content of both the SPPS and the retained policy contained within prevailing policies, no distinguishable differences are found that need reconciled in favour of the SPPS.
EIA Development
30. The proposal was assessed against The Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. The proposal does not fall neatly into any of the descriptions of development associated with Schedule 2 developments and as such, a formal EIA Determination is not required.
Planning History
31. The extant permission [LA05/2017/0902/F] establishes the principle of development for a distillery and tourism facility and access at this location. Significant weight is attached to this history as a material consideration in the assessment of the amended proposal against prevailing planning policy.
6
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
32. Policy CTY 1 Development in the Countryside sets out those range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside.
33. The policy directs that other types of development will only be permitted where there are over-riding reasons shy that development is essential and could not be located in a settlement or it is otherwise allocated for development in a development plan.
34. Non-Residential development is acceptable in principle under a number of listed cases. While acknowledging the proposal is for a mixed use development the distillery is small in scale and primarily pitched at the craft market and linked to the tourist experience.
35. For this reason while the requirements of the SPPS and PPS 4 are considered the proposal falls to be mainly assessed as a tourism proposal and assessed against the policy tests set out in PPS 16 - Tourism.
Tourism Development
36. Planning Policy Statement 16 - Tourism, sets out the planning policy for tourism development, including the main forms of tourist accommodation and tourist amenities, whilst also providing policy for the safeguarding of tourism assets from development likely to adversely impact upon the tourism value of the environmental asset.
Tourist Amenities in the Countryside
37. Policy TSM 2 - Tourist Amenities in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a tourist amenity in the countryside where it is demonstrated that:
(a) it is in association with and requires a site at or close to a particular tourism attraction located in the countryside, or (b) the type of tourist activity in itself requires a countryside location.
38. Policy also states that where a proposed tourist amenity is of regional importance or is otherwise significant in terms of the extent of the new build or the scale of engineering operations it must demonstrate substantial benefit to regional tourism as well as sustainable benefits to the locality. Such applications must be supported by a tourism benefit statement and a sustainable benefit statement.
39. This application is presented as a tourism destination. A detailed supporting statement submitted as part of the earlier application outlined the rationale for the application.
7
40. This background is pertinent to the consideration of this current application with the key tourist benefits identified as follows
. Overall cap of £1million investment and development; . Five new jobs reflecting £30,000+ in salaries; . Potential to produce 50, 000 bottles of whiskey; . Support growth of Irish Whisky distilleries and visitor centres; . Contribute to an all island whiskey tourism product/network; and . Create an Irish Whisky trail and tourism infrastructure around distilleries.
41. The site is located within the grounds of Killaney Lodge. The applicant owns Killaney Estates Limited. Part of this includes Chateau de la Ligne, a 17th Century Chateau in France which consists of a wedding venue, gardens and vineyard set in the Bordeaux countryside.
42. The Killaney Estates Ltd is seeking to build upon this French experience and specialism by significantly investing in and developing a bespoke whiskey tourism attraction at Killaney Lodge.
43. The proposal and accompanying supporting statement notes the linkages between Killaney Estates and the Chateau de la Ligne, and joint ventures with Shortcross Gin distillery.
44. Killaney Estate is recognised as a tourist attraction and was the venue of Northern Ireland Red Cross Open Garden event.
45. In light of this, it is considered that the proposal satisfies criteria (a) in that it is associated with an existing tourist attraction in the countryside, namely Killaney Lodge and there is considered to be a logical link between proposed distillery and the associated wine production activities at the Chateau de La Ligne, casks of which will be stored at the proposed site and will be used in the distilling process.
46. This advice is also addressed in a short supporting statement confirming that the circumstances are unchanged. The weight attached to the justification presented at the time the principle of development was conceded still carries in relation to this amended proposal.
Criteria for Tourism Development
47. Policy TSM7 - Criteria for Tourism Development states that a proposal for a tourism use, in addition to the other policy provisions of this Statement, will be subject to the following design criteria:
(a) a movement pattern is provided that, insofar as possible, supports walking and cycling, meets the needs of people whose mobility is impaired, respects existing public rights of way and provides adequate and convenient access to public transport; (b) the site layout, building design, associated infrastructure and landscaping arrangements (including flood lighting) are of high quality in accordance
8
with the Department’s published guidance and assist the promotion of sustainability and biodiversity; (c) appropriate boundary treatment and means of enclosure are provided and any areas of outside storage proposed are screened from public view; (d) utilisation of sustainable drainage systems where feasible and practicable to ensure that surface water run-off is managed in a sustainable way; (e) is designed to deter crime and promote personal safety; (f) development involving public art, where it is linked to a tourism development, needs to be of high quality, to complement the design of associated buildings and to respect the surrounding site context.
48. In addition to the above design criteria, a proposal will also be subject to the following general criteria
(g) it is compatible with surrounding land uses and neither the use or built form will detract from the landscape quality and character of the surrounding area; (h) it does not harm the amenities of nearby residents; (i) it does not adversely affect features of the natural or built heritage; (j) it is capable of dealing with any emission or effluent in accordance with legislative requirements. The safeguarding of water quality through adequate means of sewage disposal is of particular importance and accordingly mains sewerage and water supply services must be utilised where available and practicable; (k) access arrangements must be in accordance with the Department’s published guidance; (l) access to the public road will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic; (m) the existing road network can safely handle any extra vehicular traffic the proposal will generate; (n) access onto a protected route for a tourism development in the countryside is in accordance with the amendment to Policy AMP 3 of PPS 3, as set out in Annex 1 of PPS 21. (o) it does not extinguish or significantly constrain an existing or planned public access to the coastline or a tourism asset, unless a suitable alternative is provided;
49. The current proposal is within the same red line as that previously approved within the context of planning application LA05/2017/0902/F. The current application proposes the same facilities, with the addition of restaurant and bar which are ancillary to the operation of the visitor centre.
50. The new proposal has a similar layout to that approved previously, albeit with a slightly larger footprint with the main building surrounding a courtyard area.
51. There is a single storey entrance with a two storey block behind, housing a reception area. This leads to the distillery building which has been designed to replicate agricultural buildings found in the northern part of the site.
52. Part of this building has an internal mezzanine floor with offices, meeting rooms, a gin still room and tasting area.
9
53. The part of the building along the western side of the site has a museum at ground floor level and bottling area at first floor. There are also toilet facilities provided in this part of the building at ground and first floor making is accessible for those people whose mobility is impaired.
54. That part of the building along the southern part of the site consists of a bar, store, sales and tasting area on the ground floor, and a restaurant and kitchen area at first floor.
55. The part of this building that turns along the front elevation is single storey. The layout of the building creates a courtyard with one entrance along the front elevation for visitors. There are a two single storey storage areas proposed just north of the large distillery building. These are for empty bottle and filled bottle storage. Adjacent to this there is a bunded area for tanks which is not enclosed.
56. It is noted that the proposed access utilises the existing access with a driveway leading down to the buildings. There is a parking area to the right for the public, and a coach parking area to the left. A road has been provided along the front of the building towards an area of hardstanding to the north of the buildings, which can be used by larger lorries for the purposes of delivery and loading. There are two relatively large areas of open space upon entry to the site, running along the site boundary with the road.
57. The design of the building is rural in appearance, consisting of mostly long, narrow buildings with windows having a vertical emphasis, and the distillery building replicating agricultural sheds. The building is finished in stone cladding and textured render. There are varying heights of the buildings which results in the overall massing of the scheme befitting to this rural area. There are no buildings on the site that can be re-used or facilitate the proposal. Therefore it is accepted that new buildings are required to enable the development.
58. There are existing mature trees along part of the northern boundary which are to be retained. A planting schedule indicates where the new planting is to be located. Both the existing and proposed areas of planting will provide a significant level of screening for the proposal. It is contended that the proposal is sympathetic to the rural area in that the buildings reflect traditional rural character.
Safeguarding of Tourism Assets
59. Policy TSM8 - Safeguarding of Tourism Assets states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would in itself or in combination with existing and approved development in the locality have an adverse impact on a tourism asset.
10
60. A tourism asset is defined in paragraph 7.39 of the policy justification and amplification as any feature associated with the built of natural environment which is of intrinsic interest to tourists.
61. This policy provides for the safeguarding of all tourism assets, including those which are subject to protection for other reasons under various legislative or policy instruments and those which are not subject to such protection.
62. It is contended that the proposed development will serve to complement the existing tourism asset of Killaney Lodge and Killaney Estates and enhance its interest as a tourist destination.
Economic Development
63. PPS 4 – Economic Development sets out planning policies for economic development uses.
64. Policy PED 2 – Economic Development in the Countryside states that proposals for economic development uses in the countryside will be permitted in accordance with particular policy tests. The policy does provide for other proposals for economic development in the countryside in exceptional circumstances.
65. As indicated above, the proposal is for a mixed use development. The element distillery is small in scale and primarily pitched at the craft market and linked to the tourist experience. The proposal has assessed as an exception with within the context of policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 and assessed against the policy tests set out in PPS 16 - Tourism.
66. Policy PED9 – General Criteria for Economic Development Proposals states that a proposal for economic development use, in addition to the other policy provisions will be required to meet a number of policy criteria.
67. As demonstrated above, the current proposal falls within the same red line as that previously approved within the context of panning application LA05/2017/0902/F and it proposes the same facilities with the addition of a restaurant and bar, ancillary to the operation of the associated visitor centre. The proposal has a similar footprint albeit with a slightly larger footprint. The proposal is not considered to be incompatible with the surrounding land uses as it seeks to building on and enhance the potential tourist attraction at this rural location.
68. With the nearest residential property being approximately 130m away from the application site, no harm to residential amenity is likely to occur.
69. Historic Environment Division (HED) has noted the difference in size compared with the earlier scheme and recommended that a 5 metre landscaping buffer zone between the new development and the listed building be considered. A revised landscaping plan shows additional planting along this boundary.
11
Natural Environment Division (NED) were consulted with a Biodiversity Checklist and offer no objection.
70. This site is not located within an area of flood risk no significant change in levels is proposed. Rivers Agency has offered no objection.
71. Whilst the amended scheme includes details of a restaurant and bar, the Councils Environmental Health Unit has not identified any issues in relation to potential noise or emission nuisance. A condition restricting the operating hours is recommended in order to minimise any potential activity likely to generate excessive noise to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring dwellings is protected. Drainage plans have been reviewed by Water Management Unit and are found to be acceptable.
72. In terms to roads considerations the proposal is considered as an exception to the protected routes policy and the access has been designed not to compromise the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety. Adequate provision is made within the site for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.
73. As demonstrated above, the site layout is acceptable and the design of the building is rural in appearance with elements replicating agricultural sheds which is in keeping with this rural setting.
74. Existing mature trees along part of the northern boundary are to be retained with new planting indicated on the planting schedule. Both the existing and proposed planting will provide a significant level of screening for the proposal which will aid integration.
Access, Movement and Parking
75. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitment to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.
76. Policy AMP3 - Access to Protected Routes states that a planning authority will restrict the number of new accesses and control the level of use of existing access onto protected Routes in accordance with policy.
77. Within the context of this proposal, criteria (d) of policy AMP 3 states that of development may be justified in particular cases for other developments which would meet the criteria for development within a Green Belt or Countryside Policy Area where access cannot reasonably be obtained from an adjacent minor road.
78. DFI Roads advised that they were unable to fully support the application due to the Protected Routes Policy published within PPS 3 Access, Movement and Parking.
12
79. They acknowledged that the planning authority had previously deemed a similar proposal an exception under criteria (d) of Policy AMP 3 as such advised that intensification of use of the access may be permissible should the exemption status still apply.
80. In this case, the application proposes to use an existing access onto a protected route. Two other access from the site will be closed and as such, the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety should not be compromised.
81. The proposal has been considered against the requirements of this policy and it is contended that it can be deemed an exception under criteria (d) as an access to the site cannot reasonably be obtained from an adjacent minor road. There are no other adjacent roads within the vicinity of the site which could be utilised by the proposal. The only option is to use the existing access onto the Carryduff Road.
82. This exception is considered alongside the overriding tourism benefits highlighted in the supporting statement.
Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage
83. PPS 6 - Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage and advises on the treatment of these issues in development plans.
84. Policy BH11 - Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building is applicable states that a planning authority will not normally permit development which would adversely affect the setting of a listed building.
85. Development proposals will normally only be considered appropriate where all the following criteria are met: (a) the detailed design respects the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment; (b) the works proposed make use of traditional or sympathetic building materials and techniques which respect those found on the building; and (c) the nature of the use proposed respects the character of the setting of the building.
86. Detail associated with the nature, scale and design elements of the proposal is outlined above. Historic Environment Division – Built Heritage Unit noted the difference in size compared with the earlier scheme and advised to minimise any adverse impact on the setting of the listed building substantial landscaping buffer zone (at least 5m) between the new development and the listed building (southern boundary) was required.
13
87. A revised landscaping plan showing additional planting to the southern boundary has been provided to address the concerns of HED and minimise any potential impacts on the setting of the listed building.
Natural Heritage Interests 88. Planning Policy Statement 2 - Natural Heritage, sets out the planning polices for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.
89. A biodiversity checklist was submitted with the application. The detail submitted with this check has been considered by Natural Environment Division and no concerns with regard to potential impacts on designated sites and other natural heritage interests have been raised.
Water & Sewerage Infrastructure 90. In terms of Water and Sewerage Infrastructure provision, NI Water advised that there is a public water supply within 20m of the proposal. They advised that a formal water connection application must be made for all developments, including those where it is proposed to re-use existing connections.
91. NIEA Water Management Unit have also considered the potential impacts of the proposal on the water environment and initially were unable to determine if the development had the potential to adversely affect the surface water environment.
92. A detailed full site drainage plan was requested as was details of any statutory permissions held for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water. This information was submitted and on this basis of the detail provided, Water Management Unit confirmed that they were content.
Consideration of Representations
93. One representations was received in respect of this application. The issues raised are considered below.
Work has commenced on site 94. An application has been approved on this site for a distillery and tourist visitor centre and work may have commenced in accordance with this approval.
Previous PAD deemed it to be a major application 95. In accordance with The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, the application is considered to falls within Class 9 Description of Development – all other development, which is any development
14
not falling wholly within any single class of development described in Parts 1 to 8.
96. This application does not meet the threshold/criteria set out within this class, as it does not comprise development of 5000sqm or more and the site does not exceed 1 hectare.
Proposed facilities would not be made available to the public 97. The restaurant/café/bar facilities proposed are ancillary uses to the main distillery/tourism proposal, thus operating in conjunction with the distillery use. A condition restricting the use of these facilities is not considered to be necessary.
Facilities are already provided for by the Temple Golf Club hence no benefit
98. These facilities that are provided by the Temple Golf Club are a material consideration in the assessment of this application, but as such, are not given determining weight. The Planning Unit has no remit to control construction access to the site.
Conclusions
99. Based on careful consideration of all the policy and other material considerations, it is assessed that the proposed development is designed as a tourist attraction based round the distilling of craft whiskeys. While located in the countryside policy TSM 8 allows for firm proposals for new facilities to construct particularly were they protect existing assets.
100. It is also contended that the proposed development will complement the existing tourism asset of Killaney Lodge and Killaney Estates and enhance its interest as a tourist destination. There is a previous history of approval for a similar proposal and significant material weight is afforded to this history.
101. The proposal is considered an exceptions to the protected routes policy and the access is designed not to compromise the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety.
102. Furthermore, the proposal is not likely to cause detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenity of any neighbouring properties by reason of noise, nuisance or smell.
Recommendations
103. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
15
Conditions
104. The following conditions are recommended:
. As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time limit
. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 12 bearing the Planning date stamp 28th September 2018, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. Gates at the access shall be located at a distance from the edge of the public road as shown on Drawing No. 12 bearing the Planning date stamp 28th September 2018 to allow the largest expected vehicle to stop clear of the public road when the gates are closed. Reason: To ensure waiting vehicles do not encroach onto the carriageway.
. No other development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the existing accesses indicated on Drawing No 12 bearing the Planning date stamp 28th September 2018 have been permanently closed and the footway / verge properly reinstated to DfI Roads satisfaction. Reason: In order to minimize the number of access points on to the public road in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. The development hereby permitted shall not become operational until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved Drawing No. 03 bearing Planning date stamp 28th September 2018 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.
. No activity which is likely to generate excessive noise e.g. delivery, should be outside the hours of 07:00 to 21:00. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise
. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as shown in Drawing No. 13/1 bearing the date stamp 22nd November 2018 and the appropriate British Standard or other
16
recognised Codes of Practise. The works shall be carried out prior to the operation of any part of the development Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
17
Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/1026/F
18
APPENDIX 1.2(a)
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) – Site Visit Addendum
Application Reference LA05/2017/0388/F
Date of Application 12 April 2017
District Electoral Area Lisburn North
Proposal Description Extensions and alterations to existing nursing home to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below.
Location Parkside Private Nursing Home, 4 North Circular Rd, Lisburn
Representations 13
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation APPROVAL
Background
1. This application was presented with a recommendation to refuse planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 4 February 2019.
2. Following the presentation and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit. This took place on Tuesday 12 February 2019.
1
Site Visit Consideration
3. At the request of the Vice Chair, the Principal Planning Officer outlined the extent of the proposed extension and works on the site location plan. The current access arrangements and proposed reconfigured parking arrangements to provide additional parking was also explained.
4. Members then moved to the rear of the nursing home to consider the detail associated with the scale and position of the proposed extensions in relation to neighbouring buildings within its immediate context.
5. The difference in levels was noted and it was explained that the levels within the nursing home site would be reduced to the level of the current building and that the proposed extension elements would be of similar height to the existing building.
6. Clarification was provided in relation to separation distances with neighbouring properties and it was explained that windows along rear elevations would be mainly bathrooms with obscure glass.
7. The extension associated with the adjacent nursing home relative to neighbouring properties and the proposed site was observed by Members.
8. Members moved to neighbouring residential property at 6 North Circular Road and noted that there were three small windows to the upper storeys of the side elevation of this property. It was also noted that the windows associated with the extension to this elevation were bathrooms.
9. The need for Members to make a balanced judgement taking into account issues raised in relation to overlooking and loss of amenity within the context of advice contained in DCAN 9 was explained.
10. Members moved to the dwelling at 1a Magheralave Road and noted that the rear of the nursing home would be facing the side elevation and garden area of this property. The narrow separation distances between one element of the extension and the side elevation towards the front of the property were noted.
11. It was noted that a mature tree on the nursing home site provided a large degree of screening to this property and clarification was requested as to whether this tree was to be removed.
12. To consider the impact of the proposed extensions on the Area of Townscape Character, the site was observed from different points along the Magheralave Road and North Circular Road itself.
2
Recommendations
13. It is recommended that the clarification provided during the site visit be used to assist Members with the decision making process.
14. In respect of the tree, confirmation has been received from the Agent that existing and mature trees and shrubs within the applicant’s ownership are to be retained and augmented with native species planting to maintain natural privacy screening between the properties.
15. They have also advised that the existing tree (outlined in black) between the proposed Parkside extension bedroom 5 and El Shammah is also to be retained and that the existing tree (outlined in green) at the rear of the proposed Parkside extension bedroom 8 is also to be retained as per drawing number 12 (BM176/SK201).
16. The Creating Places document provides guidance for the assessment of what are appropriate separation distances between residential dwelling houses. The document was never intended to address the impact of extensions to existing residential care homes on existing dwellings. No material weight should be afforded to the advice in this document in the assessment of this proposal.
17. The officer’s recommendation remains unchanged and no further clarification is required in respect of the original planning report.
Conditions
18. The following conditions are recommended:
. As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time limit
. No operation hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed and permanently marked in accordance with approved drawing number 06/01 date stamped 5 December 2018 to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.
. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as indicated on drawing no 04/01 date stamped by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council 11 September 2018 and the
3
appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried during the first available planting season after the occupation of any part of the development approved. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
4
Site Location Plan – LA05/2017/0388/F
5
APPENDIX 1.2(b)
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 7 January 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2017/0388/F
Date of Application 12 April 2017
District Electoral Area Lisburn North
Proposal Description Extensions and alterations to existing nursing home to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below.
Location Parkside Private Nursing Home, 4 North Circular Rd, Lisburn
Representations 13
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation APPROVAL
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee.
2. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as the principle of a residential care facility has been established at this location.
3. The proposal to extend the facility to provide additional accommodation and ancillary facilities is weighed against the guidance in DCAN 9 and is acceptable in that it will not be detrimental to the overall character or visual appearance of the area nor will it impact on residential amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.
1
Description of Site and Surroundings
4. The site is located within the curtilage of Parkside Nursing Home at 4 North Circular Road.
5. The nursing home is a two storey block with three storey extension to the side and rear. The building is in an elevated position at a higher level than the North Circular Road.
6. There is a sweeping driveway up through the site towards the entrance. The car park is to the front of the building with parking spaces, located on both sides of the drive.
7. There are mature trees to the front of the site along the North Circular Road and along the eastern boundary. Part of the eastern boundary also consists of a two metre high wall. The rear boundary to the north of the site, consists of a two metre high close board fence.
8. There is a nursing home adjacent to and within the same curtilage as this site, El-Shammah which is 2 North Circular Road. This is a similar sized building, also extending to three storeys in height for the bulk of the building.
Proposed Development
9. The development is for the extension and alterations to existing nursing home Class 3(b) of the schedule of the Planning (Use classes) Order (NI) 2015, to increase from 29 residents to 44 residents, increased dayroom/dining areas, enlarged kitchen (on three floors of accommodation), with new laundry, storage and staff facilities to basement below
Relevant Planning History
10. The relevant planning history includes the following
Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/1986/0909 Conversion of existing premises to Permission nursing home with 3 storey extension Granted 02.03.87 S/1987/0456 Conversion of existing premises to Permission nursing home with 3 storey extension Granted and new access 09.08.87 S/1988/1314 Extension to nursing home Permission Granted 13.02.89 S/1989/0711 Amended elevations and retaining wall Permission for private nursing home Granted
2
18.09.89 S/2002/0488/F Alterations & extension to existing Permission private nursing home Granted 11.10.02 S/2009/0214/F Extension of existing premises on front, Permission rear and flank elevations to increase the Granted number of bed spaces to 36 no. and to 14.01.10 provide a new lift and access/escape stairway S/2010/0542/F Extensions and alterations to existing El- Permission Shammah Residential residential home Granted 16.09.13 LA05/2015/0127/F Proposed extension to existing Application residential care home to increase 29 Withdrawn beds to 33 beds with en-suite facilities 06.07.16 provision of new lift and stairs
Planning Policy Context
11. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) - Planning for Sustainable Development . Development Control Advice Note 9 – Residential and Nursing Homes . Planning Policy Statement 6 – Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 6 – Areas of Townscape Character
Consultations
12. The following consultations were carried out
Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to conditions NI Water No objections subject to informatives re connection to sewerage and water infrastructure Historic Environment No objections Division Environmental Health No objections subject to informatives
3
Representations
13. Thirteen representations have been received in respect of this application. The following issues were raised: . Proximity of the proposed extension to the surrounding properties . Impact on Conservation Areas . Scale of the building and intensity of land use . Effect on house prices of neighbouring properties . Dominance of the Use . Impact on Character . Overshadowing and overlooking to neighbouring houses . Lack landscaping and screening. . Damage to Property . Extensions beyond Building Line . Removal of Vegetation . Traffic Impact . Lack of open space . Commercialisation of a residential area . Alteration to the fabric of the townscape . Nursing home is large enough . Precedent set for large nursing homes in the area
Consideration and Assessment
14. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Planning Guidance - Siting - Locality - Traffic - Amenity - Design and Layout . - Landscaping . Planning, Archaeology and the Built Environment . Area of Townscape Character . Access Movement and Parking
Local Development Plan 15. Section 6 (4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications, regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4
16. The adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 has been declared unlawful following a judgement in the Court of Appeal. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
17. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
18. Within the Lisburn Area Plan 2001 the application site lies within the settlement limit and is not designated or zoned.
19. Within the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (draft BMAP) the site is also within the settlement limit and within Wallace Park Area of Townscape Character (LC34).
20. While residential care facility falls under Class C3 (Residential Institutions) of Part C of the Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 it still falls within the general meaning of a residential use.
Principle of Development
21. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation.
22. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
23. Under the SPPS, the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
24. The application site is on land within the settlement limit where there is a presumption in favour of development subject to all other material considerations in respect of residential amenity, design and standard consultation advice being satisfied.
Planning Guidance
25. While there is no specific planning policy for residential care facilities the guidance contained in Development Control advice Note 9 - Residential and Nursing Homes (DCAN 9) is considered.
26. The guidance indicates that it is to be expected that, other than in exceptional circumstances that residential and nursing homes will be located in cities,
5
towns and villages where services are readily and conveniently available. This site is in an established residential area where a building of a bulk, scale and massing is existing in the form of the established nursing home.
27. It is further indicated in the guidance that regard should be had to the following matters when considering residential and nursing homes:
Siting 28. The site currently is occupied by a large established nursing home. It is accessed off North Circular Road. The physical site constraints, size of the buildings and the impact on neighbouring residents are considered.
29. The existing nursing home consists of a large building, two storey building to the front, with a three storey extension to the rear.
30. This application proposes a new single storey extension to the front (on both sides of the existing building), and a three storey extension to the rear and side of the existing building. The extension to the rear and side will occupy the rear and side gardens of the existing building.
31. The single storey extension to the front will provide three new day rooms and a new dining room and are acceptable as they will not negatively impact on any of the adjoining neighbours and blend unobtrusively with the front of the existing building without impacting on the wider character of the local area which is an ATC.
32. The extensions to the rear and side have been assessed in terms of their impact on the adjoining properties.
33. There is a dwelling to the west of the site at No. 6 North Circular Road, and one to the north. The extension to the side will be 10.1metres to the ridge from finished floor level and will extend 22.2metres along the gable. It is proposed to be 2metres from the common boundary with the adjacent property at No. 6 North Circular Road.
34. Five bedrooms are proposed in this extension over three floors. None of the windows from these bedrooms are facing onto the boundary, with all these windows facing in towards the internal courtyard to the rear of the building, and one front facing. The remaining rooms are toilets and a sluice room, from which there will be no overlooking from.
35. There is an existing three storey part of the building 6metres from the boundary, gable. The boundary between the existing nursing home and the adjacent property consists of mature vegetation, with 10-12metres high trees.
36. In light of this it is considered that this part of the extension will not cause any adverse effects to the adjacent property in terms of overshadowing or overlooking.
6
37. The extension to the rear consists of a three storey block, extending from a narrow link from the main building. The extension is proposed to be 6.7 metres wide by 14.2 metres long. The link corridor is 4.3metres wide by 5.7 metres long. The link contains the lobby and stairwell and has windows facing into the courtyard and towards the adjacent El Sharma nursing home.
38. The extension block consists of 12 bedrooms, with accompanying en-suites and a lift shaft. All the bedroom windows face either into the courtyard to the rear of the existing building, or towards the adjacent El Sharma nursing home.
39. The windows along the rear elevation of this block are for the en-suites. As the glazing will be obscured, there will be no overlooking towards the dwelling to the rear at 1A Magheralave Road. This extension does not extend the entire length of the rear boundary of the existing nursing home.
40. The initial scheme submitted with this application, showed this block to extend almost the entire length of the rear boundary. This was deemed unacceptable and a reduced amended scheme was requested, resulting in the proposals now under consideration.
41. This extension is 3.6metres from the common rear boundary and 9.9m from this building to the closest point of the neighbouring dwelling. There is a drop in levels between the site and this dwelling to the rear. Site sections provided with the application show the garden level at No. 1A Magheralave Rd to be 55.03 and the path level to the rear of the site to be 52.00, with just over 3m in difference of height.
42. This difference in levels will reduce the overall impact of the development in terms of over-dominance and overshadowing on the property to the rear. The extension will appear as a two storey block as a result of the drop in levels, as shown in drawing No. 10/1, with approximately 7.4 metres of the overall 9.8 metres being visible from this property.
43. The site plan indicates that the existing boundary trees and shrubs along this boundary are to be retained and augmented with additional native species planting in order to fill in any gaps in the vegetation screening along this boundary.
44. The position of the extension behind existing building will also not impact adversely on the overall character of North Circular Road or Magheralave Road or the townscape quality of the ATC.
45. As a result the proposal will not create any adverse effects in terms of overshadowing and over-dominance.
Locality 46. The site has already been developed for a nursing home. It is considered that an extension to the existing premises will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area for the reasons stated above.
7
Traffic 47. The access is existing off North Circular Road and there is adequate parking for the proposal within the site. DfI Roads has offered no objection to the proposal.
Amenity 48. Due regard has been given to the effect of the proposed residential care extension on neighbouring homes and the amenity of the wider area in general.
Design and Layout 49. The design and layout are considered acceptable and in keeping with the overall appearance of the existing building.
Landscaping 50. Additional planting is proposed to supplement the vegetation along the rear boundary of the site.
Archaeology and the Built Heritage
51. Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.
52. Policy BH12 – New Development in a Conservation Area is considered to be material to this assessment. Although the proposed site lies outside the Conservation area, is location immediately north of the Lisburn Conservation Area requires to be assessed in terms of its potential impact on the setting of the conservation area, or views into or out of the area.
53. The majority of the proposal is to the side and rear of the already large existing building, so views of the proposal from both in and out of the site are quite limited. This, coupled with the mature vegetation bounding the site, results in the proposal having no detrimental impact to the setting of the Conservation Area.
54. The site is in close proximity to Gate Lodge, Wallace Park (Grade B2) and ‘Station House, 1 North Circular Road’ (Grade B2) which are of special architectural and historic importance and are protected by Section 80 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.
55. Historic Environment Division: Historic Buildings (HED:HB) were consulted on this application and considered the impacts of the proposal on the buildings against Policy BH11 – Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, and advised that they were content with the proposal as they are sufficiently removed in situation and scale from the listed buildings as to have no impact.
8
Area of Townscape Character 56. Planning Policy Statement 6 (Addendum) – Areas of Townscape Character provides additional planning policies relating to Areas of Townscape Character, for demolition of buildings, new development and the control of advertisements. 57. Policy ATC1 - Demolition Control in An Area of Townscape Character states that there will be a presumption in favour of retaining any building which makes a positive contribution to the character of an Area of Townscape Character. Demolition of an unlisted building in an Area of Townscape Character will only be permitted where the building makes no material contribution to the distinctive character of the area. 58. There are two buildings as part of this application which will be required to be demolished to accommodate the proposals. One is a small outbuilding to the rear and the other is a small building adjacent to the western gable, which is understood to be the laundry room. Neither building makes any contribution to the character of the ATC, therefore their demolition is of no concern. 59. Policy ATC2 - New Development in an Area of Townscape Character states proposals in an Area of Townscape Character will only be permitted where the development maintains or enhances its overall character and respects the built form of the area. 60. The site is located within Designation LC 34 - Wallace Park Area of Townscape Character. Policy UE3 deals specifically with Areas of Townscape Character and Areas of Village Character. 61 This policy states that within designated Areas of Townscape Character and Areas of Village Character planning permission will only be granted to development proposals which protect or enhance the key features of the designated areas. 62. Works to existing buildings, including alterations and extensions, shall be subordinate in form and scale, and complementary in terms of architectural style, detailing and materials to the host building. Key Design Criteria is listed. 63. This application has been assessed against the criteria set out in this policy, and as outlined above, the extension is considered to be acceptable within its context with the style and materials consistent with the existing residential care home. 64. The key features of the area outlined for this designation, which will be taken into, account when assessing development proposals are as follows: - The 1970s residential development - The low density, Victorian villas of Forkhill Park - The terraces of Parkmount
- Wallace High School, Friends School and Thompson House, which are all set in extensive grounds
9
- High quality open space in Wallace Park, which is a Historic Park Garden and Demesne
- The Variety of building type, which includes properties from the late Victorian and Edwardian periods
- The low density, single homes in terraced, semi-detached or detached form. 65. The proposed works will not detrimentally effect any of the key features as listed above. The proposed alterations and extensions, will remain subordinate in form and scale, and be complementary in terms of architectural style, detailing and materials to the host building in accordance with policy.
Access, Movement and Parking
66. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitment to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.
67. DFI Roads indicate that they are content with the proposal as presented, subject to a condition that the hard surfaced areas are constructed and marked to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site.
68. Based on the information submitted and advice from the statutory consultee, it is contended that there is adequate room within the site to achieve ample parking and circulating.
Consideration of Representations
69. Thirteen representations were received in respect of this application. Consideration of the issues raised are set out below.
Proximity of the proposed extension to the surrounding properties
69. Concern has been expressed in relation to the separation distance from the rear wall of the Nursing home and the rear wall of 1A Magheralave Road will be reduced from 21 m to under 10m causing overshadowing and dominance. It is 3.6m from the fence of this property. The living areas of this property have large areas of glass facing south and this and a bedroom will be looking towards a much closer building. The short distance between the retaining wall and the boundary line
71. The proximity of the proposal to the adjacent dwellings has been assessed
10
and found to be acceptable considering the difference in levels between the site and the dwelling at 1A Magheralave Road and that there will be no overlooking from the rear of the extension onto this property as there are no habitable rooms on this elevation. There is also no overlooking from the proposal towards the dwelling at 6 North Circular Road as there are no bedroom windows along this elevation and there is mature planting along the common boundary.
Impact on Conservation Area
72. Concern was expressed that the site was located on the edge of the Conservation area and that the extension would not be satisfactorily integrate into such a sensitive zone.
73. The extension is mostly to the side and rear of an already large building, this and the mature vegetation around the site, will result in limited views of the proposal in and out of the site.
74. The proposal will have no detrimental impact on the setting of the Conservation area. The extension is subordinate to the main building both in terms of the existing footprint and height. It reflects the massing and scale of the existing building, and it will not look out of place at this site.
Scale of the building and intensity of land use
75. Concern has been expressed in relation to the scale of the building and intensity of land use does not integrate into the neighbourhood and is inappropriate in an established residential area of historic interest
76. The scale of the proposal is in keeping with the existing building. The use has been established on the site.
Effects on house prices of neighbouring properties
77. The potential for property values to be affected is a material consideration but the land is already developed as a nursing home, and the impact an extension to this nursing home is not assessed to have a significant difference in terms of impact and significant weight is not attached to an objection in relation to the loss of property value.
Dominance of Uses
78. Concern was expressed in relation to the dominance of the surrounding area created by the two nursing homes so close together and will create a large and unbroken skyline.
79. The two nursing homes are existing, and the extension is subordinate in scale and massing.
11
Impact on Residential Character
80. The character of the area will not be adversely effected as the use has been established and the existing building has already been extended, with the proposal being subordinate to the existing building.
Overshadowing and overlooking
81. Concern was expressed in relation to the potential for the proposed extension to overshadow adjacent properties and for residential amenity to be overlooked. As indicated above the separations distance mitigate against over shadowing or overlooking.
Lack of landscaping and screening
82. Concern was expressed in relation to the lack of suitable landscaping and to the removal of a fir tree in the NW corner.
83. Additional planting is proposed along the rear boundary to fill in any gaps in the existing vegetation. Details of the removal of the fir tree are not necessary for the assessment of this application.
Damage to Property
84. Concern was raised about the potential for damage to the fence, vegetation and path of the property at No. 1 A Magheralave Rd during construction.
85. Any damage that is incurred on any other property during the construction phase is a civil matter and beyond the remit of planning
Extends beyond Building Line
86. Representations commented that the extension extends beyond the front and rear building line of other properties along North Circular Road.
87. The front part of the proposed extension does not extend beyond the front of the existing building, nor the building line along this part of North Circular Road. Planning generally would not be opposed to extensions to the rear extending beyond a building line if all other planning considerations are met.
Removal of Vegetation
88. The view was expressed that the removal of vegetation and a wall to the front of 2 & 4 North Circular Road will create a large and unsightly car park, visible from the adjacent areas.
89. There already is a relatively large area of hard standing existing at the site. The addition of extra spaces will not significantly alter the character of the area. DFI Roads were consulted on the application and had no concerns.
12
Impact on Traffic
90. Concern was expressed that there would be an increase in visitors and staff at the nursing home and that this would generate more noise and light nuisance from parking late at night.
91. DFI Roads were consulted on the application and had no issues of concern. The Environmental Health Department of the Council were also consulted and had no concerns in terms of noise and disturbance.
Lack of open space
92. There is no policy requirement for a certain level of open space provision at this site.
Commercialisation of a residential area
93. The use is already established at the site so no new use is being introduced into the area
Alteration to the fabric of the townscape
94. The townscape will not be significantly altered by the proposal as it a use that has already been established and the extension is in keeping with the form of the existing building.
The nursing home is large enough
95. The nursing home has been already extended, and there is no planning limit as to how much a building can be extended if it meets the relevant planning policy. This proposal was found to be policy compliant.
A precedent may be set for large nursing homes in the area
96. Each site is assessed on its own merits and therefore no precedent could be set.
Conclusions
97. Based on careful consideration the proposal to extend the facility to provide additional accommodation and ancillary facilities is weighed against the guidance in DCAN 9 and is acceptable in that it will not be detrimental to the overall character of or visual appearance of the area nor will it impact on residential amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, dominance or impact on amenity.
13
Recommendations
98. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
Conditions
99. The following conditions are recommended:
• As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.
Reason: Time limit
• No operation hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed and permanently marked in accordance with approved drawing number 06/01 date stamped 5 December 2018 to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.
• All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as indicated on drawing no 04/01 date stamped by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council 11 September 2018 and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried during the first available planting season after the occupation of any part of the development approved.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
• If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place.
Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
14
Site Location Plan – LA05/2017/0388/F
15
APPENDIX 1.3
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 February 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2018/0390/O
Date of Application 23 April 2018
District Electoral Area Downshire West
Proposal Description Proposed storey and a half dwelling with detached garage.
Location Site West of 75 Grove Road Dromore.
Representations Two
Case Officer Joanna Magee
Recommendation Refusal
Summary of Recommendation
1. This application is categorised as a local planning application. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee as a called-in application.
2. It is presented with a recommendation to refuse as it is considered that the application does not satisfy the relevant policy tests in that there are no overriding reasons why this dwelling is necessary in this rural location and the case presented does not merit being considered as an exceptional case.
3. Furthermore it is considered that the building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on a farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape. It would if approved add to ribbon development along Grove Road which would further erode the rural character of the countryside at this location.
1
Description of Site and Surroundings
4. The site lies west of 75 Grove Road Dromore, which is a detached two storey property with garage.
5. The site lies to the east of Backnamullagh Road crossroads and north of Grove Road. It is enclosed by a native species hedgerow and mature trees with agricultural gateway onto Backnamullagh Road. The site itself slopes away to the north of the site.
6. The surrounding landscape is predominantly in agricultural use and rural in character with a number of dwellings dispersed along the roadside.
Proposed Development
7. Full planning permission is sought for a storey and a half dwelling with detached garage on a farm.
Relevant Planning History
8. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below:
Reference Proposal Site Address Date of Decision
LA05/2018/0909/F Agricultural Site 100m west of Pending Building for 85 Grove Road livestock and Dromore crops
S/2012/0348/O Farm Dwelling and Adjacent and east Permission Garage of 75 Grove Road Refused Dromore
Planning Policy Context
7. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Local Development Plan (Lisburn Area Plan 2001 and Draft BMAP) . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development. . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking. . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside.
2
Consultations
8. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultees Response LCCC Environmental Health No objections
Transport NI No objections subject to conditions
DAERA: Dard NI 6 Years activity Yes & SFP Claimed No
Water Management Unit Informatives
Natural Heritage No objections
NIW Informatives
Representations
9. Two representations from the same individuals have been received in relation to this application. The following issues were raised: . Drainage Issues . Ribbon Development . Natural Heritage
Consideration and Assessment
10. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan Context . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Dwelling on a Farm - Personal and Domestic Circumstances - Ribbon Development - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside - Rural Character - Development relying on non-mains sewerage . Natural Heritage . Access, Movement and Parking
3
Local Development Plan Context
11. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
12. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
13. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
14. In both plans, the application site is identified in the open countryside beyond any defined settlement limit and as there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development 15. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation.
16. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
17. The SPPS states that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
18. The aim of strategic policy with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development while supporting and sustaining rural communities.
19. Paragraph 6.70 also states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect the character, and be appropriately designed.
20. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the
4
Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside.
21. The application proposes a dwelling house in the countryside and as such, as there is no distinguishable difference between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
22. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle is considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.
23. Policy CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside makes reference to a number of circumstances when planning permission will be granted for individual dwelling houses in the countryside.
Dwellings on Farms
24. Policy CTY 10 - Dwelling on Farms, states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling on a farm where all of the following criteria can be met:
(a) the farm business is currently active and has been established for at least 6 years;
(b) no dwellings or development opportunities out-with settlement limits have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application. This provision will only apply from 25 November 2008; and
(c) the new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and where practicable, access to the dwelling should be obtained from an existing lane. Exceptionally, consideration may be given to an alternative site elsewhere on the farm, provided there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the farm or out-farm, and where there are either: demonstrable health and safety reasons; or verifiable plans to expand the farm business at the existing building groups.
25. The P1C form states that Mr Roger Wilson is the named owner the active farm business and has a DAERA business ID number. The date of allocation along with herd number is unclear.
26. DAERA were consulted as part of the application process and they advised that the farm business ID number had been established for at least 6 years and that farm subsidies have not been claimed since 2013 with the most up to date maps dated 2013.
5
27. It was however further commented the proposed site was located on land associated with another business ID.
28. The Agent was asked to provide additional information to confirm whether the farm was active and established for at least 6 years. Additional justification was also requested asking why SFP had not been claimed.
29. Receipts received from the Agent are date stamped 29th June 2018 confirmed general maintenance and hedge cutting from 2011 – 2017. Receipts in respect of feed bills are dated from 2011-2017.
30. DAERA has confirmed that the site located on field 3/037/106 field 11(the application site) was subject to single farm payment claims through another business since 2014.
31. This is confirmed by the agent in a letter dated 25 October 2018 whereby we are advised that the applicant’s brother claimed SFP due to the deterioration in health of the applicant in 2013. The agent also confirmed in a letter dated 4 December 2018 that the applicant’s brother rents the land and claims SFP. This further confirms that the applicant does not actively farm the land.
32. Whilst receipts have been provided to demonstrate hedge cutting and digger work invoiced to Mr R Wilson, 71 Lany Road it is unclear which lands these relate to as up to date farm maps have not been provided.
33. In light of advice provided by DAERA it is noted that the proposed site located in field outlined in red (3/037/106/11) has been claimed for payment by another business ID since 2014. It is therefore contended that the Business ID associated with the P1C form does not actively farm the land associated with the application.
34. With regard to criteria (b), a site inspection carried out as part of the application process and a history check of the farm land and surrounding area cannot be completed in full as the farm maps provided are not up to date (2013) and no table provided was provided with the maps to enable a full history search to be carried out.
35. An earlier planning application which was refused on the site included more up to date farm maps (2014) with additional lands included. It is therefore unclear as to whether lands/development opportunities have been sold off from the farm holding since 25th Nov 2008.
36. A previous application by Mr Roger Wilson under S/2012/0248/O was refused permission for a farm dwelling and garage with 2014 maps including additional lands using the same business ID.
37. In terms of criteria (c), policy which requires the dwelling to be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm holding.
6
38. The applicant confirmed at a recent meeting that land was originally an out farm associated with a much larger holding owned by his father. It would appear that no buildings had been constructed in association with the operation of the larger holding.
39. There are no farm buildings associated with the farm holding hence the dwelling cannot be sited to be visually linked with farm buildings nor can it cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm. The policy does not envisage new dwellings on farms without existing farm buildings. The proposal is therefore also contrary to criterion C from policy CTY 10.
40. No weight is attached to the other decisions cited by the agent as In this particular appeal which related to a site along Greengraves Road, Newtownards, the Commission recognised that farming activity can fluctuate over time. Furthermore, the Commission stated that it was not the responsibility of DAERA to determine whether a farm business is active and that a farm does not have to be in the receipt of subsidies to be considered active for the purpose of the policy.
41. However, in this particular appeal case, the Commission was satisfied that there was ample evidence to demonstrate active faming over the requisite six year period. Evidence submitted with this appeal included receipts for fencing, general maintenance, weed killer, repairs to buildings, hedge cutting and grass topping across the holding for the 6 year period.
42. In the case of this application, sufficient information has not been submitted to demonstrate active faming over a 6 year period. The appeal referred to is distinguishable from this application.
Personal and Domestic Circumstances
43. Policy CTY6 – Personal and Domestic Circumstances states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in the countryside for the long term needs of the applicant, where there are compelling and site specific reasons related to the applicant’s personal or domestic circumstances provided that the following criteria are met.
(a) satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is necessary for the particular circumstances and genuine hardship would be caused if permission was refused; and
(b) there are no alternative solutions such as an extension to the existing dwelling, conversion or reuse of another building in the curtilage of the property or the use of a temporary mobile home for a limited period.
44. The applicant does not seek a dwelling under this policy and the information received from the Agent on 25 October 2018 and 4 December 2018 provides
7
details of additional health grounds to explain the reasons for not claiming single farm payment since 2013.
45. The reasons why Mr Wilson did not claim SPF are not disputed but the continuation of activity as evidenced by the submitted invoices is already weighed and not found to be off sufficient weight to demonstrate that criteria a of the policy is met.
. Ribbon Development
46. Policy CTY 8 – Ribbon Development likewise states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. An exception will be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements.
47. For the purpose of this policy the definition of a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.
48. The application is not considered to be an exception within the terms of this policy in that the application site does not constitute a gap site in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and as such, development at this location will add to a ribbon of development and as such, is contrary to prevailing planning policy.
Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside
49. Policy CTY13 - Integration and Design of Buildings states that planning permission will be refused where a proposal will result in a prominent feature in the landscape and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for its integration and it fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features.
50. The policy also states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.
51. The site is positioned approximately 70 metres from 75 Grove Road and will therefore be visible from the public road.
52. Whilst the site lies at the junction with access onto Grove Road, a building on the proposed site will not be considered a prominent feature in the landscape as there are good boundaries to the north and eastern of the site with adequate screening surrounding the site itself. The ancillary works will utilise a new
8
entrance into the site which slopes away from the roadside at a much lower level.
53. The proposal is for a farm dwelling and garage within the context of Policy CTY 10. Given that the proposed dwelling will not be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm, it is contrary to criteria (g) of CTY 13.
Rural Character
54. Policy CTY14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be refused for a building in such a countryside location if it further erode the rural character of an area. Buildings that are unduly prominent in the landscape, result in suburban style build up when viewed with existing buildings and which create ribbon development are considered detrimental to rural character.
55. A proposed farm dwelling could be designed to integrate into the rural surroundings. However, the development in this case would add to a ribbon of development and is therefore contrary to policy as it would result in a loss of rural character.
Development relying on non-main sewerage
56. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.
57. A septic tank is proposed to the north eastern portion of the site. Water Management Unit and Environmental Health have been consulted and responded with no objections providing all relevant statutory permission for the development would be obtained.
58. It is therefore contended that the erection of a dwelling at this location served by a septic tank will not create or add to a pollution problem in the area.
Natural Heritage
59. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage sets out the planning polices for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.
60. Policy NH 2 states that permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm a European protected species
61. Policy NH5 states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on or damage to habitats, species or features of natural heritage importance.
9
62. The development does not involve any removal of trees along the boundaries other than the access point. NED refer to standing advice in relation to bats and birds.
Access, Movement and Parking
63. PPS 3 – Access Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard and that any proposed development can have a safe access/egress onto the public road
64. The existing access to the site is located onto Grove Road providing 2.4m x 60m visibility splays. DFI Roads are content and offer no objection at this time.
65. It is therefore contended that the proposal as presented will not create a traffic hazard and that safe access and egress onto the public road can be provided
Consideration of Representations
66. Consideration of the issues raised is set out in the paragraphs below:
Drainage Issues 67. NIEA water management unit have been consulted on the matter and have found no objection subject to the relevant informatives applied in standing advice.
Ribbon Development 68. The application has been assessed and it has been agreed the proposal is contrary to CTY 8 Ribbon Development and CTY 14 Rural Character.
Natural Heritage 69. Concern has been raised in relation to the population of Snipe and habitat for hares. NIEA Natural heritage have been consulted and have not raised any concerns regarding these specific species
Conclusions
70. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material planning considerations, it is contend that the proposal for the erection a farm dwelling at this location is contrary to policy in that in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and it does not merit being considered as an exceptional case.
71. Furthermore it is considered that the dwelling is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape and it would if approved add to ribbon development along Grove Road which would further erode the rural character of the countryside at this location.
10
Recommendation
72. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.
Refusal Reasons:
73. The following refusal reasons are recommended:
. The proposal is contrary to the (SPPS) Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the addition of ribbon development along Grove Road, Dromore.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY10 part (a) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside as it does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active and has been established for at least six years.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 10 part (b) in that it has not been demonstrated that no dwellings or development opportunities out-with settlement limits have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 10 part (c) in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and access to the dwelling is not obtained from an existing lane.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposed dwelling is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the building would, if permitted adds to a ribbon of development along Grove Road, Dromore and would therefore result in a detrimental change to further erode the rural character of the countryside.
11
Site Location: LA05/2018/0390/O
12
APPENDIX 1.4 (a)
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) – Deferred Consideration
Application Reference LA05/2017/1298/F
Date of Application 13 December 2017
District Electoral Area Downshire West Single dwelling house Proposal Description
Location Opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn
Representations None
Case Officer Grainne Rice
Recommendation Refusal
Background
1. This application was presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse planning permission on the 3 December 2018.
2. Following the presentation and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit. This took place on Tuesday 8 January 2019.
3. The application was presented back to the Planning Committee on 4 February 2019. At this meeting, Members agreed to defer consideration for a further month (in accordance with paragraph 55 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee) to allow for further information to be provided to members as clarification of the nature of the farming activity, whether any development opportunities are sold off the holding and the extent of land on the farm outside of the floodplain.
1 Further Consideration
4. As was assessed by the officer in the original planning report that criterion (a) of CTY 10 – Dwellings on Farms requires that the farm business is currently active and that that it has been established for at least 6 years.
5. For the purpose of this policy, active farming refers to the production, rearing, or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding animals and keeping animals for farming purposes , or maintaining the land in good agricultural condition in line with EU and DAERA legislation.
6. Understanding the role of the applicant in the farm business is an important consideration.
7. It is also acknowledged that the members accepted at the last meeting that the contract between the applicant Mr John E Hinds and Mr Evans and the consequential loss of conacre payment to keep the lands in good agricultural condition was sufficient to demonstrate activity in accordance with criteria (a).
Role of the Applicant
8. It is stated in the P1 Form, the application is made in the name of a Mr John Hinds of 69 Kingsdale Park, Belfast. There are however two separate references in the supporting documents to a Mr John E Hinds and Mr John N Hinds.
9. Clarification has been provided by the applicant that Mr John Eric Hinds is the father of Mr John Nelson Hinds and that it is John E Hinds who resides at the Belfast address.
10. Mr John Eric Hinds is also identified as the applicant and registered farmer on the P1C Form. The farm map and Business ID associated with this form are however not registered against the applicant on the P1 form or consistent with the details on the P1C. Instead it is registered with DAERA against Mr John N Hinds.
11. The identified applicant (Mr John Eric Hinds) is not the registered farmer.
12. The supporting information submitted with the application states that from 2009 the farm owner and applicant choose not to avail of the single farm payments in favour of a private arrangement with a local farmer whereby the latter ‘… shall attend in kind to the conacre responsibilities of the land owner… That is maintain the land, fences accesses and drainage etc… in good condition’. (Copies of an annual agreement where submitted).
13. The private arrangement referred to is not made in the name of the farmer, instead it is signed by Mr John Eric Hinds who is not a registered farmer. As indicated in the original officer report, the evidence submitted in this regard
2
does not sufficient to demonstrate active farming over the required period. It has not therefore been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active.
14. Furthermore, DAERA has subsequently confirmed on 20 February 2019 that payments were claimed against field numbers 1, 7, 8, 9 and10 from 2015-2017 from two farm businesses other than Mr Evans. With claims made by one against field 7 in 2018.
15. This evidence is somewhat at odds with the information submitted in relation to the private agreement. For convenience and ease of reference, the farm map is attached which indicates Mr John N Nelson is the registered business owner and that the registered address of the farm was 6 Halftown Road There is no agreement between Mr Evans and the registered business owner.
16. It is advised that the benefit of any activity accrued by Mr John E Hinds cannot be claimed for this business and it would also appear that the duration of the agreement may be shorter than initially envisaged.
17. Whilst mindful of the views expressed by the members in discussion of the merits of the case and the weight attached to the private agreement our advice remains unchanged in light of the information available. Criteria (a) of the policy remains unmet.
Dwellings or development opportunities had been sold off
18. Criteria (b) of Policy CTY 10 states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling house on a farm where no dwellings or development opportunities out-with settlement limits have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application.
19. Mr John N Hinds has confirmed that he bought the original farm cottage known as 6 Halftown Road from his father in 1999 and that he subsequently applied for this dwelling to be replaced in the field to the rear within the context of planning application S/2004/1098/F.
20. This application was approved on 17 February 2005. This dwelling associated with this permission (6a Halftown Road) was built and occupied in 2006 by Mr John Nelson Hinds and his family. This dwelling in effect served to replace the original farm dwelling on the farm holding.
21. In order to ascertain whether any dwellings or opportunities had been sold off from the farm holding, a planning history and land registry check was carried out against the fields shown on the farm map.
22. A land registry check was carried out on 11 February 2019. This confirmed that a dwelling at 6a Halftown was sold to a third party on 4 May 2017and that the previous owner was Mr John N Hinds the registered farmer.
3
23. The planning history further indicates that the dwelling at 6a Halftown Road was to replace the original farm dwelling at 6 Halftown Road which is the registered address of the farm business on the farm map.
24. In light of the new evidence it is advised that the proposal is also contrary to criteria (b) of policy CTY 10 as a dwelling has been sold off the holding in past ten years.
25. In respect of the criteria (c) it is clarified that the flood plain does not extend to all of land on the holding. Should members be satisfied that criteria (a) and (b) are met it remains the officers advice that the site is visually prominent and will harm the rural character of this area.
26. This is not the only site were a dwelling could be located and the flooding argument is not sufficient to set aside the other concerns raised in relation to the impact of a new dwelling at this site.
Recommendations
27. It is recommended that in light of the new information provided and set out above it is taken into account by Members in the decision making process and that the additional CTY 10 (b) reason for refusal is noted.
28. The remainder of the reasons relating to the other two criteria are also retained. Any previous considerations by the members are without reference to the new information
Refusal Reasons
29. The officer’s recommendation remains unchanged. The following refusal reasons are proposed:
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (a) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 10 (b) in that a dwelling (6a Halftown Road) has been sold off from the farm holding. within 10 years of the date of the application.
4
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (c) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside as the proposed new building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building’s on the farm.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 in that the proposed building is a prominent feature in the landscape and the site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed building will be unduly prominent in the landscape and will cause a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.
5
Site Location Plan - LA05/2017/1298/O
6
APPENDIX 1.4 (b)
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 February 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) – Site Visit
Application Reference LA05/2017/1298/F
Date of Application 13 December 2017
District Electoral Area Downshire West Single dwelling house Proposal Description
Location Opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn
Representations None
Case Officer Grainne Rice
Recommendation Refusal
Background
1. This application was presented with a recommendation to refuse planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 3 December 2018.
2. Following the presentation and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit. This took place on Tuesday 8 January 2019.
Site Visit Consideration
3. At the request of Members, the Head of Planning and Principal Planning Officer provided clarification in relation to the location of the proposed site and the extent of the site boundaries and access.
4. Members were advised that the proposed application was for a dwelling on a farm. It was explained that the application site was proposed some distance away from the existing group of agricultural buildings which are located in a flood plain.
1
5. It was also noted that the dwelling would be located back from edge of the Halftown Road and that the existing hedgerow would be retained along the frontage. The dwelling would be positioned behind an existing line of mature trees on the eastern boundary.
6. Members were shown the red line of the proposed site and access on a location map along with the location of the agricultural buildings. They also viewed a map outlining the extent of the flood plain.
7. Members then walked to the farm and were given the opportunity to inspect the two agricultural buildings. The inside of the larger of the two buildings was being used for storage. Another agricultural building was locked.
8. Members noted the other buildings on the site which included the original farmhouse, still standing but unoccupied and fronting on to the Halftown Road; a day care and nursery business; and another ancillary buildings.
9. It was noted that the original farmhouse had been replaced by a new dwelling to the rear and that it was fenced off from the farm.
10. When Members viewed the two agricultural buildings, the applicant was in attendance at the site. The applicant had however not been invited to the site visit
Recommendations
11. It is recommended that the clarifications provided during the site visit be used to assist Members with the decision making process.
Refusal Reasons
12. The officer’s recommendation remains unchanged and as per the initial report, the following refusal reasons are proposed:
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (a) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (c) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the
2
Countryside as the proposed new building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building’s on the farm.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 in that the proposed building is a prominent feature in the landscape and the site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed building will be unduly prominent in the landscape and will cause a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.
3
Site Location Plan - LA05/2017/1298/O
4
APPENDIX 1.4 (c)
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 3 December 2018 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2017/1298/F
Date of Application 13 December 2017
District Electoral Area Downshire West Single dwelling house CTY10 Proposal Description
Location Opposite 21 and 23 Halftown Road, Lisburn
Representations None
Case Officer Grainne Rice
Recommendation Refusal
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.
2. This application is presented with a recommendation to refuse as it is considered that the application does not satisfy the relevant policy tests in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement and it does not merit being considered as an exceptional case.
3. Furthermore, the proposed new building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building’s on the farm and it would if approved be a prominent feature in the landscape and the site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape resulting in a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.
1
Description of Site and Surroundings
4. The site is located to the west of Halftown Road, Lisburn and consists of part of an agricultural field which is relatively flat. The boundaries to the south and east consist of a 2m high mixed hedgerow and a scattering of mature trees. Boundaries to the north and west are undefined.
5. To the east on the opposite side of the Halftown Road are a number of single storey dwellings and a business Tractor Spares. To the north and adjoining the site is agricultural land which leads to a laneway some 110m to the north. Beyond this are a number of dwellings located along the Halftown Road.
Proposed Development
6. Full planning permission is sought for a single dwelling house in accordance with policy CTY10 – Dwelling on a Farm.
Relevant Planning History
7. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below:
Reference Description Decision S/2013/0403/F One and half storey dwelling plus Application withdrawn - domestic garage (single dwelling 05.01.2015 on a farm as in Policy CTY 10 of PPS 21 Sustainable development in the countryside) - South West of 18 Halftown Road Lisburn
S/2013/0626/O Site for 1.5 storey dwelling and refusal – 10.03.2015 garage on a farm under CTY 10 PPS 21, 50 metres NW of 32 Halftown Road, Maze, Lisburn
Planning Policy Context
8. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development
2
. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 3 (Clarification): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside.
Consultations
9. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response Transport NI No objection subject to conditions and informatives Environmental Health No objection in principle. NI Water No objections subject to informatives DAERA Has the farm business id identified on form P1C been in existence for more than 6 years – Yes
Has the business claimed Single Farm Payments (SFP) Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC) Payment or Agri Environment Scheme Payment in the past year - No
Representations
10. No representations by way of objection have been received in respect of this proposal.
Consideration and Assessment
11. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:
. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Dwelling on a Farm - Integration and Design - Rural Character . Access, Movement and Parking
Local Development Plan
12. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
3
13. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
14. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
15. In both plans, the application site is identified in Lisburn Area Plan 2001 as being within the open countryside beyond any defined settlement limit and as there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development
16. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
17. The SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
18. The aim of strategic policy with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development while supporting and sustaining rural communities.
19. Paragraph 6.70 also states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect the character, and be appropriately designed.
20. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside.
21. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS as there was no persuasive evidence submitted to demonstrate that the proposal is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.
4
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
22. Given this proposals rural location as defined by the LUAP 2001, Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside is applicable to its consideration.
23. Policy CTY1 of PPS 21 states there are a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development. One of these is the development under CTY10 which states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling house on a farm where specified criteria (a) to (c) can be met. This proposal fails to comply with criterion (a) and (c) of Policy CTY 10.
Dwelling on a Farm
24. Criterion (a) requires that the farm business is currently active and that it has been established for at least 6 years. Paragraph 5.38 of the justification and amplification to Policy CTY10 states that new houses on farms will not be acceptable unless the existing farming business is both established and active. It goes on to state that the applicant will therefore be required to provide the farms Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) business ID number along with other evidence to prove active farming.
25. DAERA confirmed the business ID identified on the P1C form has been in existence for more than 6 years however the business has not claimed single farm payments. The supporting information submitted states that from 2009 the farm owner and applicant choose not to avail of the single farm payments in favour of a private arrangement with a local farmer whereby the latter ‘… shall attend in kind to the conacre responsibilities of the land owner… That is maintain the land, fences accesses and drainage etc in good condition’. (Copies of an annual agreement where submitted).
26. The evidence submitted does not provide conclusive evidence to demonstrate active farming over the required period and limited weight can only be placed on the evidence provided. It has not therefore been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active.
27. Criterion (c) requires the new building to be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and where practicable access to the dwelling should be obtained from an existing lane. Exceptionally consideration may be given to an alternative site elsewhere on the farm provided there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the farm and where there are either demonstrated health and safety reasons or verifiable plans to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s).
28. Paragraph 5.41 of the justification and amplification to policy CTY10 indicates that to help minimise impact in the character and appearance of the landscape (farm) dwellings should be positioned sensitively with an established group of buildings on the farm either to form an integral part of that particular building group or when viewed from surrounding vantage points, it reads as being
5
visually interlined with those buildings, with little appreciation of any physical separation that may exist between them.
29. The application seeks a dwelling along the Halftown Road. The proposed site is artificially cut out of an existing agricultural field. A design and access statement was submitted with the application stating the farm is a small holding lying just south of and abutting River Lagan. It is truncated by Halftown Road. The site lies west of Halftown Road but is accessed by a laneway shared by 5 dwellings. Whilst much of the farmland lies within the Lagan Flood Plain the proposed site is free from any flooding hazard. The supporting statement submitted with the application states it is not possible for the new dwelling to be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building on the farm.
30. There are two small buildings at Halftown Road currently used for housing machinery and sundries such as fertiliser. These are owned by the wider family but in a different land folio the subject of which lies within the Lagan Floodplain and contains the grounds of a children’s nursery. Much of the remainder of the farmland also lies within the floodplain
31. The supporting document states that there is a clear health and safety risks attached to the continued use of the two buildings just as there would be a greater risk were further agricultural sheds to be located near or beside the children’s nursery. Other less obvious risk associated is the lands on which the nursery and small agricultural out houses are located lie close to the River Lagan and well within the flood plain. On both counts – health and safety and flooding – additional development would be unsatisfactory. The proposed site for the dwelling lies beyond the flood plain and will remove the risk currently presented by the use of the existing buildings beside the children’s nursery.
32. The supporting document also states that the proposal is for a single farm dwelling. The positioning within the site is to allow for an agricultural shed between the dwelling and road. The agricultural shed will provide adequate contemporary farm buildings and will supersede the small outbuildings at No. 4. The ultimate layout is shown on the application plans but the agricultural shed will be the subject of a further planning application in due course. An approval of the current proposal will result in the family’s renewed and active participation in farming of the land.
33. In consideration of the above the information submitted demonstrates there is no established group of buildings on the farm and it is not acceptable to position a new dwelling with buildings which are on a neighbouring farm. Whilst the reasons given are acknowledged the circumstances of this case do not render the proposal essential.
34. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.
6
Integration and Design
35. Policy CTY13 – Integration and Design of Buildings states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape.
36. The proposed site would occupy a roadside location and would sit prominent in the landscape. The proposed site has two undefined boundaries and is exposed with little integration capacity. The proposal would appear as a prominent feature in the landscape which fails to provide the required level of enclosure to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.
Rural Character
37. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character.
38. The development of the proposed site would introduce a dwelling which would not respect the traditional pattern of development in this area and would damage the rural character of this area.
Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage
39. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.
40. The P1 form indicates that surface water will be disposed of via soak away and that foul sewage will be disposed of with Septic tank.
41. The Council’s Environmental Health Unit has considered the detail associated with the application and has recommended that the septic tank/sewage treatment unit should be sited as indicated on drawings with suitable levels and adequate area of subsoil irrigation for the disposal of effluent (if appropriate).
42. This comment is based on an assessment of potential nuisance and in no way does it negate the need to meet the requirements of the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Consent to discharge must be obtained from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
Access, Movement and Parking
43. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.
7
44. The P1 Form indicates that access arrangements to the proposed site will involve the alteration of an existing access to a public road. DFI Roads in its consultation response offer no objection to this development proposal subject to standard conditions.
Conclusions
45. Having considered the proposal against all the relevant planning polices, and other material considerations. It is considered that the application does not satisfy the relevant policy tests in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement and it does not merit being considered as an exceptional case.
46. Furthermore, the proposed new building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building’s on the farm and it would if approved be a prominent feature in the landscape and the site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape resulting in a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.
Recommendation
47. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.
Refusal Reasons
48. The following refusal reasons are recommended.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (a) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 (c) of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside as the proposed new building is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of building’s on the farm.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 in that the proposed building is a prominent feature in the landscape and the site lacks long
8
established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to allow it to be visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.
. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed building will be unduly prominent in the landscape and will cause a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.
9
Site Location Plan – LA05/2017/1298/F
10
APPENDIX 1.5
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2017/1062/F
Date of Application 18 October 2017
District Electoral Area Downshire West Retrospective application for the addition of three Proposal Description external air conditioning cassettes on the rear and side elevations, one pizza oven flue and a boxed-in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier on the roof of the Parsons Nose, Hillsborough.
Location The Parsons Nose, 48 Lisburn Street, Hillsborough
Representations Seven
Case Officer Catherine Gray
Recommendation APPROVAL
Summary of Recommendation
1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.
2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee as a called in application.
3. It is presented with a recommendation to approve in that the building works are considered to relate to the established use and do not cumulatively harm the character and form of the building on which they are erected.
4. The wider character of the conservation area is preserved and the minor nature of the works mean that no enhancement is necessary. Important views into and out of the conservation area would not be adversely affected by the works. No landscape features would be negatively affected. The proposal is in accordance with the relevant policy tests in the SPPS and PPS 6.
1
5. The operation or the air condition units and flue does not result in any additional loss of amenity by reason of noise or odour and the Environmental Health Unit of the Council has offered no objection subject to conditions.
Description of Site and Surroundings
6. The site is located to the western side of Lisburn Street in Hillsborough. It occupies a three bay mid terrace two storey public house and restaurant (the Parsons Nose).
7. To the side and rear of the main property there is a yard, outdoor seating area and other small associated buildings.
8. The property can also be accessed from Lisburn Street via an existing laneway to the rear of the terrace properties.
Proposed Development
9. The application is retrospective and comprised of three external air conditioning cassettes on the rear and side elevations, one pizza oven flue and a boxed-in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier on the roof of the premises.
Relevant Planning History
10. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below:
Reference Description Decision LA05/2016/0225/F Extension to ground floor to Permission Granted improve access and efficiency of restaurant activity. Internal 23 November 2016 alterations to upgrade WCs including access.
S/2003/O329/F Extension to licenced bar & Application withdrawn Restaurant to accommodate suitable facilities & access for 20 July 2015 disable persons.
S/2002/0439/A41 Proposed alternations to licenced Permitted Development premises.
2
Reference Description Decision S/1999/0743/F New single storey food Permission Granted preparation and staff accommodation block. 5 April 2000
S/1998/1007 Demolition of roof, first floor, front Permission Granted façade and chimney.
S/1998/1006 Rebuilding roof, first floor, front Permission Granted façade and chimney.
S/1997/0793 Extension to lounge and Permission Granted renovation of kitchen and toilets.
Planning Policy Context
11. The relevant planning policy and guidance for the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Local Development Plan (Lisburn Area Plan 2001 and draft BMAP 2015) . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . PPS6 – Archaeology and the Built Heritage
Consultations
12. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response DfI Roads No Objection subject to conditions Historic Environment No comment as the listed building is sufficiently removed Division – Historic to remain unaffected. Buildings Historic Environment No objection Division – Historic Monuments Council Conservation Acknowledged limited views. Advice addressed in the Officer main body of the assessment below.
Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions.
3
Representations
14. A number of representations by way of objection have been received in respect of this proposal. The following issues have been raised:
. Neighbour Notification Process; . Safety Concerns to Surrounding properties; . Fumes, Odour and Noise; . Loss of Amenity to neighbouring properties; . Location of the restaurant within an area of historical importance; . Problem with their entertainment licence and noise level of the music; . Illegal oven chimney; . Monitoring and Enforcement
Consideration and Assessment
15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Archaeology and Built Heritage Impacts . Impact on Conservation Area . Impact of Noise/Odours on Residential Amenity
Local Development Plan
16. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
17. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
18. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
19. In both the LAP and draft BMAP, the site is located within the settlement development limit of Hillsborough and inside Hillsborough Conservation Area.
20. The site is also adjacent to Hillsborough Castle, a Listed Building (HB19/05/076) and adjacent to Hillsborough Local Landscape Policy Area designation (HH 09).
4
21. It is also within a buffer zone surrounding an archaeological site and monument (DOW 014:011), an ecclesiastical site and adjacent to a Historic Park, Garden and Demesne designation (HH 12).
22. There is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, and as such significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development
23. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
24. The SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
25. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
26. The site is located within Hillsborough Conservation Areas. Strategic Policy states that in managing development within a designated Conservation Area, the guiding principle is to afford special regard to the desirability of enhancing its character or appearance where an opportunity exists, or to preserve its character or appearance where an opportunity to enhance does not arise.
27. Where the SPPS is silent of less prescriptive on a particular panning policy matter, than the retained policy this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy. The policy test associated with PPS 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage provides the relevant planning policy context.
28. No distinguishable differences other than those described above (preserve and enhance verses no harm) are found in the content of this policy that need reconciled in favour of the SPPS.
Archaeology and Built Heritage
29. Paragraph 6.3 of the SPPS indicates that strategic policy with regard to Archaeology and the Built Heritage is to manage change in positive ways so as to safeguard that which society regards as significant whilst facilitating
5
development that will contribute to the ongoing preservation, conservation and enhancement of these assets. 30. Paragraph 6.16 states that planning permission should not be granted for development that would lead to the loss of, or cause harm to, the overall character, principle components or setting of Historic, Gardens and Demesnes.
31. Historic Environment Division (HED) – Historic Buildings advised that it has considered the impacts of the proposal on the setting of the listed building and on the basis of the information provided, advised that it has no comment to make, as the listed building, is sufficiently removed to remain unaffected by this application.
32. Historic Environment Division (HED) – Historic Monuments advised that it had assessed the application and on the basis of the information provided was content that the proposal satisfied the SPPS and PPS 6 archaeological policy requirements.
33. It is therefore contended that the proposed development is far enough removed from the listed building and screened sufficiently by existing boundary planting from the historic park, garden and demesne so as not have an unacceptable impact on the archaeological site and monument.
Impact on Conservation Area
34. Paragraph 6.19 of the SPPS advises that in the interest of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, development proposals should: . Be sympathetic to the characteristic built form of the area; . Respect the characteristics of adjoining buildings in the area by way of its scale, form, materials and detailing; . Not result in environmental problems such a noise, nuisance or disturbances; . Protect important views within, into and out of the area; . Protect trees and other landscape features contributing to the character or appearance of the area; . Conform with the guidance set out in any published Conservation Area design guide; and . Only consider the demolition of an unlisted building where the planning authority deems that the building makes no material contribution to the character or appearance of the area and subject to appropriate arrangements for the redevelopment of the site.
35. Policy BH12 – New Development in a Conservation Area is consistent with this strategic policy approach. The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objection in principle to the proposed development.
36. The air conditioning cassettes are located to the rear and side elevation, one to the ground floor on the rear and two to the side elevation of the first floor. The
6
agent has advised that these are a building control requirement and building control has confirmed that they meet their requirements.
37. The Council’s Conservation Officer advised that a preferred option was to have the cassettes houses internally however, this is a retrospective application and it falls to be assessed on its individual merits taking into account, the work as carried out.
38. Within this context, it is contended that views are limited to the immediate context and that the units are finished in an off white colour, the same as the existing building. The recommendation offered by the conservation officer that the units are painted is not therefore necessary.
39. The flue is positioned on the roof of the rear return and it projects approximately 2.4 metres above the ridge line. It is finished in a chrome casing with black vented capping. From the rear the flue has a backdrop of the pitched roof of the part of the building that fronts towards Lisburn Street. The flue cannot be viewed from Lisburn Street. It can only be viewed from the rear of the building.
40. The flue is required for the use of the oven which is ancillary to the established operation of the premises as a restaurant. The recommendation offered by the conservation officer that the flue is painted is not considered appropriate given the limited visual impact.
41. The boxed in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier is located on the roof and only part of the acoustic barrier can be seen from the public view. The acoustic barrier projects above the roof ridge by approximately 0.3 metres. It is finished in a dark grey colour and blends in with the existing roof colour and finish. Visually, each element is considered to be acceptable within its context.
42. The building works are considered to relate to the established use and do not cumulatively harm the character and form of the building on which they are erected. The wider character of the conservation area is preserved and the minor nature of the works mean that no enhancement is necessary. Important views into and out of the conversation area would not be adversely affected by the works. No landscape features would be negatively affected.
Impact of Noise/Odours on Residential Amenity
43. An odour and noise impact assessment was submitted with the application for consideration. It presents odour risk assessments with respect to the upgraded kitchen extraction system in line with DEFRA publication ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’ (the flue). An overview of noise impacts associated with the operation of the installed kitchen extraction system with mitigation measures recommended to ensure ‘typical’ evening background noise levels are not exceeded are recommended.
7
44. The Council’s Environmental Health Unit have considered the detail of the application and the issues raised by way of third party representation in relation to noise, fumes and odour.
45. The air conditioning units, extraction system and flue have been considered and based on the information provided, Environmental Health has no objection subject to conditions which seek to ensure that the impact on the amenity of residents at any of the adjacent dwellings from the operation of this equipment is protected.
Consideration of Representations
46. Issues raised by way of third party representation are considered below:
Neighbour Notification Process
47. Neighbour Notifications have issued in accordance with due process. The application has also been advertised in the local press.
Safety Concerns to Surrounding properties
48. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that safety standards are met and that the proposal does not impact on safety of surrounding properties.
Fumes, Odour and Noise
49. The Council’s Environmental Health Unit has considered the detail of the application in so far as it relates to fumes, odour and noise including representations made in this regard. The air conditioning units, extraction system and flue have been considered and they are satisfied that the proposed conditions should ensure that the impact on any adjacent dwellings is not adverse.
50. Concern in relation to noise nuisance emanating from the beer garden use during good weather are not directly related to the current application which seeks to retain 3 external air conditioning cassettes on the rear and side elevations, 1 pizza oven flue and a boxed-in ventilation duct with an acoustic barrier on the roof of the Parsons Nose, Hillsborough
Loss of Amenity to neighbouring properties
50. Environmental Health Unit has confirmed that they are content that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties subject to conditions.
Location of the restaurant within an area of historical importance
8
51. The existing business is long established and the location of the restaurant is not the subject of this application. The proposal is considered not to have a negative impact on any built heritage interests.
Problem with their entertainment licence and noise level of the music
52. The concern expressed in relation to the entertainment licence and noise level of the music does not carry significant weight as it relates to operational matters out with the application.
Illegal Oven chimney
53. This application includes detail of the oven flue and it is considered to be acceptable.
Monitoring and Enforcement
54. Concern expressed that the conditions will not be adhered to is noted. That said, the conditions are considered to meet the tests of conditions and if a breach of planning should occur, enforcement action can be taken as appropriate. The onus is on the operator to ensure that the ventilation system, extracting duct and filters are maintained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in order to ensure efficient operation and minimal nuisance to adjacent properties occurs.
Conclusions
55. Having considered the proposal against all the relevant planning polices, and other material considerations including third party representations, it is considered that the building works relate to the established use and do not cumulatively harm the character and form of the building on which they are erected.
56. The wider character of the conservation area is preserved and the minor nature of the works mean that no enhancement is necessary. Important views into and out of the conservation area would not be adversely affected by the works. No landscape features would be negatively affected. The proposal is in accordance with the relevant policy tests in SPPS and PPS6.
57. The operation of the air condition units and flue does not result in any additional loss of amenity by reason of noise or odour and the Environmental Health Unit of the Council has offered no objection subject to conditions.
Recommendation
58. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.
9
Conditions
59. The following conditions are recommended:
. The decision notice is issued under Section 55 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 Reason: This is a retrospective application.
. Development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Odour and Noise Impact Assessment received by the Council date stamped 21 December 2017, drawing number 2 date stamped 8 October 2018 and letter from Regal Fabrication Company date stamped 29 May 2018. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise and odour.
. A three stage filtration and extraction system shall be maintained to reduce odour from all cooking outlets. The outlet from the ducting shall terminate as indicated. The three stage filtration and extraction system shall be capable of achieving a high level of odour control as set out in the DEFRA guidance entitled ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’. The system shall comprise of fine filtration followed by carbon filtration with a minimum residence time of 0.2 – 0.4 seconds and a minimum discharge velocity of 10m/s. The ventilation shall be boxed in and a two sided acoustic barrier constructed as indicated and so retained thereafter. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise and odour.
. The operating hours for the ventilation system shall be restricted to 09:00 – 23:00 hrs. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.
. The rated sound pressure level of the ventilation system shall not exceed 43.5db at the façade of the nearest neighbouring residential property. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise.
10
Site Location Plan – LA05/2017/1062/F
11
APPENDIX 1.6
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)
Application Reference LA05/2017/0921/F
Date of Application 4 September 2017
District Electoral Area Downshire West
Proposal Description Housing development for 10 No. two storey detached dwellings
Location 30-32 Culcavy Road, Hillsborough
Representations Five
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation Approval
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local planning application.
2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee as it has been Called In.
3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is assessed that the proposed development creates a quality and sustainable residential environment and that the design and layout of the buildings draw on the positive aspects of the character and appearance of similar development in the surrounding area.
4. Furthermore, it is also assessed that the proposal is sensitively designed and that the impacts of the new buildings on the amenity of people living in existing neighbourhood has been fully and properly considered in reaching the recommendation.
5. The proposal is fully in accordance with LAP, draft BMAP and the requirements of prevailing regional policy in the SPPS and PPS 7.
1
Description of Site and Surroundings
6. The site is comprised of a former dwelling and builders yard to the rear. All the buildings previously on the site have since been demolished and the land cleared. The area to the front has now been substantially overgrown.
7. The access extends from the Culcavy Road to where the previous dwelling was located. There is a second taramac access (laneway) to the site further along the Culcavy Road which provided a separate access to the land to the rear of the site.
8. The levels in the site rise from the edge of the road, and flatten out towards the area of the former builders yard.
9. There are dwellings located adjacent to the western and eastern boundaries, with the boundary to rear being the exception as it abuts an existing agricultural field.
10. The edge of the settlement limit abuts this boundary, and consists of a post and wire fence. The boundary alongside the properties in Ogles Grove consists of a 3-4 metre high hedge in parts and a 2 metre high fence with 8-10 metre high trees to the rear.
11. The part of this boundary adjacent to the property in Annesley Manor consists of a 2 metre high concrete block wall. The boundary around the adjacent dwellings at. 34 and 36 Culcavy Road consists of a 2.5 metre high hedge and sparse hedging and some fencing respectively.
12. The southern boundary of the site, adjacent to the driveway to 28 Culcavy Road consists of a 2-2.5 metre high hedge. This hedge increases in height towards the front of this dwelling, to approximately 4-5 metre high. The southern boundary of the site adjacent to 28 consists of a 2.5-3 metre high wall. The boundary to the rear of this dwelling is a 1-1.5 metre high grass bank with a 2-2.5 metre wall on top. This boundary continues along the rear of 3 Abercorn Park and along here consists of a 2 metre high close board fence and some 8- 12 metre trees to the rear.
13. The site is located in a suburban residential area which is characterised by relatively large dwellings set in their own plots.
Proposed Development
14. The application seeks full planning permission for the development of 10 two storey detached dwellings.
2
Relevant Planning History
15. The relevant planning history includes the following:
Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/2006/1064/O Proposed 1 gate lodge, 6 apartments, 6 Approved 3 semi-detached, 1 detached and 4 town July 2009 houses S/2012/0409/O Site for 1 gate lodge, 4 apartments, 7 Approved detached, 6 townhouses and 7 June 2013 amendments to site entrance (previous approval S/2006/1064/O) LA05/2015/0393/F Change of house types to approved 12 Withdrawn no. two storey detached and semi- 10 April 2014 detached dwellings
Planning Policy Context
16. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) - Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 - Quality Residential Environments . Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7 – Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity
Consultations
17. The following consultations were carried out
Consultee Response
DfI Roads No objections subject to conditions NI Water No objections subject to informatives re connection to sewerage and water infrastructure.
3
Consultee Response
NIEA Water management No objections subject to informatives and agreement of NI water to connect to main sewers.
Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions
NIEA Land Soil and Air No objections subject to conditions
Historic Environment No objections Division Rivers Agency No objections
Representations
18. Five representations have been received in opposition to the application. The following issues were raised:
. Impact on Privacy . Potential overlooking, overshadowing, loss of sunlight/amenity . Lack of Amenity . Drawings are misleading . Levels . Different House Type . Land Ownership Challenge . fill to address the contamination . Scale on drawing No. 02/3
Consideration and Assessment
17. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:
. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Access, Movement and Parking . Quality Residential Environments - Impact on character of area - Residential amenity - Layout / Design / Materials - Landscaping . Contamination . Water & Sewerage Infrastructure
4
Local Development Plan
18. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
19. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 had in its entirety not been lawfully adopted.
20. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however, draft BMAP remains a material consideration.
21. This site lies within white land within the settlement limit of Hillsborough within both the Lisburn Area Plan and draft BMAP.
Principle of Development 22. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
23. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
24. Strategic policy directs that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
25. The proposal seeks development on a site within the settlement limit of Hillsborough. Having considered the content of both the SPPS and prevailing policies, no distinguishable differences are found that need reconciled in favour of the SPPS. The principle of development at this site is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other relevant material planning considerations.
5
Access, Movement and Parking
26. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking. It forms an important element in the integration of transport and land use planning and it embodies the Government’s commitment to the provision of a modern, safe, sustainable transport system.
27. Policy AMP 2 – Access to Public Roads states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the intensification of the use of an existing access onto a public road where such an access will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic; and the proposal does not conflict with access to protected routes.
28. The P1 Form indicates that the development will involve the construction of a new access to the public road and that the access will be used for both vehicles and pedestrians.
29. DfI Roads having considered the detail associated with the proposed access arrangements indicate that they are satisfied the proposed internal layout of this development provides a safe and convenient road system.
30. Policy AMP7 – Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements requires proposals to provide adequate provision for car parking and appropriate servicing arrangements.
31. Detail submitted with the application demonstrates parking provision within each unit in accordance with the requirements of the Creating Places document. DfI Roads has also confirmed that no road safety or traffic progression concerns arise from the standard of parking which has been proposed.
Quality Residential Environments
32. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments.
33. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment.
34. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
35. Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7 - Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity states that in established residential areas a key consideration is to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and
6
that the development is in harmony with the local character of the established residential area.
36. The following are criteria of Policy QD1 of PPS 7 to ensure compliance with Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7.
Impact on Character of Area
37. In terms of site layout it is considered that this proposal is acceptable when compared with other similar in-depth residential proposals built in its immediate vicinity in the site.
38. The density and general arrangement of the buildings is in keeping with the character of the dwellings to the west of the site in particular and the type and range of accommodation proposed is consistent with the form of development found on this part of the Culcavy Road.
Layout/Design/Materials
39. The scheme comprises a range of house types which are appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of their layout, scale, proportions, massing/appearance of buildings and other landscaped and hard surfaced areas.
40. The dwellings are sensitively positioned, offering sufficient front and rear amenity space and with suitable garages and car parking provision. The plot sizes are typical of the area.
41. The design of the dwellings draw upon the characteristics of, and are broadly in line with the existing built fabric in terms of height, scale and massing and the site layout plan demonstrates a density and ratio of built form to garden area that is in accordance with policy and related guidance in Creating Places and is consistent with that found in the immediate vicinity.
42. Separation distances between proposed dwellings and their relationship with adjacent residential dwellings and their existing boundaries is adequately addressed and considered as part of this proposal. Separation distances associated with the proposed dwellings at plots 9 and 10 are almost 9 metres to the rear boundary taken from a single storey rear return and approximately 11 metres from the two storey aspect of the building.
43. Distances associated with the proposed dwellings at plots 4 and 5 are approximately are 13.5 metres from the two storey rear return to the rear boundary, and 16 metres from the rear elevation of the main dwelling to the rear boundary and as such, no overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of amenity to the neighbouring property at 3 Abercorn Park should arise.
44. Materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings will include red multi facing brick, charcoal flat concrete tiles, PVC windows and PVC doors. These finishes very much match those of the dwelling designs in the surrounding
7
developments and it is contended therefore that the design of, and construction materials are acceptable and will not be detrimental to the overall character of the area.
Residential Amenity 45. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposal will result in sufficient separation distances between proposed dwellings and those in adjacent residential properties and will not therefore create conflict or unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.
Landscaping/ Amenity Space
46. As this proposal is for less than 25 units and the site area is less than 1 hectare, there is no requirement for public open space to be provided as an integral part of the development. However two small areas of open space are being provided within the layout.
47. The level of private open space is acceptable, with every dwelling having more than 70 square metres of amenity space consistent with the guidance set out in the Creating Places document.
48. A landscaping and planting plan has been submitted to indicate the position, species and canopy spread of proposed and existing vegetation and trees and the ongoing management and maintenance of landscaping provided as part of this proposal.
49. Proposed landscaping and the maintenance of the existing vegetation to be retained is considered appropriate.
Contamination
50. NIEA Regulation Unit noted that the former activities on the site may have caused the land to be affected by contamination (the builders yard previously held a petroleum licence).
51. In light of this a Preliminary Risk Assessment and remediation strategy has been provided by the agent in support of the application. No unacceptable risks to environmental receptors have been identified.
52. The Regulation Unit within NIEA having considered the detail of this assessment has offered no objections subject to conditions and informatives.
Water and Sewerage Infrastructure 53. NI Water advised that there is a public water supply, a foul sewer and a surface water sewer all within 20m of the proposal.
8
54. They advised that consultation with NIW is required at an early design stage by means of a Predevelopment Enquiry to obtain details of the availability of existing water and sewerage infrastructure and how the proposal may be serviced.
55. NIEA Water Management Unit have also considered the potential impacts of the proposal on the water environment and on the basis of the information provided is content subject to informatives being attached to any decision issued.
Consideration of Representations
56. Five representations were received in respect of this application. The issues raised are considered below.
Impact on Privacy
57. Concern was expressed in relation to the impact on privacy to the adjacent dwelling at 34 Culcavy Road. The view was expressed that the footpath adjacent to the boundary of the property at their back garden would allow for people to see into the back of this house 5m from the patio area. A wall/fence would serve to protect and maintain privacy.
58. Detail submitted with the application shows that there is a hedge along the south eastern boundary of the dwelling at No. 34 Culcavy Road, of approximately 1.5 to 1.8 metres in height. The planting plan dated 20th November 2018 shows this hedge to be retained and augmented.
59. There are no proposed dwellings directly adjacent to this boundary from which there would be overlooking, with the nearest dwelling being 12 metres away at House type G. Pedestrians using the footway as described are transient by nature, and would not by nature impact adversely on the privacy of this property. A condition is proposed to show the hedge retained.
Potential for Overlooking, Overshadowing/Loss of sunlight/Amenity
60. Concern was expressed in relation to the potential for overlooking, overshadowing, loss of sunlight and loss of amenity from Plots 9 and 10 on the property at 4 Annesley Manor.
61. The proposed dwellings at Plot 9 and 10 are between almost 9m to the rear boundary (at the closest point, but extending to 9.5 metres for the majority of this part of the rear elevation), taken from the single storey rear return, to approximately 11 metres from the rear elevation of the bulk of the dwelling to the rear. Creating Places states that where the development abuts the private garden areas of existing properties, a minimum of around 10 metres between the rear of the new houses and the common boundary is appropriate.
9
62. The proposal therefore is in general conformity with this guidance and there would be no overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing and loss of amenity on the rear of the property at 4 Annesley Manor.
Lack of Amenity Space
63. The view was expressed that the property at 4 Annesley Manor has no front garden and the outlook from the south facing elevation is precious and should be preserved to avoid creating a 'hemmed in' feeling.
64. The lack of garden and existing layout of dwellings around the property at 4 Annesley Manor cannot be assessed under this application. The scheme associated with the current application meets the policy requirements in so far as they relate to amenity space.
Misleading Drawings
65. The view was expressed that the drawings are misleading, in particular the cross-section drawing regarding separation distances, house depth, and difference in ground levels is greater than that indicated.
66. The agent was invited to address the comments made in relation to the accuracy of the drawings and ground levels. The agent submitted amended drawings on two occasions, including a cross section showing the separation distance to the rear of Plot 10 reduced and the depth of this house type increased.
67. The ground levels were also altered. The neighbours were re-notified of these amended drawings. A further submission from the owner of 4 Annesley Manor stated that the amendments were still not accurate. Further drawings were submitted and no further representations were made in this regard.
Levels
68. The view was expressed that the property at Plot 10 would be at a higher level than the dwelling at 4 Annesley Manor and as such a greater separation distance was required.
69. The levels show a difference of 0.76 metres between the property at 4 Annesley Manor and the dwelling at Plot 10. The first floor bedroom windows along the rear elevation will be 11 metres from the common boundary, more than the guidance set out in Creating Places.
House Types
70. The view was expressed that a different house type would be a better solution. In this instance the house type submitted is considered to be acceptable.
10
Land Ownership Query
71. The view was expressed that the area under the applicant's control is not accurate.
72. A P2 challenge was raised and the agent was notified accordingly. Consequently, amended plans were received to reflect this and the neighbours were notified accordingly. No further concerns were raised in this instance.
Fill to address Contamination
73. Reference is made to 600 millimetres of fill being required as per the remedial measures to address the contamination of the site and that this would exacerbate the difference in levels.
74. The 600 millimetres of clean cover system recommended in the Risk Assessment and Remediation Strategy states that it is not required in areas of the site where hardstanding is present (i.e. roads, pathways and buildings, etc) therefore the dwelling will not be at a higher level accordingly.
Accuracy of scale on drawing No. 02/3 75. This drawing was since superseded by drawing No. 02/4 received on the 20th November 2018. This drawing was re-neighbour notified and no further representations were made regarding the scale of this drawing.
Conclusions
76. Based on careful consideration of all material facts it is assessed that the proposed development creates a quality and sustainable residential environment and that the design and layout of the buildings draws on the positive aspects of the character and appearance of similar development in the surrounding area.
77. Furthermore, it is also assessed that the proposal is sensitively designed and that the impacts of the new buildings on the amenity of people living in the the existing neighbourhood has been fully and properly considered in reaching this recommendation.
78. The proposal is fully in accordance with LAP, draft BMAP and the requirements of prevailing regional policy in the SPPS and PPS 7 (including the second addendum).
Recommendations
79. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
11
Conditions
80. The following conditions are recommended:
. As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time limit
. If during the development works, new contamination and risks are encountered which has not previously been identified, works should cease and the Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. This new contamination shall be fully investigated in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). In the event of unacceptable risks being identified, a remediation strategy shall be agreed with the Planning Authority in writing and subsequently implemented to its satisfaction. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
. After completing any remediation works required under Condition 1, and prior to the occupation of the development, a verification report needs to be submitted in writing and agreed with Planning Authority. This report should be completed by competent persons in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). The verification report should present all the remediation and monitoring works undertaken and demonstrate the effectiveness of the works in managing all the risks and achieving the remedial objectives. Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
. In the event that any ground contamination or underground storage tanks are encountered during the proposed development, then all works in site should cease. Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council should be advised and a full written risk assessment in line with current government guidance (Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination – CLR11) that details the nature of the risks and any necessary mitigation measures should be submitted for approval. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors
. The vehicular accesses, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. PSD Site Plan, bearing the LCCC Planning Office date stamp 30 November 2017 prior to the occupation of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level
12
of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. The access gradients shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
The Department hereby determines that the width, position and arrangement of the streets, and the land to be regarded as being comprised in the streets, shall be as indicated on Drawing No. PSD Site Plan, bearing the Transport NI determination date stamp 22 January 2018. Reason: To ensure there is a safe and convenient road system to comply with the provisions of the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.
. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved drawing no. PSD Site Plan, bearing the date stamp 30 November 2017, to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking within the site.
. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, sight visibility splays, forward sight lines or access shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicant’s expense. Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. The existing natural screenings of this site, as indicated on approved plan No. 04/3, date stamped February 2019 shall be retained. If any retained tree is removed, dies, or is seriously damaged within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building, another tree or hedge of a native species shall be planted during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing trees and hedges.
. During the first planting season, after the occupation of the dwelling, the planting scheme shall be carried out in accordance to the stamped approved plan No. 04/3 date stamped February 2019.
13
Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.
. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
14
Site Location Plan – LA05/2017/0921/F
15
APPENDIX 1.7
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions apply)
Application Reference LA05/2018/0167/F
Date of Application 16/02/2018
District Electoral Area Downshire East
Proposal Description Proposed replacement dwelling with domestic garage
Location Land to the North East of No. 59 Windmill Road, Hillsborough
Representations None
Case Officer Catherine Gray
Recommendation APPROVAL
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local application.
2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee as it has been called in.
3. This application is presented with a recommendation to approve taking into account the planning policy tests and the planning history which has established the principle fora replacement dwelling at this location.
4. It is also considered that the amended design and siting of the proposed building is acceptable in this countryside location and that it will not cause demonstrable harm to the rural character of the area.
1
5. It is however recommended that the current legal agreement is modified accordingly to ensure that the earlier permission is not implemented.
Description of Site and Surroundings
6. The site is located to the northern side of the Windmill Road. It comprises part of an agricultural field and a strip of land that runs alongside an existing laneway to the Windmill Road.
7. There is also a small stoned yard area and an old building within the curtilage of the site.
8. The building to be replaced is completely intact on site with the characteristics of a dwelling house albeit appears now to be used for the purpose of storage. .
9. The existing building is situated to the east of 59 Windmill Road and it is currently accessed via an existing laneway that also serves the dwelling at 59. As you move across the site in an easterly direction the ground rises.
10. The site is within the countryside and the wider area is characteristic of large dwelling houses and farm outbuildings.
Proposed Development
11. Full planning permission is sought for the relocation of a proposed replacement dwelling with domestic garage.
Relevant Planning History
12. The planning history is as follows:
Application Site address Proposal Decision Reference LA05/2017/0149/O Land to the NE of Replacement dwelling Permission 59 Windmill Road house and domestic Granted garage 28/09/2017
S/2009/0212/F Site adjacent to 59 Proposed conversion Permission Windmill Road of barn to dwelling Granted with extension to 21/05/2009 provide modern accommodation facilities & detached garage to rear
2
Planning Policy Context
13. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 and draft BMAP 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2) : Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside.
Consultations
14. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response DfI Roads No objection. Conditions and informatives provided. LCCC Environmental Health No objection. NI Water No objection.
Representations
15. No objections have been received in relation to the proposed development.
Consideration and Assessment
16. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Planning History . Integration and design of buildings in the Countryside . Rural character . Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage . Flooding
3
Local Development Plan 17. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
18. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
19. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
20. In both the LAP and draft BMAP, the site is located in the countryside outside any designated settlement limits.
21. There is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context and as such significant weight is attached to the draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development 22. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply.
23. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
24. The SPPS states that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
25. Paragraph 6.65 states that the aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.
26. Paragraph 6.70 also states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect the character, and be appropriately designed.
27. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that “Supplementary planning guidance contained within ‘Building on Tradition’: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside’ must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside.
4
28. Where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy.
29. The proposal seeks development on a rural site beyond any defined settlement limit and as such assessment is made against the provisions contained within Planning Policy Statement 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside.
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
30. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 sets out those range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside. It advises that an application for an individual dwelling is acceptable in principle for a replacement dwelling in accordance with Policy CTY 3 - Replacement Dwellings.
31. There is no distinguishable difference between the policy requirements between the SPPS and policy CTY 3 of PPS 21.
Planning History
32. An off-site replacement dwelling and garage was granted on the site on 28th September 2017 within the context of planning application LA05/2017/0149/O.
33. This permission remains valid until 28 September 2022 and was subject to a legal agreement whereby the owner entered into a covenant with the Council:
. Not to take any action to further implement the existing planning permission (S/2009/0212/F); . To remove the foundations associated with the dwelling approved under the existing planning permission prior to the commencement of works approved under LA05/2017/0149/O; . Not to object to or seek or claim to take any action to obtain any compensation as a result of the agreement.
34. The dwelling under LA05/2017/0149/O was to be located approximately 45m North East of the building approved to be converted under S/2009/0212/F and 105m from the existing dwelling at no 59 Windmill Road. The current application (2018) relates to the same site as that associated with the 2017 application. . 35. The rationale for the 2017 approval was that the building (to be replaced) displayed the features of a modest and largely intact farm workers cottage. It was confirmed that the foundations of the 2009 approval were inspected by building control and accepted by the then Department for the Environment to represent commencement of development.
36. Policy CTY 3 – Replacement Dwellings requires that the proposed replacement dwelling should be sited within the established curtilage of the existing building, unless (a) the curtilage is so restricted that it could not reasonably accommodate a modest sized dwelling, or (b) it can be shown that an
5
alternative position nearby would result in demonstrable landscape, heritage, access or amenity benefits. The current proposal meets these policy tests.
37. It was considered that there were demonstrable benefits of the relocation of the replacement and it was agreed that the applicant would have to remove the foundations implemented under approval S/2009/0212/F and demolish the building in order to progress LA05/2017/0149/O.
38. In this instance, significant weight is attached to the planning history on the site as the principle of development has already been accepted. In effect, the current application (2018) serves to make amendments to the house-type and design of the dwelling that was previously approved under LA05/2017/0149/O.
Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside
39. Policy CTY 13 states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.
40. It is considered that the proposal would not be a prominent feature in the landscape as it makes use of the existing natural boundaries and supplements any new boundaries with planting and fencing. The proposed development will be set back from the road by 100 metres. It is to be positioned in line with the dwelling that it is replacing to its east side.
41. The proposed dwelling is a four bedroom house of modern design with traditional references in the detail. It is considered that the proposal makes the best use of the site levels and that it also complies with Building on Tradition. The design is made up of 2 components with a living area to the front of the site and then a rear return with two levels comprising of the bedrooms and a games room and there is a glazed link in between.
42. The front elevation has a frontage of 17 metres and is the main public viewpoint when passing along the Windmill Road. The eastern elevation which would be visible in part from the public viewpoint would appear as single storey with a 6 metre ridge height. To the western elevation is mainly below ground that makes best use of the existing levels to provide additional accommodation.
43. A terrace and landscaped patio area is also proposed. The proposed garage is rectangular in shape measuring 7.8 metres by 7.4 metres with a proposed ridge height of 5.5 metres above the finished floor level.
44. The proposed finishes to the dwelling and garage are as follows: Roof: Front area to be raised seam metal profile in grey and the rear portion to be natural slate in grey; Chimney: galvanised flue; Rainwater goods: front portion to be concealed guttering and the rear portion to be black upvc; Walls: panels of random field stone and stucco render; some panels of timber cladding boards; Windows: grey aluminium; Doors to the garage are to be timber barn style.
6
45. The design of the building and proposed finishes are considered to be acceptable for the site and its location.
46. A new access is proposed to the site and a laneway that runs alongside the existing hedgerow. This along with planting to the outer side will allow the ancillary works to integrate sufficiently into the rural context.
Rural Character
47. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.
48. As indicated above, the proposal will not be unduly prominent in the landscape or result in a sub-urban style of build-up of development.
49. It would respect the traditional pattern of development in this rural area which is typically rural in nature. It will not create or add to a ribbon of development as it is replacing one building with another. The impact of any ancillary works will not damage the rural character.
Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage
50. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that Planning Permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.
51. A septic tank and soakaway is detailed on the plans to be positioned to the north western end of the site.
52. Environmental Health have been consulted and they have raised no objections to the proposal.
Access, Movement and Parking 53. PPS 3 sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.
54. A new access is proposed that would run alongside an existing hedgerow and existing laneway. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 70 metres are proposed to both sides. There is also plenty of space within the site for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and there is a double garage also proposed.
55. DfI Roads have been consulted and they have no objections to the proposal and provided standard conditions.
7
Natural Heritage
56. PPS 2 - Natural Heritage makes provision for ensuring that development does not harm or have a negative impact on any natural heritage or conservation.
57. In this case no unnecessary vegetation is being removed to facilitate the development. A small portion of hedgerow is being transplanted in order to accommodate the visibility splays and some additional new planting is proposed to the rear of the splays.
58. The existing building is sealed and presents no features of concern with regards to any protected species or natural heritage. No protected habitat would be negatively affected by the proposal.
Flooding
59. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out planning policies to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment.
60. From a site inspection and from a review of the Rivers Agency flood maps it can be seen that there are no watercourse within or near the application site and that it is not within a flood plain. There are no concerns with regards to potential flooding.
Conclusions
61. Having considered the proposal against the relevant planning polices and taken into account the planning history which previously established the principle of development for a replacement dwelling at this location it is considered that this alternative proposal is acceptable
62. It is considered that the design and siting of the proposed dwelling is acceptable in this countryside location and that it will not cause demonstrable harm to the character of the area.
63. It is also recommended that the current legal agreement is modified accordingly to ensure that no further steps are taken to implement the earlier permission.
Recommendation
64. It is recommended that planning permission is approved subject to the previous legal agreement being modified to take account of the amended proposal.
8
Condition(s)
65. The following conditions are recommended:
. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 01 bearing the date stamp 16th February 2018, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. The access gradient to the dwelling hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed on accordance with approved drawing no. 1, bearing the date stamp 16th February 2018 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced facilities shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.
. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, visibility splays or access shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicants’ expense. Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.
. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details on drawing no. 01 date stamped 16th February 2018 and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practise. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the dwelling. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
9
Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/0167/F
10
Appendix 1.8
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Mandatory)
Application Reference LA05/2018/0980/F
Date of Application 20 September 2018
District Electoral Area Killultagh
Proposal Description Proposed grass pitch, changing accommodation, fencing, ball stop fencing, retaining wall and regrading of area.
Location 120m North of 18 Maghaberry Road, Maghaberry
Applicant/Agent Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Representations None
Case Officer Catherine Gray
Recommendation Approval
Summary of Recommendation
1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.
2. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the application is by the Council and it falls within the mandatory category.
3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as all relevant material considerations have been fully and properly assessed.
4. It is assessed that the proposed development and ancillary works are acceptable as they are sited at an established Council facility and is developed in accordance with the policy requirements of PPS 8. The pitch will bring added benefits to the community without adversely impacting on the
1
visual amenity and character of the landscape or impacting on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Description of Site and Surroundings
5. The site is located to the northern side of the Maghaberry Road and just north of Maghaberry community centre, playground and all weather playing field. It currently occupies a large grassed area fenced that is fenced off and accessible from the facilities at the existing community centre.
6. Adjacent and west of the site is an existing housing estate part of which remains under construction.
7. The western boundary is defined partially by fencing and partially by existing vegetation hedgerow. The northern and eastern boundaries are defined by post and wire fencing. The southern boundary is partially defined by metal fencing that partially surrounds the existing play park and also partially defined by fencing that surrounds part of the existing all weather playing field.
8. The application site is set at a higher level than the Maghaberry Road. It is set back from the road by approximately 100 metres away and to the rear of the existing community centre building and playpark.
Proposed Development
9. The application as presented is a full application for a proposed grass pitch, changing accommodation, fencing, ball stop fencing, retaining wall and alterations to the ground levels.
10. The site is between the side/rear of an existing housing development which is still in part under construction and the open countryside.
Relevant Planning History
11. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below.
Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/2012/0612/F Extension to existing centre to 26.11.2012 provide sports hall and changing facilities and new entrance S/2012/0232/F Proposed extensions and 29.06.2012 alterations to existing community centre and extension to fence surrounding multi, use games area, Proposed adventure
2
Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference playground and picnic events area. S/2007/0832/F Proposed playing fields and 08.01.2009 community facilities approximately 220m NE of 27A Maghaberry Road
Planning Policy Context
12. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 and draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 - Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 - Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 8 - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation . Revised Planning Policy Statement 15 - Planning and Flood Risk . Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside
Consultations
13. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response Transport NI No objections
Environmental Health No objections
NI Water Standard response
Water Management Unit Content with the proposal subject to the applicant adhering to standing advice and any relevant statutory permissions being obtained.
Rivers Agency No objections
Representations
14. No representations have been received in respect of this proposal.
3
Consideration and Assessment
15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation - The Setting of Settlements . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage . Flooding
Local Development Plan
16. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
17. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 had in its entirety not been lawfully adopted.
18. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however, draft BMAP remains a material consideration.
19. In this case the application site lies within the open countryside as designated in both the LAP 2001 and draft BMAP.
Principle of Development
20. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
21. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
22. Strategic policy directs that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under
4
transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
23. Paragraph 6.65 states that the aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.
24. Paragraph 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.
25. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: a sustainable design guide for the Northern Ireland countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside.
26. Paragraph 1.2 of the SPPS states that where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy. Policy tests associated with PPS 21 are therefore relevant to the assessment of this application.
27. The proposal seeks development on a rural site beyond any defined settlement limit. Having considered the content of both the SPPS and the retained policy contained within PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside, no distinguishable differences are found that need reconciled in favour of the SPPS.
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
28. Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out the planning policies for development in the countryside.
29. Policy CTY 1 Development in the Countryside sets out those range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside.
30. The policy directs that other types of development will only be permitted where there are over-riding reasons shy that development is essential and could not be located in a settlement or it is otherwise allocated for development in a development plan.
31. Non-Residential development is acceptable in principle under a number of listed cases. This application is for an outdoor sport and recreational use and as such, it falls to be assessed as an exception against the policy tests set out in PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation.
32. Paragraph 6.213 of the SPPS states that planning authorities should carefully consider proposals for outdoor recreational activities against relevant planning considerations including location, design, hours of operation, noise, impact
5
upon visual and residential amenity, access and links to public transport, floodlighting, landscaping, public safety (including road safety), nature conservation, biodiversity, archaeology or built heritage.
33. Policy OS 3 - Outdoor Recreation in the Countryside states that a planning authority will permit development of proposals for outdoor recreational use in the countryside a number of policy criteria are met:
34. The proposal is for a grass pitch measuring 95 metres in length by 58 metres wide. A team shelter is also proposed to each side of the pitch. These are 6 metres in length, facilitates 12 seats and are 1.3 metres in width. They will be finished in green coloured steel to match the fencing with clear polycarbonate panels.
35. Changing accommodation is proposed to be positioned adjacent to the existing play park within its own 2.4 metres fenced compound. The changing accommodation comprises a building measuring 13.6 metres by 3.6 metres wide with associated ramp and steps surrounding it. It has a maximum height of 2.8 metres.
36. Fencing is proposed around the site, the pitches and the changing accommodation. It ranges from 1.2 metres in height to 8.0 metres in height for the ball stop fencing. Green metal mesh fencing is proposed to match the fencing which currently surrounds the existing all weather pitch.
37. It is also proposed to alter the ground levels of the site to facilitate the proposal and provide a retaining wall with a 1.2 metres fence above. The existing bicycle stand will also be repositioned to facilitate the proposal.
38. The proposal will not have an adverse impact on features of importance to nature conservation, archaeology or built heritage.
39. With regard to criteria (ii), the site occupies an area of rough grass land and is part of an existing community centre complex. The development will not therefore result in the loss of agricultural land nor will it impact on any nearby agricultural activities or prevent access to such lands.
40. In terms criteria (iii) and visual amenity/impact on character considerations it is contended that no adverse impact will arise as the proposal is sited approximately 100 metres away from the road and is set behind the existing community centre building and Play Park.
41. Whilst it is to be developed on slightly higher land but would be masked by the adjacent existing development and the existing all weather playing field to the south east of the site which has mature screening around which will to integrate the development within its context.
42. When travelling towards the site from the west views will be limited due to the existing housing development and the community centre itself and views from the east will be interrupted by the existing playing field. Views will be intermittent and limited on passing the site. Long range views would be
6
limited due to its positioning within the site and the topography of the surrounding landscape.
43. With regard to criteria (iv), the proposed development will not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities of people living nearby. The proposed development is an extension of the existing community centre facilities and complements the established uses within the community centre complex.
44. There are dwelling houses adjacent and to the west of the site, however it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the people living nearby. Environmental Health have considered the detail of the application and have raised no objection in this regard.
45. In terms of criteria (v) and (vi), the access arrangements for the proposed development will make use of an existing unaltered access to the public road hence public safety will not be prejudiced. The proposed building are considered to be of an appropriate scale to the local area with the design typical of changing accommodation and ancillary uses.
46. With regard to criteria (vii) and (viii), the layout of the proposal means that it would be easily accessible and could be accessed by people with disabilities and it provides for other means of transport. As indicated above, the proposed development will utilise the existing access and parking arrangements. DfI Roads have considered the detail of the application and offer no objection.
Noise Generating Sports and Outdoor Recreational Activities
47. Policy OS 5 - Noise Generating Sports and Outdoor Recreational Activities states that a planning authority will only permit the development of sport or outdoor recreational activities that generate high levels of noise where a number of criteria are met.
48. With regard to criteria (i), there is no unacceptable level of disturbance to people living nearby or conflict with other noise sensitive uses;
49. In relation to criteria (ii) the development will not result in an unacceptable level of disturbance to farm livestock and wildlife.
50. Similarly the proposed development will not result in conflict with the enjoyment of environmentally sensitive features and locations or areas valued for their silence and solitude.
The Setting of Settlements
51. Policy CTY 15 of PPS 21 - The Setting of Settlements states that planning permission will be refused for development that mars the distinction between a settlement and the surrounding countryside or that otherwise results in urban sprawl.
7
52. As discussed above the site is adjacent to the Settlement Development Limit of Maghaberry in the adopted BMAP (ruled unlawful) yet in the draft BMAP and the LAP the site lies in the open countryside.
53. The proposed development is effectively an extension to an established community centre facility and as such, it is contended that it will not mar the distinction between the Settlement Limit of Maghaberry and the Countryside.
Access, Movement and Parking
42. PPS 3 sets out the policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.
43. The P1 Form indicates that the proposed development will utilise the existing access/egress point to the site and the large existing parking area.
44. DfI Roads have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal and provided informatives.
Natural Heritage
45. PPS 2 - Natural Heritage makes provision for ensuring that development does not harm or have a negative impact on any natural heritage or conservation.
46. Detail associated with the application indicates that the existing vegetation along the western boundary is to be retained and a new beech hedge is proposed to be planted to the inside of the fence line along the western boundary.
47. From site inspection and from the NIEA Natural Environment Map Viewer it is seen that there are no protected areas, priority habitat or priority species within or adjacent to the application site.
48. It is therefore considered that no natural heritage interests would be negatively affected by the proposed development.
Flooding
49. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out the planning policies aimed at minimising and managing flood risk to people, property and the environment.
50. From site inspection and from an assessment of the Rivers Agency flood maps it can be seen that there are no watercourse within or adjacent to the application site, and it is not within a flood plain.
51. The proposed development does not meet the threshold for the requirement of a drainage assessment.
8
Conclusions
52. All relevant material considerations have been fully and properly assessed, and it is development and ancillary works are acceptable as they are sited at an established Council facility and is developed in accordance with the policy requirements of PPS 8.
53. The pitch will bring added benefits to the community without adversely impacting on the visual amenity and character of the landscape or impacting on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Recommendations
54. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
Conditions
55. The following conditions are recommended:
. As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time limit
9
Site Location Plan - LA05/2018/0980/F
10
APPENDIX 1.9
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Mandatory)
Application Reference LA05/2019/0018/F
Date of Application 21 December 2018
District Electoral Area Downshire West Children’s playpark consisting of forest style play Proposal Description equipment, crumb rubber fencing, fencing, gates, picnic area including associated works
Location Lands to the south east of Hillsborough Lake, Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street, Hillsborough
Representations None
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation APPROVAL
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the application is a Mandatory Application, as the Council is the applicant.
2. It is presented with a recommendation to Approve as the detailed layout, arrangement and design of the play park will create a quality play area within an existing woodland setting. It is in accordance with the requirements of LAP, draft BMAP and regional policy set out in the SPPS, PPS 21 and PPS 8.
3. The proposed development will not affect the setting of built heritage features nor will it harm any identified natural asset features. It is in accordance with the regional policy requirements of the SPPS, PPS 2 and PPS 6.
4. It is also considered that the provision of the forest style play equipment, as part of wider plans to provide a variety of new facilities at Hillsborough Forest Park, developing it as a visitor destination will bring substantial community
1
benefits for both amenity and recreation purposes whilst maintaining the nature conservation and biodiversity of the area.
Description of Site and Surroundings
5. The site is located within the grounds of Hillsborough Forest Park, outside the settlement limits of Hillsborough. The site is presently an area of woodland within the wider park context. There is a pedestrian trail running beyond the eastern boundary of the site.
6. There is a building located within the northern part of the site, which appears to be used by the Forest Service for the storage of equipment. It is single storey, linear in form, with a pitched roofed and double doors on the gable.
7. While the majority of the site consists of dense vegetation, there is a small clearing in the middle, where there is a narrow tarmac path leading to a larger tarmac area.
8. There are large, mature trees around the edges of the site, of approximately 10-14 metres in height. The levels within and around the site are relatively flat.
Proposed Development
9. The application includes the installation of forest style wooden play park equipment which will be grouped in zones for different ages of play. A picnic and seating area is also provided amongst the play equipment.
10. The proposal is part of wider plans to provide a variety of new facilities at Hillsborough Forest Park, developing the forest as a visitor destination.
11. Supporting information indicates that the application site will be surfaced with crumb rubber to resemble bark mulch and that the site will be bounded by 2.4 metre high paladin fence.
Relevant Planning History
12. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below:
Reference Description Decision S/2007/1124/F Proposed development is for the Permission granted erection of 1 No dirty water storage tank 28.04.2008
2
Planning Policy Context
13. The relevant planning policy and guidance context which relates to the application is as follows:
. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Local Development Plan (Lisburn Area Plan 2001 and draft BMAP 2015) . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Planning Policy Statement 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation . Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 - Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 3 – Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 15 – Planning and Flood Risk
Consultations
14. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response DfI Roads Content DAERA – Natural Content subject to conditions Heritage
DAERA – Drainage Content subject to informative regarding adherence to and Water standing advice.
Environmental Health No objection subject to informative regarding construction Unit work in accordance with Code of Practice for noise and vibration control. Rivers Agency No Objection
Historic Environment Content subject to conditions Division – Historic Monuments NI Water Content – standard advice
Forest Service No comment
3
Representations
15. No representations have been received in respect of this proposal.
Consideration and Assessment
16. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation - Protection of Open Space - Outdoor Recreation in the Countryside . Impact on Biodiversity Interests . Impact on Archaeological Interests . Access, Movement and Parking . Planning and Flood Risk - Development in Fluvial (River) and Coastal Flood Plains - Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure - Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk Outside Flood Plains - Artificial Modification of Watercourses - Development tin Proximity to Reservoirs
Local Development Plan
17. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
18. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
19. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
20. The site is located to the south east of Hillsborough Park Lake which is outside the settlement development limit of Hillsborough, outside a designated area of existing open space and outside a Site of Local Nature Conservation Importance. The site lies within a Local Landscape Policy Area and Historic Park, Garden and Demesne.
4
21. As there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development
22. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
23. The SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
24. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
25. The aim of strategic policy with regard to with regard to Tourism is to manage the provision of sustainable and high quality tourism developments in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment
26. The application proposes a children's play park consisting of forest style play equipment, crumb rubber surfacing, fencing, gates, picnic area including associated works on a site, outside the designated settlement limit of Hillsborough.
27. There is no distinguishable difference between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and prevailing policy tests against which the proposal is assessed.
Sustainable Development in the Countryside
28. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside.
29. Policy CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of development types which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.
30. The policy directs that other types of development will only be permitted where there are over riding reasons why that development is essential and could not
5
be located in a settlement or it is otherwise allocated for development in a development plan.
31. The application is for a children’s playpark consisting of forest style play equipment as part of wider plans to provide a variety of new facilities within Hillsborough Forest Park. The application falls to be assessed against the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation.
Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation
32. The regional strategic objectives for open space, sport and outdoor recreation are to: - Safeguard existing open spaces and sites identified for future such provision; - Ensure that areas of open space are provided as in integral part of new residential development and that appropriate arrangements are made for their management and maintenance in perpetuity; - Facilitate appropriate outdoor recreational activities in the countryside that do not negatively impact on the amenity of existing residents; - Ensure that new open space areas and sporting facilities are convenient and accessible for all sections of society, particularly children, older people and those with disabilities; - Achieve high standards of siting, design and landscaping for all new open space areas and sporting facilities; and - Ensure that the provision of new open space areas and sporting facilities is in keeping with the principles of environmental conservation and helps sustain and enhance biodiversity.
33. Strategic policy states that there will be a presumption against the loss of open space to competing land uses in Local Development Plans (LDPs) irrespective of its physical condition and appearance. Any exception to this general approach should only be appropriate where it is demonstrated that redevelopment would bring substantial community benefit that outweighs the loss of open space; or where it is demonstrated that the loss of open space will have no significant detrimental impact.
34. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out planning policies for the protection of open space, the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development and the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation.
Protection of Open Space
35. Policy OS1 – Protection of Open Space, endorses strategic policy objectives. It states that planning authorities will not permit development that would result in the loss of existing open space or land zoned for the provision of open space
6
and that the presumption against the loss of existing open space will apply irrespective of its physical condition and appearance.
36. The application site has not been designated as an area of open space in a development plan, however it is deemed to be an area of existing open space, by reason of its typology and function as set out in Annex A of PPS 8 (despite its dense vegetation).
37. The physical condition of the land is irrelevant and there is a presumption against development that will result in its loss as open space.
Outdoor Recreation in the Countryside
38. Policy OS3 – Outdoor Recreation in the Countryside states that development for proposals for outdoor recreational use in the countryside will be permitted were a number of policy criteria are met.
39. This application involves the development a new play park and amenity area within the Forest Park outside the settlement limits of Hillsborough.
40. The scheme will not impact on features of importance to nature conservation, archaeology or built heritage as the existing vegetation and trees are to be retained. HED have indicated that they are content with the proposal subject to conditions relating to a programme of archaeological works are attached to an approval.
41. The site is located within a forested area. The development will not therefore result in permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and no unacceptable impact on nearby agricultural activities will occur.
42. The sites location within the forest means that there will be no adverse impact on visual amenity or the character of the local landscape. The nature of the proposed play park areas are designed to be readily absorbed into the forest environment by taking advantage of existing vegetation and/or topography.
43. The closest dwellings are some 90 metres distant from the application site and as such, no unacceptable impacts on the amenities of people living nearby will arise.
44. The site is located within the grounds of Hillsborough Forest Park. It is currently an outdoor recreation attraction with pleasant pedestrian trails running beyond the eastern boundary of the site. A play park is considered to be compatible the existing recreational uses and no public safety concerns have been identified.
45. No buildings are proposed as part of the development. There are climbing structures in the form of castles, a tree house, a tower and a rope net associated with the various play areas. They are all of a bespoke design, made
7
with forest style wooden materials which are considered to be sympathetic to the surrounding environment in terms of their siting, layout and landscape treatment.
46. The proposed facility takes into account the needs of people with disabilities and is, as far as possible, accessible by means of transport other than the private car. The site will be accessed via an existing wide pedestrian path, with similar new paths running through the park, all of which will be accessible to people with disabilities.
47. The road network can safely handle the extra vehicular traffic the proposal will attract and satisfactory arrangements are provided for access, parking, drainage and waste disposal.
48. The proposed development will serve to enhance this existing area of open space, providing children’s play areas which in turn will bring substantial community benefits.
49. It will provide an area for both amenity and recreation purposes within the forest setting, whilst maintaining the nature conservation and biodiversity of the area as no existing large trees are to be removed.
Impact on Biodiversity
50. The SPPS states sustaining and enhancing biodiversity is fundamental to furthering sustainable development. The regional strategic objectives for natural heritage are to:
- Protect, conserve, enhance and restore the abundance, quality, diversity and distinctiveness of the region’s natural heritage; - Further sustainable development by ensuring that natural heritage and associated diversity is conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, economic and environmental development; - Assist in meeting international (including European), national and local responsibilities and obligations in the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage; - Contribute to rural renewal and urban regeneration by ensuring developments take account of the role and value of natural heritage in supporting economic diversification and contributing to a high quality environment; and - Take actions to reduce our carbon footprint and facilitate adaptation to climate change.
51. Policy ENV1 of draft BMAP - Protection of Biodiversity states that planning permission will not be granted for development where there is potential for damage or harm to the integrity, continuity, links or ecological relationships of those habitats and species which are identified as priorities in the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Strategy, or are otherwise of major importance for flora and fauna.
8
52. The site is located within Hillsborough Local Landscape Policy Area (Designation HH 08). Policy ENV - Local Landscape Policy Areas states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would be liable to adversely affect those features, or combination of features, that contribute to environmental quality, integrity or character.
53. Within this policy context, the features that contribute to the environmental quality, integrity or character of this area are:
- Area of local nature conservation interest – Hillsborough Forest Park, a registered Historic Park and garden containing a lake, parkland, and mature trees and forest planting - Archaeological sites and monuments and their surroundings – The Park contains and Artillery Fort and Rath, both of which are state care monuments - Listed buildings and their surroundings – St Malachi’s Church, its gateway, screen and lodges, together with the War Memorial on Main Street.
54. The proposed children’s play park will not detrimentally affect any of the features identified above. The scheme is designed to blend into the natural forest environment and to complement the existing amenity function of the forest park.
55. Conditions to ensure any archaeological interests are protected and accounted for through a programme of works are recommended. The proposal is sufficiently removed from any listed buildings so as not to cause any adverse effects on their setting.
56. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage sets out the planning policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.
57. Policy NH2 – Species Protected by Law states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm a European protected species.
58. Policy BH 5 – Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to know habitats, species or features of natural heritage importance.
59. These policy tests states that a development which is likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to, habitats, species or features may only be permitted where the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the value of the habitat, species or feature. In such case, policy directs that appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measure will be required.
9
60. A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) was commissioned to identify whether there were any known or potential ecological receptors (nature conservation designations, and protected and notable habitats and species) that may constrain or influence the design and implementation of the proposed works. The appraisal followed the guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Construction Management.
61. The appraisal indicated that a desk study and an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey including an assessment of the sites suitability to host protect species was carried out.
62. In summary, the PEA advises that . No sites with statutory designations for nature conservation were identified within 2km of the application site; . Hillsborough Park Lake SLNCI was identified as being in close proximity to the site, however the SLNCI will not be impacted by the proposed development; . Fifteen parcels of long established woodland were noted within 2km of the proposed play park area, three were within Hillsborough Forest Park but none within the application site; . The site is dominated by woodland habitats, an area of ruderal vegetation and four disused buildings. There are no habitats of suitable size or quality to be considered NI Priority Habitats on Site; . There is ample habitat for bats within the site and the wider forest park for foraging and commuting corridors. One building (B01) has low suitability for roosting bats. Should it be impacted by this proposed development then an emergence/re-entry survey is recommended. . Suitable habitats occur onsite for badger and pine marten. No evidence was found during this survey however pre-construction surveys to confirm likely absence are required. . Habitats on site provide ample foraging and nesting opportunities for birds. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of the breeding season, or under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. . No invertebrates which are priority species were identified during the survey. Methods to create and enhance habitats within the site for invertebrates should be incorporated into the final designs for the project. . As a public body, LCCC has a duty to conserve biodiversity. Measures should be implemented throughout the design process to create and enhance habitats for biodiversity. An appropriate experienced ecologist should be consulted during this process in order to advice on these matters.
63. The Natural Environment Division of NIEA sought clarification on the categorisation of the structure B01 identified in the PEA as having Bat Roost Potential and how it was shown on drawing No 5 to be removed as part of the development.
64. In response to comments from NED, A Bat Roost and Activity Survey was submitted by the Agent on 19 February 2019. The report was based on survey work undertaken in May 2018.
10
65. The building referred to in the PEA as B01 is noted as the Chainsaw building in the Bat Roost and Activity Survey dated May 2018.
66. It is understood that the removal of the building identified as B01 in the PEA does not form part of the current application but rather it is being removed by Forest Service as a programme of enabling works prior to the transfer of the land to the Council under a lease agreement.
67. NED in a response received on 21 February 2019 confirmed that it has considered the impacts of the proposal on designated sites and other natural heritage interests and on the basis of the information provided has no concerns subject to recommendations.
68. The response notes that whilst no bats were recorded emerging or re-entering the structure during the survey provides that clear evidence of bats roosting in the structure was evident.
69. The response also welcomes the decision to retain all existing trees as per drawing number 05 date stamped 21 December 2018 and that no additional lighting is proposed. NED has indicated that the proposed mitigation measures recommended in the report should be carried out.
70. In light of the advice provided, it is contended that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on any other existing natural heritage interests associated with the site.
Impact on Archaeological Interests
71. The SPPS states that regional strategic objectives for archaeology and built heritage are to: - Secure the protection, conservation and, where possible, the enhancement of our built and archaeological heritage; - Promote sustainable development and environmental stewardship with regard to our built and archaeological heritage; and - Deliver economic and community benefit through conservation that facilitates productive use of built heritage assets and opportunities for investment, whilst safeguarding their historic or architectural integrity.
72. The site is located within a Historic Park, Garden and Demesne of Hillsborough Castle designation (HH 15) in draft BMAP and in a Historic Parks and Garden designation (HC4) in the Lisburn Area Plan 2001.
73. It was the site of a former house and surrounding ornamental grounds, containing a lake, parkland, an artillery fort, mature trees and forest planting. It is identified in the plan as making a valuable contribution to the quality and character of the local landscape.
11
74. Prevailing regional policy for the protection Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of special historic interest is set out in PPS 6 – Planning, Archaeology and Built Heritage which sets out planning polices for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.
75. Policy BH 6 – The Protection of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest states that planning authorities will not normally permit development which would lead to the loss of, or cause harm to the character, principal components or setting of parks, gardens and demesnes or special historic interest. Where planning permission is granted, this will normally be conditional on the recording of any features of interest which will be lost before development commences.
76. An Archaeological Impact Assessment report received with the application, notes on page 15 that the scheme is to be set well outside the Conservation Area and Area of Archaeological Potential and that it will not impact upon either.
77. It also notes that the scheduled area associated with Hillsborough Fort is located approximately 540 metres from the site while St Malachys Parish Church is located approximately 676 metres away. The assessment indicates that the scheme is located to the south east across Hillsborough Lake and views between it and the assets are screened by intervening tree cover. The distance from these assets is such that noise from construction should not adversely impact on the setting.
78. The archaeological assessment advises that an examination of the site location and level of previous disturbance suggests that the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological features, deposits and artefacts to exist in situ is low. That said, it is recommended that further investigations are carried out post decision.
79. Historic Environment Division (HED) - Historic Monuments (HM) has reviewed the submitted Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA), dated 21 Dec 2018.
80. Their response advises that it has adequately considered the impacts of the proposal and having considered the detail associated with the application has confirmed that it is content that the proposal satisfies PPS 6 policy requirements, subject to conditions for the agreement and implementation of a developer-funded programme of archaeological works. This is to identify and record any archaeological remains in advance of new construction, or to provide for their preservation in situ, in accordance with Policy BH 4 of PPS 6.
81. The conditions seek to ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified, and protected or appropriately recorded and that works are monitored to ensure that identification, evaluation and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work is satisfactorily completed.
12
82. Based on the detail submitted and advice from HED – HM, it is contended that the proposed development satisfies the policy tests associated with PPS 6 subject to conditions.
Access, Movement and Parking
83. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.
84. The P1 Form indicates that the access arrangements for this development involve the use of an existing unaltered access to a public road and that the access is for pedestrian use.
85. DfI Roads commented initially that the scale of the proposed development was unclear and clarification was requested. In response to the initial comments, DfI Roads was advised that the detail associated with the play park application noted that that the access arrangements involved the use of an existing unaltered access to a public road and that access is for pedestrian use. In light it was not considered necessary for a redline drawing to be provided connecting the play park to the existing car park area and/or the public road.
86. In relation to comments made at point 2 of their response, it is noted the Parking Standard in respect of developments/uses involving Public Open Spaces requires 4 spaces per hectare. In this case, the area associated with the application measures approximately 0.5 hectares. No new parking is required in association with the proposed development.
87. With regard to comments made at point 3, it is contended that planning application LA05/2019/0018/F does not propose car parking and as such, it is not considered necessary to provide a fully dimensioned engineering drawing to show the parking area and spaces in accordance with Parking Standards within the context of this application. This detail will however be requested and provided within the context of planning application LA05/2019/0019/F and should assist DfI Roads with their overall assessment.
88. DfI Roads having reviewed a fully dimensioned engineering drawing to show the parking area and spaces within the context of planning application LA05/2019/0019/F confirmed verbally on 15 February 2019 that they were content with the principle of the proposed play park.
Planning and Flood Risk
89. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out planning policies to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment.
Development in Fluvial (River) and Coastal Flood Plains
13
90. Policy FLD 1 – Development in Fluvial (River) and Coastal Flood Plains states that development will not be permitted within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain or the 1 in 200 year coastal flood plain unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal constitutes and exception to the policy.
91. Rivers Agency has advised that the Strategic Flood Map (NI) indicates that the development does not lie within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain and as such, they have no reason to object to the proposed development from a drainage or flood risk perspective.
Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure
92. Policy FLD 2 - Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure states that the planning authority will not permit development that would impeded the operational effectiveness of flood defence and drainage infrastructure or hinder access to enable their maintenance.
93. Within the context of this policy, Rivers Agency has advised that the site is unaffected by a designated watercourse and information available from OSNI maps did not reveal any obvious undesignated watercourses.
94. DfI Rivers does not keep a record of undesignated watercourses so the site may be affected by one. In the event that a watercourse is discovered during the development of the site the applicant should be aware that Policy FLD 2 will apply.
Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk Outside Flood Plains
95. Policy FLD 3 - Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk outside Flood Plains states that a drainage assessment will be required for all development proposals that exceed specified thresholds.
96. Rivers Agency has advised that the development is located on the periphery of a predicted flooded area as indicated on our Surface Water Flood Map and that a Drainage Assessment is not required in this case.
Artificial Modification of Watercourses
97. Policy FLD 4 - Artificial Modification of Watercourses states that planning authority will only permit the artificial modification of a watercourse in exceptional circumstances.
98. Rivers Agency has advised that based on the information submitted with the application, this policy test is not applicable.
Development in Proximity to Reservoirs
14
99. Policy FLD 5 Development in Proximity to Reservoirs states that new development will only be permitted with the potential flood inundation area of a controlled reservoir under certain circumstances and a presumption against development within the potential flood inundation area for certain proposals.
100. Rivers Agency has advised that based on the information submitted with the application that this policy test is not applicable and advise that all liability in respect of flood risk lies with the developers or owners in respect of the application site or other land.
Conclusions
101. Based on careful assessment of the policy and all relevant material considerations the proposed development is found to be acceptable as the detailed layout, arrangement and design of the play park will create a quality play area within an existing woodland setting. It is in accordance with the requirements of LAP, draft BMAP and regional policy set out in the SPPS, PPS 21 and PPS 8. 102. It does not affect the setting of built heritage features and does not harm any identified natural heritage assets. It is in accordance with the regional policy requirements of the SPPS, PPS 2 and PPS 6.
103. It is also considered that the provision of the forest style play equipment, as part of wider plans to provide a variety of new facilities at Hillsborough Forest Park, developing it as a visitor destination will bring substantial community benefits for both amenity and recreation purposes whilst maintaining the nature conservation and biodiversity of the area.
Recommendation
104. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.
Conditions
105. The following conditions are recommended
. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
. No works shall be carried out on the structure identified as BO1 in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal date stamped 21 December 2018 until a European Protected Species Licence has been obtained. Reason: To ensure protection to bats and their roosts.
15
. No site works of any nature or development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been implemented, in accordance with a written scheme and programme prepared by a qualified archaeologist, submitted by the applicant and approved by the Department. The programme should provide for the identification and evaluation of archaeological remains within the site, for mitigation of the impacts of development, through excavation recording or by preservation of remains, and for preparation of an archaeological report. Reason: to ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified, and protected or appropriately recorded.
. Access shall be afforded to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Department for Communities – Historic Environment Division to observe the operations and to monitor the implementation of archaeological requirements. Reason: to monitor programmed works in order to ensure that identification, evaluation and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work required by condition, or agreement is satisfactorily completed.
. The existing vegetation within the site, as indicated on approved plan No. 05 bearing the date stamp 21st December 2018, shall be retained. If any retained tree is removed, dies, or is seriously damaged within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building, another tree or hedge of a native species shall be planted during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing trees and hedges.
. During the first planting season, after the commencement of the operations, the planting scheme shall be carried out in accordance to the stamped approved plan No. 05 bearing the date stamp 21st December 2018. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.
. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
16
Site Location Plan – LA05/2019/0018/F
17
18
APPENDIX 1.10
Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Committee 4 March 2019 Meeting
Committee Interest Local Application (Mandatory)
Application Reference LA05/2019/0019/F
Date of Application 21 December 2018
District Electoral Area Downshire West Environmental improvements works comprising the Proposal Description rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees. Introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables
Location Hillsborough Forest Park, Park Street Hillsborough BT26 6AL
Representations None
Case Officer Sinead McCloskey
Recommendation Approval
Summary of Recommendation
1. This is a local application.
2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the application is a Mandatory Application, as it made by the Council.
3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as the detailed layout, arrangement and design of the carpark, associated footpath and amenity facilities are considered to be acceptable within the context of the Forest Park.
4. The improvements will add to the quality recreational experience without causing unacceptable damage to the nature conservation or biodiversity attributes of the forest park and its surroundings.
1
5. With regard to natural heritage interests, clarification provided by the Agent has confirmed that all trees were individually assessed for the Potential Roost Features for bats in the area and that none of the trees that are due to be removed/felled as part of the car park redevelopment have any bat roost potential.
6. It is therefore considered that the development is not likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to known habitats, species or features of natural heritage importance.
7. Whilst the site is identified as being wholly within the inundation area of Hillsborough Park Lake which is a controlled reservoir, the proposed development is relatively small, with minor changes to the existing ground levels and/or function/use.
8. In light of this, and with the condition assurance in place, it is accepted that the development will not impact the flow path in the unlikely event of a breach in the dam.
9. The proposal is in accordance with the requirements of LAP, draft BMAP and regional policy set out in the SPPS, PPS3, PPS 8 and PPS 15.
10. It does not affect the setting of built heritage features and does not harm any identified natural heritage assets. It is in accordance with regional policy requirements of the SPPS, PPS2 and PPS 6.
Description of Site and Surroundings
11. The application site is located within the southwest extent of Hillsborough Castle/Hillsborough Forest Park at the entrance to the park from Park Street. The ground surface consists of a tarmac road which shows evidence of disturbance from service trenches.
12. The access road continues southeast into the forest park crossing over the outfall from Hillsborough Lake. The outfall is a modern structure constructed with concrete block and brick with a spill weir before the outfall runs under the road.
13. The road continues southeast with two car parks located to the west and east. The car park to the west is the larger of the two measuring approximately 64m north to south by 40m wider with a central island. This island is grassed with mature trees.
2
14. The car park to the east measures 48 metres northwest to southeast by 39m wide. A large grassed island occupies the west of this car park and this too contains mature trees.
15. A picnic area is located to the immediate east of the carpark. This is a grassed area containing several picnic tables and mature trees. It is physically separated from the car park by a wooden fence.
Proposed Development
16. The application is for environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees. Introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables.
17. The proposal also involves the felling of trees within the Conservation Area.
Relevant Planning History
18. The relevant planning history is set out in the table below:
Reference Description Decision S/2010/0410/F Construct a memorial plaque on Permission Granted rock boulder to sit off access-way 26.06.2010 between Hillsborough Forest Car Park and Hillsborough Lake
Planning Policy Context
19. The relevant planning policy and guidance context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Local Development Plan (Lisburn Area Plan 2001 and draft BMAP 2015) . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 – Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 - Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation Planning Policy Statement 15 – Planning and Flood Risk
3
Consultations
20. The following consultations were carried out:
Consultee Response DfI Roads Content in Principle NIEA Content subject to conditions
Environmental Health No objections Unit
Rivers Agency No objection subject to Schedule 6 consent
Historic Environment Content subject to conditions Division – Historic Monuments
NI Water No objection but stated that a formal sewer connection application must be made for all developments.
Forest Service No Comment
Representations
21. No representations have been received in respect of this proposal.
Consideration and Assessment
22. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Access, Movement and Parking . Impact on Biodiversity Interests . Impact on Archaeological Interests - The Protection of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest - Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building - New Development in Conservation Area . Open Space, Sport and Recreation . Planning and Flood Risk
4
Local Development Plan
23. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
24. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.
25. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.
26. The site is located to the west of Hillsborough Park Lake within the settlement development limit of Hillsborough, within its Conservation Area Designation, and an area of existing open space and within a Local Landscape Policy Area and Historic Park, Garden and Demesne.
27. As there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.
Principle of Development
28. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.
29. The SPPS indicates that the guiding principle for planning authorities in determining planning applications is that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.
30. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.
31. The application proposes environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees. Introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables.
5
32. As there is no distinguishable difference between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and prevailing policy tests against which the proposal is assessed.
Access, Movement and Parking
33. Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.
34. The P1 Form associated with the application indicates that the access arrangements for this development involve the use of an existing unaltered access to a public road and that the access is for pedestrian use.
35. An associated Transport Assessment Form identifies the following works associated with the scheme aimed at better facilitating the currently oversubscribed car parks. . Reorganisation and expansion of the existing car parks from 82 spaces to 143 car parking spaces; . Resurfacing and widening lake side path including replacement of two foot bridges; . Installation of digital sculpture trail of 16 pieces of sculpture through the forest; . Installation of play area within the forest for toddlers to teams including two play trails leading to the play areas; . Sized to cater for a social enterprise café which is not part of the current application
36. The Transport Form indicates that the current opening hours for the park are from dawn to dusk and that it is expected that these hours will remain.
37. The findings of the Transport Assessment are informed by a traffic survey carried out at the entrance. Two automated traffic counters were placed on Park Street, Hillsborough between 5 – 13th September at either side of the entrance to Hillsborough Forest carpark. The survey identified the average daily peak periods were between 11:00 – 13:00, where a total of 172 two way vehicular trips were made. Sunday was identified as the overall peak day, with a total of 1,291 vehicles entering and exiting the car park on Sunday 9th September.
38. The data collected not only provided useful information to determine traffic volumes utilising the car park, but it was also interpreted to determine occupancy levels within the car park throughout the duration of the survey. It was noted that although 82 spaces are marked on site, a number of occasions recorded vehicles exceeding this amount, with vehicles using overspill parking along the road or in unmarked areas of the car park.
39. It is anticipated that the observed forest park trips will not change significantly, but the proposal aims to better facilitate the currently oversubscribed car parks.
6
40. The proposed development will have 143 car parking spaces, and increase of 61 spaces. There are currently 82 spaces. A further 15 spaces are required for peak times. Spare capacity is provided for proposals that may emerge in the future and while these are not assessed the ambition to grow the offer at Hillsborough is set out in a number of strategy documents and it is better to provide more paring now than have to give further consideration to this at a later date.
41. At present, there are no cycle networks or paths in the vicinity of the site. However, it is anticipated that visitors will bring or make use of bikes at the site, therefore to facilitate visitors 3 cycle stands will be provided. A proposed footpath is included within the application to help aid pedestrian movement through the car park.
42. DfI Roads requested clarification by way of a fully dimensioned engineering drawing (with the trees removed for clarity) showing the layout of the parking spaces, the parking spaces clearly numbered and the dimensions showing the distance between blocks of parking, in accordance with PPS 3 Parking Standards (published by DoE).
43. Clarification was provided by the Agent and DfI confirmed verbally on 15 February 2019 that they were content with the principle of the works associated with the application and that the reconfiguration and enhancements will not compromise traffic movements and conditions of general road safety.
Impact on Biodiversity
44. The SPPS states sustaining and enhancing biodiversity is fundamental to furthering sustainable development. The regional strategic objectives for natural heritage are to: - Protect, conserve, enhance and restore the abundance, quality, diversity and distinctiveness of the region’s natural heritage; - Further sustainable development by ensuring that natural heritage and associated diversity is conserved and enhanced as an integral part of social, economic and environmental development; - Assist in meeting international (including European), national and local responsibilities and obligations in the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage; - Contribute to rural renewal and urban regeneration by ensuring developments take account of the role and value of natural heritage in supporting economic diversification and contributing to a high quality environment; and - Take actions to reduce our carbon footprint and facilitate adaptation to climate change.
45. Policy ENV1 of draft BMAP - Protection of Biodiversity states that planning permission will not be granted for development where there is potential for damage or harm to the integrity, continuity, links or ecological relationships of those habitats and species which are identified as priorities in the Northern
7
Ireland Biodiversity Strategy, or are otherwise of major importance for flora and fauna.
46. The site is located within Hillsborough Local Landscape Policy Area (Designation HH 08). Policy ENV - Local Landscape Policy Areas states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would be liable to adversely affect those features, or combination of features, that contribute to environmental quality, integrity or character.
47. Within this policy context, the features that contribute to the environmental quality, integrity or character of this area are: - Area of local nature conservation interest – Hillsborough Forest Park, a registered Historic Park and garden containing a lake, parkland, and mature trees and forest planting - Archaeological sites and monuments and their surroundings – The Park contains and Artillery Fort and Rath, both of which are state care monuments - Listed buildings and their surroundings – St Malachi’s Church, its gateway, screen and lodges, together with the War Memorial on Main Street.
48. The application proposes environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park, facilitated through the removal of the existing picnic area and relevant trees. It also includes the introduction of a footpath, cycle stands, replacement trees and picnic tables.
49. It is contended that these environmental improvement works will not detrimentally affect any of these features of the LLPA. The works will enhance and complement the existing amenity attraction of the forest park. Conditions will be added to ensure any archaeological interests are protected and accounted for through a programme of works. The proposal is sufficiently removed from the listed building so as not to cause any adverse effects on their setting.
50. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage sets out the planning policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.
51. Policy NH2 – Species Protected by Law states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm a European protected species.
52. Policy NH 5 – Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to know habitats, species or features of natural heritage importance.
53. These policy tests states that a development which is likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to, habitats, species or features may only be permitted where the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the value of the habitat, species or feature. In such case, policy
8
directs that appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measure will be required.
54. A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) was commissioned to identify whether there were any known or potential ecological receptors (nature conservation designations, and protected and notable habitats and species) that may constrain or influence the design and implementation of the proposed works. The appraisal followed the guidelines published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Construction Management.
55. The assessment advises that the proposal is part of wider plans to provide a variety of new facilities and entrance features for biodiversity within Hillsborough Forest Park. It also notes that the proposed works to extend the existing carpark will involve the clearance of approximately 20 trees located in an area of amenity grassland.
56. The appraisal indicated that a desk study and an extended Phase 1 Habitat survey including an assessment of the sites suitability to host protect species was carried out.
57. In summary, the PEA advises that
. The site is currently dominated by the existing hard standing car park surrounded by broad leaved semi natural and mixed woodland, broad leaved parkland with scattered trees and a stream running from the north of the site to the south west corner which is largely culverted. . No sites with statutory designations for nature conservation were identified within 2km of the application site; . Hillsborough Park Lake SLNCI was identified as being adjacent to but not within the site boundary. . Fifteen parcels of long established woodland were noted within 2km of the proposed development area, a portion of one of these lies within the redline boundary; large mature remnant trees of the long-established woodland will be retained and incorporated into the design. Habitat connectivity will be maintained. . The stream is a NI Priority Habitat but is not to be directly impacted by this proposed development. Pollution Prevention guidelines will be followed during construction. . There is ample habitat for bats within the site and the wider forest park for foraging and commuting corridors. Four trees on site had PRF suitable for roosting bats. These are large mature oaks and a yew, all to be retained as part of the designed layout with root protection zones implemented. No further bat surveys was recommended. . Suitable habitat for badgers to forage exists on site. However, it is not considered suitable for badger setts and no further surveys was recommended. . Suitable habitats occur onsite for badger and pine marten. No evidence was found during this survey however pre-construction surveys to confirm likely absence are recommended.
9
. Habitats on site provide ample foraging and nesting opportunities for birds. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of the breeding season, or under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. . No invertebrates which are priority species were identified during the survey. Methods to create and enhance habitats within the site for invertebrates should be incorporated into the final designs for the project. . As a public body, LCCC has a duty to conserve biodiversity. Measures should be implemented throughout the design process to enhance remaining habitats for biodiversity, particularly the woodland habitats by the removal of non-native species, the planting of native ground flora, and the restriction of public access to certain areas to reduce disturbance.
58. The Natural Environment Division (NED) of NIEA sought clarification on the location of the trees identified as having Bat Roost Potential.
59. Clarification provided by the Agent confirmed that all trees were individual assessed for the Potential Roost Features for bats in the area and that none of the trees that are due to be removed/felled as part of the car park redevelopment have any bat roost potential.
60. In a response received on 21 February 2019, NED confirmed that the concerns raised in their previous consultation dated 15 February 2019 had been addressed.
61. They indicated that they were content that the trees scheduled to be removed, did not contain bat roost potential and as such, no further action with regard to bats was required. Their response noted that the trees did have the potential to support nesting birds and that all active nests are protected under the Wildlife Order.
62. NED noted that rhododendron had been recorded on the site and advised that whilst it was not scheduled as an invasive species in Northern Ireland, it still has the potential to aggressively spread across the site and significantly reduce local biodiversity.
63. In light of the advice provided, it is contended that the proposed development will not cause harm to any identified natural heritage assets and that it is in accordance with the regional policy requirements of the SPPS and PPS 2.
Impact on Archaeological Interests
64. The SPPS states that regional strategic objectives for archaeology and built heritage are to: - Secure the protection, conservation and, where possible, the enhancement of our built and archaeological heritage; - Promote sustainable development and environmental stewardship with regard to our built and archaeological heritage; and
10
- Deliver economic and community benefit through conservation that facilitates productive use of built heritage assets and opportunities for investment, whilst safeguarding their historic or architectural integrity.
65. The site is located in Designation a Historic Park, Garden and Demesne of Hillsborough Castle designation HH 15 in draft BMAP and as a Historic Parks and Garden designation within Policy HC4 in Lisburn Area Plan 2001.
66. It was the site of a former house and surrounding ornamental grounds, containing a lake, parkland, an artillery fort, mature trees and forest planting. It is identified in the plan as making a valuable contribution to the quality and character of the local landscape.
67. Prevailing regional policy for the protection Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of special historic interest is set out in PPS 6 – Planning, Archaeology and Built Heritage which sets out planning polices for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.
68. The site is located within an area of archaeological potential associated with the area which dates to the Early Christian period, with the possibility that archaeological remains pre-dating the historic park could be present in the site.
69. Policy BH 6 – The Protection of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes of Special Historic Interest states that planning authorities will not normally permit development which would lead to the loss of, or cause harm to the character, principal components or setting of parks, gardens and demesnes or special historic interest. Where planning permission is granted, this will normally be conditional on the recording of any features of interest which will be lost before development commences.
70. An Archaeological Impact Assessment received with the application notes on page 15 that the scheme involves upgrades and extensions to the existing car parks with Hillsborough Forest Park and that this entails the removal of the existing picnic area and the majority of the existing islands.
71. The existing ground surface consists of a mixture of tarmac surface and grassed areas associated with the picnic area and islands. The areas of tarmac road surface will have been previously disturbed during the construction of the car park. The picnic area and islands have also been landscaped which includes the planning of trees.
72. It also advised that ground works associated with the creation of the tarmac surface and landscaping will have caused subsurface disturbance which may have negatively impacted upon any archaeological features or deposits which may exist. This disturbances will likely have been further compounded by tree root growth within the grassed areas. 73. The assessment acknowledges that the proposed development is located within the area of archaeological potential associated with the area which dates
11
to the Early Christian period with six recorded assets and two possible assets from this period within the vicinity.
74. Historic Environment Division (HED) - Historic Monuments (HM) has reviewed the submitted Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA), dated 21 Dec 2018. Their response advises that it has adequately considered the impacts of the proposal and having considered the detail associated with the application has confirmed that it is content that the proposal satisfies PPS 6 policy requirements, subject to conditions for the agreement and implementation of a developer-funded programme of archaeological works. This is to identify and record any archaeological remains in advance of new construction, or to provide for their preservation in situ, in accordance with Policy BH 4 of PPS 6.
75. The conditions seek to ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified, and protected or appropriately recorded and that works are monitored to ensure that identification, evaluation and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work is satisfactorily completed.
Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
76. Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building states that planning authorities will not normally permit development which would adversely affect the setting of a listed buildings. Development proposals will normally only be considered appropriate where a number of criteria are met.
77. The site is in close proximity to Friend’s meeting House (Grade B+) which is of special architectural and historic importance and is protected by Section 80 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.
78. The current parking facilities do not adversely affect the setting of the listed building and it is contended that the reorganisation of this space will not have an adverse impact.
79. A small number of trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate the reconfiguration. Within the wider context of the immediate area, the loss of a these trees and subsequent replacement will not have a detrimental impact on the area.
80. The works associated with the proposed development include an extension to the existing area of hardstanding with pathway improvements using gravel or bit-mac.
81. The parking bays will have permeable paving as will the proposed new footpath. Given the current use for parking, the extension to create additional parking is on balance considered to be acceptable. The other materials are sympathetic to the natural woodland surroundings and will not adversely impact the listed building.
12
82. Historic Environment Division: Historic Buildings advised that the proposal will have no greater demonstrable harm on the setting of the listed building.
New Development in a Conservation Area
83. The application site is located within Hillsborough Conservation Area. Designated in 1976 for it is unique area encompassing the historic village core along with the parklands and Demesne of the Downshire Estate.
84. Policy UE 2 – Conservation Areas states that in Conservation Areas planning permission will only be granted for development proposals which meet the additional design criteria as set out for individual Conservation Areas in the District Proposals.
85. Policy HH14 – Hillsborough Conservation Area Additional Design Criteria outlines the details specific to this Conservation Area as follows: - There are no new or replacement buildings proposed with the application. The development will replicate the existing form, layout and materials already found within the car park. - The detailing and design is acceptable and of a high standard. - No brick detailing is to be used. - The proposal does not include extension or alterations to a terrace - The works will not disrupt any roof silhouettes - No historic structures are to be removed. - No historic ancillary structures are to be removed to facilitate vehicular access. - No enlargement of ground floor windows and doors are proposed as part of this application.
86. Policy BH 12 – New Development in a Conservation Area states that planning authorities will only permit development for new buildings, alterations, extensions and change of use in, or which impact on the setting of, a conservation areas where a number of criteria are met.
87. Within the context of these policy tests it is considered that the proposed environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park will serve to both preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Forest Park area.
88. The materials for the road replicate the existing hardstanding. The materials used for the retaining wall, footpath and car parking are sympathetic and in keeping with the natural woodland surroundings as they propose timber for the wall and permeable paving for the footpath and parking bays respecting the characteristic built form within and adjacent to the forested area. 89. Environmental problems such as noise, nuisance or disturbance arising from the development should not arise as visitor numbers are not expected to increase significantly as a result of the environmental improvement works. The
13
scheme will however provide improved facilities for existing users with opening hours remaining the same as present.
90. Views to and from the site will remain largely unaltered. The majority of the woodland area around the site is to be retained protecting current views.
91. There are no large, obtrusive structures proposed and the picnic area/benches and footpath will serve to enhance the natural settings.
92. The proposal necessitates the removal of 20 trees. The loss of these trees will be compensated for through the provision of 24 replacement trees. The removal of what is considered to be a relatively small number of trees in a mature woodland setting will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.
Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation
93. The regional strategic objectives for open space, sport and outdoor recreation are to: - Safeguard existing open spaces and sites identified for future such provision; - Ensure that areas of open space are provided as in integral part of new residential development and that appropriate arrangements are made for their management and maintenance in perpetuity; - Facilitate appropriate outdoor recreational activities in the countryside that do not negatively impact on the amenity of existing residents; - Ensure that new open space areas and sporting facilities are convenient and accessible for all sections of society, particularly children, older people and those with disabilities; - Achieve high standards of siting, design and landscaping for all new open space areas and sporting facilities; and - Ensure that the provision of new open space areas and sporting facilities is in keeping with the principles of environmental conservation and helps sustain and enhance biodiversity.
94. Strategic policy states that there will be a presumption against the loss of open space to competing land uses in Local Development Plans (LDPs) irrespective of its physical condition and appearance. Any exception to this general approach should only be appropriate where it is demonstrated that redevelopment would bring substantial community benefit that outweighs the loss of open space; or where it is demonstrated that the loss of open space will have no significant detrimental impact.
95. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out planning policies for the protection of open space, the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development and the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation.
14
96. Policy OS1 – Protection of Open Space, reiterates the policy objectives as set out in the SPPS by stating that planning authorities will not permit development that would result in the loss of existing open space or land zoned for the provision of open space. This presumption against the loss of existing open space will apply irrespective of its physical condition and appearance.
97. The application site is designated as an area of open space in draft BMAP. The land is however currently used as an existing car park serving Hillsborough Forest Park. It is consider that the reconfiguration of this space will bring substantial community benefits which outweigh the loss of this space and equal or better provision is created elsewhere with the provision of the new play area.
98. The scheme will provide an area for additional parking to better cater for visitors reducing the need for parking in residential areas outside the forest park. The a new footpath and picnic tables will enhance the recreation enjoyment of the park.
99. The reconfiguration and associated ancillary works are designed to enhance the forest setting whilst maintaining the nature conservation and biodiversity of the area. There will be minimal loss of trees, and those that need to be removed will be replaced.
Planning and Flood Risk
100. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out planning policies to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment.
Development in Fluvial (River) and Coastal Flood Plains
101. Rivers Agency had advised that the Strategic Flood Map (NI) indicates that the site lies within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain and as such the proposal is contrary to policy FLD1 of PPS 15.
102. It is however acknowledged the proposed development is very similar in nature to the existing and that the policy does provide for development in the Q100 flood plain area by exception with the applicant required to submit a Flood Risk Assessment.
103. Within the context of the exceptions tests, it is contended that the proposed environmental improvements works comprising the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park and the reconfiguration of the car park can be deemed an exception under section (d) in so far as it involves the reconfiguration of an existing car park space at the current location within the Q100 flood plain area and section (f) as it relates to works that are primarily associated with the use of the land for sport and outdoor recreational uses, amenity open space.
104. The Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment submitted with the application
15
indicates that 50% of the current carpark is hardstanding and 50% permeable ground.
105. It indicates at section 2.3 that the Hillsborough Lake outlet runs for approximately 215m mainly through a heavily vegetated area and that this forms the primary spill weir for the dam. It indicates that the river flows from east to west and that it is no longer designated where it is culverted in a 900mm diameter pipe.
106. The assessment advises that the river flows downstream for 63 metres before emerging on the downstream side of the carpark. The culverts outfall is found at the south western point, at this location the watercourse is open, flowing for approximately 120 metres before being culverted beneath the Dromore Road.
107. Flood modelling associated with the Assessments indicates that for a 1% AEP event, there is out of bank flooding from Hillsborough Lake Outlet and that this flooding covers approximately 30% of the car park in its existing state. This occurs due to flows from the outlet meeting the 900mm diameter pipe, which becomes overwhelmed and constricts flows. Waters then travel across the car park before returning to the open channel at the south western point of the site. Such an event results in a maximum depth of 232mm of flooding within the site.
108. The Assessment indicates that the proposed regrading works are situated outside of the 1% AEP event. That said, it is recommended that signage is incorporated into the works to make the public aware of the risk of flooding on the site.
109. The Assessment advises that DfI Rivers Flood Maps indicate that during the 3.3%).5% and 0.1% AEP pluvial events, the site has no risk from surface water flooding.
110. Rivers Agency having considered the detail of the Assessment has advised that policy FLD 1 has been satisfied.
Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure
111. Policy FLD 2 - Protection of Flood Defence and Drainage Infrastructure states that the planning authority will not permit development that would impede the operational effectiveness of flood defence and drainage infrastructure or hinder access to enable their maintenance.
112. Within the context of this policy, Rivers Agency has advised that a designated watercourse flows under the site and that the Policy states that a working strip of minimum width 5m is retained. They have also stated that the line of the culvert is shown on site layout drawing No. 03 and should be protected from impediments (including tree planting and hedges) or future unapproved development by way of a planning condition. Access it required to and from the maintenance strip should be available at all times.
16
113. Detail submitted by the Agent has indicated that the nature of the works ensure that no built development is occurring over the line of the designated culvert and a maintenance strip is to be maintained along the open stretch of watercourse.
114. Having reviewed the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Rivers Agency has confirmed that policy FLD 2 is satisfied.
Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk Outside Flood Plains
115. Policy FLD 3 - Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk outside Flood Plains states that a drainage assessment will be required for all development proposals that exceed specified thresholds.
116. Rivers Agency having considered the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessments noted that drainage calculations are provided to show an attenuation sized to cope with a 100 year event and that discharge is proposed to the watercourse at a greenfield rate. Their response notes that whilst Schedule 6 consent has been applied for, information has not been provided to demonstrate the viability of the proposal by means of letter from DfI Rivers.
117. The Agent has been asked to provide information to demonstrate the viability of the proposal by means of letter from DfI Rivers in relation to discharge to the water course. Schedule 6 consent is likely to be forthcoming and unlikely to result in a refusal of planning permission and the risks can be mitigated in advance of issuing the decision.
Artificial Modification of Watercourses
118. Policy FLD 4 - Artificial Modification of Watercourses states that planning authority will only permit the artificial modification of a watercourse in exceptional circumstances.
119. Rivers Agency has advised that under this policy, this can only be permitted where it is necessary to provide access to a development site, or for engineering reasons, and that this is a matter for Planning NI. Their response notes that the application does not propose the modification of a watercourse and as such policy FLD 4 is satisfied.
Development in Proximity to Reservoirs
120. Policy FLD 5 - Development in Proximity to Reservoirs states that new development will only be permitted with the potential flood inundation area of a controlled reservoir under certain circumstances and a presumption against development within the potential flood inundation area for certain proposals.
121. The policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that the condition (etc.) of the reservoir provides sufficient assurance regarding reservoir safety and the application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment.
17
122. Rivers Agency has advised that the site is wholly within the inundation area of Hillsborough Park Lake which is a controlled reservoir and that they do not hold sufficient information relating to the recent works on the reservoir to confirm that these have been completed to the satisfaction of the All Reservoirs Panel Engineer.
123. The Flood Risk Assessment indicates that Hillsborough Lake has two impoundment, West Dam and Church Dam, both with crest levels of 102.5mAOD. The West Dam has two spillways, a primary and auxiliary spillway. The spillways regulate the top water level of the lake, ensuring a controlled release during medium to large return periods. Both spillways feed into the Hillsborough Lake Outlet.
124. The Assessment advises at section 5.4.3 that a section 10 report, completed in 2013, identified that the spillway capacity was inadequate and made the resulting proposed works a matter of public safety. The works included the construction of the Auxiliary spillway as well as some minor crest works. Following the completion of these works, an All Reservoirs Panel Engineer reviewed the dams and concluded that the works were executed efficiently. An engineer signoff letter is associated with the assessment.
125. It is noted in the assessment that whilst the risk of flooding due to a breach in the Dam is recognised, there is a very low possibility of failure given the works undertaken.
126. The assessment states that as the proposed development is relatively small, with minor changes to the existing ground levels and/or function/use. With the condition assurance in place, it is accepted that the development will not impact the flow path in the unlikely event of a breach in the dam.
127. Rivers having considered the detail of the associated letter has confirmed that they have no reason to disagree with this statement.
Conclusions
128. Based on careful assessment of the policy and all relevant material considerations the proposed development is found to be acceptable as the detailed layout, arrangement and design of the carpark and associated footpath and amenity facilities, will create a quality recreational facility within an existing area of woodland, and will not result in unacceptable damage to the nature conservation or biodiversity attributes of the locality.
129. With regard to natural heritage interests, clarification provided by the Agent has confirmed that all trees were individually assessed for the Potential Roost Features for bats in the area and that none of the trees that are due to be removed/felled as part of the car park redevelopment have any bat roost potential.
18
130. It is therefore considered that the development is not likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to known habitats, species or features of natural heritage importance
131. Whilst the site is identified as being wholly within the inundation area of Hillsborough Park Lake which is a controlled reservoir, the proposed development is relatively small, with minor changes to the existing ground levels and/or function/use.
132. In light of this, and with the condition assurance in place, it is accepted that the development will not impact the flow path in the unlikely event of a breach in the dam.
133. The proposal is in accordance with the requirements of LAP, draft BMAP and regional policy set out in the SPPS, PPS3, PPS8 and PPS15.
134. It does not affect the setting of built heritage features and does not harm any identified natural heritage assets. It is in accordance with the regional policy requirements of the SPPS, PPS 2 and PPS 6.
Recommendation
135. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.
Conditions
136. The following conditions are recommended:
. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
. No site works of any nature or development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been implemented, in accordance with a written scheme and programme prepared by a qualified archaeologist, submitted by the applicant and approved by the Department. The programme should provide for the identification and evaluation of archaeological remains within the site, for mitigation of the impacts of development, through excavation recording or by preservation of remains, and for preparation of an archaeological report. Reason: to ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified, and protected or appropriately recorded.
. Access shall be afforded to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Department for Communities – Historic
19
Environment Division to observe the operations and to monitor the implementation of archaeological requirements. Reason: to monitor programmed works in order to ensure that identification, evaluation and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work required by condition, or agreement is satisfactorily completed.
. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs shall take place between 1 march and 1 August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a detailed check for active birds’ nests immediately before clearance and provided written confirmation that no nests are present/birds will be harmed and/or there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting birds. Any such written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within 6 weeks of works commencing. Reason: To protect breeding birds.
. The existing vegetation within the site, as indicated on approved plan No. 03 bearing the date stamp 10th January 2019, shall be retained. If any retained tree is removed, dies, or is seriously damaged within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building, another tree or hedge of a native species shall be planted during the next planting season. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by the existing trees and hedges.
. During the first planting season, after the rationalisation and extension of the existing car park becomes operational, the planting scheme shall be carried out in accordance to the stamped approved plan No. 03 bearing the date stamp 10th January 2018. Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.
. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.
• No operation hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing No. 03 bearing the date stamp 10th January 2019, to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.
20
Site Location Plan – LA05/2019/0019/F
21
APPENDIX 2.1 (a) Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council
Council/Committee Planning Committee
Date of Meeting 4 March 2019
Responsible Officer Conor Hughes
Date of Report 23 January 2019
File Reference LA05/2019/0056/PAN
Legislation Section 27 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011
Subject Pre-Application Notice (PAN) for a proposed Fertiliser Storage Compound Extension (Greenfield fertilisers) fencing, landscaping/bunding, access and ancillary site works at lands approximately 20metres south of the existing greenfield fertilisers factory at 20 Glenavy Road, Ballynanaghten, Co Antrim, BT 67 0LT and north of Soldierstown Road.
Attachments PAN Form and Site Location Plan
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the detail of a Pre-Application Notice (PAN) for a proposed extension to a Fertiliser Storage Compound (Greenfield Fertilisers) fencing, landscaping, bunding, access and ancillary site works at lands approximately 20metres south of the existing Greenfield Fertilisers factory at 20 Glenavy Road, Ballynanaghten, Co Antrim, BT 67 0LT and north of Soldierstown Road.
Background Detail
2. Section 27 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that a prospective applicant, prior to submitting a major application must give notice to the appropriate council that an application for planning permission for the development is to be submitted.
3. It is stipulated that there must be at least 12 weeks between the applicant giving the notice (through the PAN) and submitting any such application.
4. The PAN for the extension to the fertiliser storage compound fencing, landscaping, bunding, access and ancillary site works was received on 23 January 2019.
5. The earliest possible date for the submission of a planning application is towards the end of week commencing 15 April 2019.
1
Consideration of PAN Detail
6. Section 27 (4) stipulates that the PAN must contain:
A description in general terms of the development to be carried out; 7. The description associated with the FORM PAN 1 is for an extension to the fertiliser storage compound, fencing, landscaping, bunding, access and ancillary site works.
8. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that a description in general terms of the development to be carried out has been provided.
The postal address of the site, (if it has one);
9. The postal address identified on the FORM PAN 1 as lands approximately 20 metres south of the existing Greenfield Fertilisers factory at 20 Glenavy Road, Ballynanaghten, Co Antrim, BT 67 0LT and north of Soldierstown Road.
10. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that an adequate description of the location has been provided.
A plan showing the outline of the site at which the development is to be carried out and sufficient to identify that site; 11. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that a site location plan with the site outlined in red submitted with the PAN form is sufficient to identify the extent of the site.
Details of how the prospective applicant may be contacted and corresponded with; 12. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is noted that the FORM PAN1 and associated covering letter includes details of how the prospective applicant may be contacted and corresponded with.
13. The Form PAN1 includes the Agents name and address. Any person wishing to make comments on the proposals or obtain further information can contact the Clyde Shanks Ltd, 5 Oxford Street, Belfast, BT1 3LA.
14. In addition to the matters listed above, regulation 4 of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 sets out that a PAN must also contain the following.
A copy (where applicable) of any determination made under Regulation 7 (1)(a) of the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 in relation to the development to which the proposal of application notice relates;
2
15. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is noted that question 9 of the FORM PAN 1 indicates that no environmental impact assessment determination has been made.
16. It is accepted that this reference is made without prejudice to any future determination being made or the applicant’s volunteering an Environmental Statement.
A copy of any notice served by the Department under Section 26(4) or (6) i.e. confirmation (or not) of the Department’s jurisdiction on regionally significant developments
17. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is considered that the form of development proposed is not specified in the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 as a major development (i.e. regionally significant) prescribed for the purpose of section 26 (1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and it is noted that consultation with the Department has not taken place.
An account of what consultation the prospective applicant proposes to undertake, when such consultation is to take place, with whom and what form it will take
18. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 the account of what consultation the prospective applicant proposes to undertake, when such consultation is to take place, with whom and what form it will take has been provided.
The Form PAN1 indicates that a public consultation evening will take place at Maghaberry Community Centre, Maghaberry road, Maghaberry on 28 February 2019 from 5pm to 7pm.
The Notice indicates that the event will be advertised in the Ulster Star on 15 February 2019, at least 7 days prior to the event in accordance with legislative requirements.
The Form PAN1 provides details of other publicity methods: . A letter to be sent on 15 February 2019 to 11 identified properties within 100 metres of the site notifying them of the event.
Elected Members for the DEA identified will receive a copy of the Proposal of Application Notice on 15 February 2019.
Recommendation
19. In consideration of the detail submitted with the Pre-Application Notice (PAN), it is recommended that the Committee note the information submitted with the Notice.
3
Appendix 2.1b
Appendix 3.1
Park House Appeal 87/91 Great Victoria Street BELFAST Decision BT2 7AG T: 028 9024 4710 F: 028 9031 2536 E: [email protected]
Appeal Reference: 2018/A0084 Appeal by: Julian Crothers Appeal against: The refusal of outline planning permission Proposed Development: Two infill dwellings Location: Between stable and potting shed at 17 Old Coach Road Hillsborough Planning Authority: Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council Application Reference: LA05/2017/0597/O. Procedure: Written representations and Commissioner’s site visit on 10 January 2019 Decision by: Commissioner Pauline Boomer, dated 28 January 2019
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
2. The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle in the countryside and its impact on the visual amenity of the area.
3. Section 45 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires the Commission, in dealing with an appeal, to have regard to the local development plan (LDP), so far as it is material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP) was declared unlawful in May 2017. Therefore the Lisburn Area Plan 2001 (LAP) operates as the statutory LDP for the area in which the appeal site is located but provides no determining policies of proposals for dwellings in the countryside. The draft BMAP also contains no determining policies. The relevant planning policy context is provided by Planning Policy Statement 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS 21) which is identified by the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland - Planning for Sustainable Development (SPPS) as a retained policy document.
4. Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 sets out a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside. The appellant argued that the proposal was acceptable as a gap site in accordance with Policy CTY 8 of PPS 21.Policy CTY 8 states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. However Policy CTY8 also confirms that only in those circumstances where a site lies within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage comprising three or more buildings where each plot has a frontage onto a public road will an infill
2018/A0084 1 development be treated as an exception under Policy CTY 8. Paragraph 5.33 of the Justification and Amplification text states that for the purposes of this policy, a road frontage includes a footpath or private lane.
5. The site lies within and forms a small part of the sizeable curtilage of the single dwelling at No. 17. There currently are a number of buildings within the existing curtilage which extend in an easterly direction through the site accessed off an existing driveway. These include a large bungalow occupying an elevated position above road level (No. 17). Directly behind the bungalow lies a detached garage, with a sizeable corrugated iron barn positioned immediately east. A wooden L- shaped stable block in a poor state of repair sits directly east of that building.
6. On 22 December 2016, full approval was granted under LA05/2016/0022/F for the erection of a potting shed and greenhouse east of the original buildings within this extensive plot. At that time, a U-shaped stable block extended across the driveway with the laneway running through the middle opening into a courtyard. Approval was granted for the erection of a small potting shed and greenhouse, the former separated by approximately 40m from the existing stable building. Most of the original stable block and the courtyard has since been removed with only a small section of the building to the southern side retained and the driveway has been realigned and extended to serve the potting shed now almost completed. The appeal site incorporates the two small plots extending between the retained stable building and the potting shed and represents a sloping site overgrown at present and a flatter section further east covered in gravel. The most northerly section of the appeal site is enclosed in part by a ranch fence along the northern driveway and by retaining walls and pillars to the east and south. A separate 2nd driveway has been constructed to the southern side of the dwelling, enclosed by walls and pillars at both ends, providing access to the most eastern part of the appeal site. The appeal site boundaries extend beyond these retaining walls running through the plots to include the grassed area abutting that 2nd driveway. The northern driveway continues beyond the potting shed to serve a small gravelled yard.
7. The appellant argues that the appeal site represents an infill site, enclosed by the potting shed to the east and the stables, agricultural shed, garage and dwelling to the west. I acknowledge that the headnote policy or justification and amplification text do not indicate that the footpath or private lane must be of a particular size, type, have a particular width or finish. The appellant has mistakenly interpreted Policy CTY8 in concluding that a private lane includes a private driveway serving a single curtilage. In his Statement of Case he refers me to Appeal 2016/A0146 which was considered to meet the policy tests for infill development. However this involved a gap site which sits between two separate curtilages of No 34 Killens Road and Mountfield Lodge which collectively provided a line of three buildings, including a detached garage. In that case, the detached garage along with the two detached dwellings were found to create a substantial and built up frontage along that shared laneway and is therefore distinguishable from the appeal site.
8. In his Rebuttal, the appellant has referred me to an infill site for a single dwelling approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as an infill dwelling at land 35m north east of No 22 Bottier Road Moira under LA05/2016/1055/O. It is not good practise to submit additional information at rebuttal stage as the LPA does not have an opportunity to respond. I have however looked at the planning history
2018/A0084 2 submitted and it appears that this laneway identified on the block plan as a “shared laneway” served two residential dwellings each with separate curtilages as well as a commercial business. I therefore find that the use of a shared laneway which serves more than one curtilage makes it distinguishable from the appeal site which involves a single curtilage accessed off a private driveway.
9. Whilst there indeed are a number of buildings extending along one of the two driveways which run at right angles from the public road, I consider that these do not constitute a substantial and continuously built up frontage along a road, private lane or footpath. I acknowledge that the Justification and Amplification text of Policy CTY8 does refer to a “private lane”, but conclude that would require it to be a shared laneway which serves at least two separate curtilages to achieve the line of three or more buildings required to create a substantial and built up frontage along it, as applied in the two cases referred to me by the appellant. I agree with the LPA in their assessment that Policy CTY 8 does not apply to land within a single curtilage which is served by a private driveway and therefore the appeal site cannot represent a small gap site.
10. Policy CTY 8 seeks to introduce additional dwellings in gap sites where there is a public awareness of an existing line of buildings. I am satisfied that by extending along a private driveway within a private curtilage, it does not represent a gap site and the proposal does not meet the first test set out in Policy CTY8. As none of the buildings identified have separate defined frontages onto this driveway and neither party has attempted to address the 2nd element of Policy CTY8 which requires that it respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size, I must therefore conclude that the proposal also fails to meet this additional test in the policy.
11. For the reasons stated above, I have concluded that as the appeal site does not represent a gap site within a substantial and continuously built up frontage, the appeal proposal does not therefore constitute an exception in accordance with Policy CTY 8 and the 2nd reason for refusal is sustained. No persuasive overriding reasons were advanced as to why the development is essential and could not be located in a settlement. I therefore consider the LPA’s objection to the proposal in principle based on Policy CTY 1 to be well founded and the first reason for refusal is also sustained.
12. The third and fourth reasons for refusal addresses the issue of the visual impact of two proposed dwellings on this site. The LPA considers that the appeal proposal conflicts with Policy CTY13 as it lacks long established boundaries to aid integration. It also considers that it finds no support in Policies CTY 13 and CTY 14 as the proposed buildings would be unduly prominent in the landscape. The land rises steeply beyond the remnants of the stable block, levelling off in the eastern half of the site. Levels also rise in a southerly direction between the centrally placed retaining walls and the 2nd driveway. Enclosed by some ranch fencing to the north and a low wall and piers to the east, the southern and western boundaries of the appeal site are currently undefined. Whilst there is limited vegetation to the east of the potting shed and north of the overall curtilage, the appeal site itself lack any hedging or trees. I agree with the LPA that given its lack of established boundaries, it would fail to achieve a satisfactory level of integration and would be heavily reliant on new landscaping , contrary to criteria (b) and (c ) of Policy CTY13.
2018/A0084 3
13. This is an outline application and no details have been presented by the applicant about existing or proposed ground levels or proposed finished floor levels. The most easterly section of this 33m wide plot currently lies several metres above the finished floor level of the existing dwelling and even if only single storey in height as suggested by the appellant, would be visually prominent, occupying more elevated positions than the existing buildings to the west. It is unclear how it would be possible to install a single storey dwelling on these sloping sites without extensive infilling or excavation but any significant alterations to the levels within the appeal site would increase the overall visual impact of the proposed development. I acknowledge that the mature screening to the north of No 17 adequately screens the appeal site on the approach from the north as shown in Appendix 3 and that the main dwelling does screen the buildings behind as shown in Appendix 4, especially when approaching from the west. However on the approach from the south/ south west, there are clear views of the corrugated iron shed behind the main dwelling across the frontage of the adjacent agricultural field. I am satisfied that the two dwellings which would sit at a higher level would appear prominent in the landscape, even if restricted to single storey. I am not persuaded by the wireframe images presented in Appendices 5 and 6 of the Appellant’s submissions which indicated that the two additional dwellings would be substantially screened by intervening field and roadside vegetation. The appellant argues that only brief and partial views of the roofs of the two dwellings would be available through the gaps in the hedging and above the undulating topography when viewed from the southern approach. I share the LPA’s concerns that when travelling in a north easterly direction, at least the upper sections of the proposed buildings would be visible through those gaps in the roadside vegetation and I am not persuaded that these buildings would not be readily seen above the intervening field boundary, from where they would read as sitting on the skyline.
14. I conclude that in the absence of any details to confirm whether or not existing ground levels would be significantly altered, the elevated nature of the two plots and their lack of enclosure by vegetation would result in at least the roofline of the dwellings being visible from this critical viewpoint and their elevated position devoid of vegetation would also increase their prominence in the landscape. I therefore consider that the appeal proposal would fail to achieve a satisfactory level of integration contrary to Policy CTY13 and be unduly prominent in the landscape contrary to Criteria (a) of both Policies CTY 13 and CTY 14. I find that the LPA has sustained the 3rd and 4th reasons for refusal.
15. As I have found all four reasons for refusal sustained, the appeal must fail.
This decision is based on the 1:2500 site location plan date stamped received by the LPA on 7 June 2017.
COMMISSIONER PAULINE BOOMER
2018/A0084 4
2018/A0084
List of Documents
LPA 1 Statement of Case and Appendices from Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council
APP 1 Statement of case and Appendices from Appellant
APP 2 Rebuttal and Appendices from Appellant
Appendix 3.2
Statutory targets monthly update - April 2018 - January 2019 (unvalidated management information) Lisburn and Castlereagh Appendix 4
Local applications Cases concluded Major applications (target of 30 weeks) (target of 15 weeks) (target of 39 weeks)
% of cases % of cases % of cases Number Average processed Number Average processed Number "70%" concluded Number decided/ processing within 30 Number decided/ processing within 15 Number brought to conclusion within 39 recieved withdrawn1 time2 weeks recieved withdrawn1 time2 weeks opened conclusion3 time3 weeks April 1 1 495.6 0.0% 1 66 57 18.4 36.8% # 33 38 28.8 81.6% May 1 1 154.2 0.0% 1 77 133 16.2 45.9% # 23 28 9.8 89.3% June 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 84 92 16.3 48.9% # 16 1 60.4 0.0% July 1 2 45.3 50.0% 2 99 63 19.4 42.9% # 22 24 20.8 87.5% August 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 77 74 16.1 45.9% # 30 31 21.6 90.3% September 0 3 52.8 0.0% 3 61 57 15.0 50.9% # 20 12 19.4 83.3% October 1 3 112.8 0.0% 3 83 80 15.9 41.3% # 25 43 26.4 86.0% November 3 1 67.8 0.0% 1 79 86 20.7 30.2% # 27 21 18.8 85.7% December 2 - 0.0 0.0% 0 66 51 20.0 45.1% # 14 23 21.3 87.0% January 0 3 55.8 0.0% 3 63 65 23.4 44.6% # 26 22 39.0 72.7% February 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% March 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% Year to date 9 14 70.2 7.1% 755 758 18.0 43.3% 236 243 21.4 84.8% Source: NI Planning Portal
Notes: 1. CLUDS, TPOS, NMCS and PADS/PANs have been excluded from all applications figures
2. The time taken to process a decision/withdrawal is calculated from the date on which an application is deemed valid to the date on which the decision is issued or the application is withdrawn. The median is used for the average processing time as any extreme values have the potential to inflate the mean, leading to a result that may not be considered as "typical".
3. The time taken to conclude an enforcement case is calculated from the date on which the complaint is received to the earliest date of the following: a notice is issued; proceedings commence; a planning application is received; or a case is closed. The value at 70% is determined by sorting data from its lowest to highest values and then taking the data point at the 70th percentile of the sequence. Appendix 5
Our ref: 115868
30th January 2019
For the attention of the Planning Manager Planning Office Lagan Valley Island Lisburn Co Antrim BT27 4RL
Dear Sir or Madam
Notification submitted under Part 18 (Development by Electronic Communications Code Operators) of Article 3 of Schedule 1 to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 & Notification under the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 (as amended) to utilise permitted development rights at: Land to the rear of Sion Hill, 10 Ballygowan Road, Hillsborough, Co Down, BT23 6HS
Telefónica UK Limited has entered into an agreement with Vodafone Limited pursuant to which the two companies plan to jointly operate and manage a single network grid across the UK. These arrangements will be overseen by Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (CTIL) which is a joint venture company owned by Telefónica UK Limited and Vodafone Limited.
This agreement allows both organisations to: pool their basic network infrastructure, while running two, independent, nationwide networks maximise opportunities to consolidate the number of base stations significantly reduce the environmental impact of network development
Please accept this letter as a notification in accordance with the above Regulations
This letter provides formal notification in writing, 28 days notice in advance, of the intention to install electronic communications apparatus.
CTIL and Telefónica UK Ltd intends to utilise permitted development rights as set out in Part 18 (Development by Electronic Communications Code Operators) of Article 3 of Schedule 1 to the Planning (General Permitted Development) order (Northern Ireland) 2015
For the avoidance of doubt this letter does not constitute an application for planning permission. No fee is required for the notification
The proposed installation comprises –
Replacing 3 antennae and 12 RRU’s to rear of antennae on existing tower
It will be located as marked on the attached drawings at:
02 Compound to the rear of Sion Hill 10 Ballygowan Road Hillsborough Co Down BT26 6HS
It will deliver public benefit in terms of the mobile services it will provide
Finally, we enclose an ICNIRP Declaration and clarification statement
We trust that this information is useful in assisting you to maintain an accurate and up to date register of telecommunications installations. My clients are eager to initiate early development in order to integrate the radio base station at the above location. We would be grateful if you could provide your acknowledgement that the proposed electronic communications apparatus is permitted development at your earliest convenience.
Should you have any queries regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me (quoting cell number 41615)
Yours faithfully
Donna Sowerby Project Manager For Taylor Pattterson Surveyors Limited Contact Number 02890659555
(for and on behalf of CTIL and Telefónica UK Ltd)
Enc. Drawings ICNRIP Declaration & Clarification Statement General Background Information
Our ref: 115868
30th January 2019
For the attention of the Planning Manager Planning Office Lagan Valley Island Lisburn Co Antrim BT27 4RL
Dear Sir/Madam
CLARIFICATION OF THE DECLARATION OF ICNIRP COMPLIANCE ISSUED AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION ATTACHED FOR SITE AT REAR OF SION HILL, 10 BALLYGOWAN ROAD, HILLSBOROUGH, CO DOWN, BT23 6HS
I refer to the Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines (“ICNIRP Declaration”), sent with this application in relation to the proposed telecommunications installation as detailed above.
The “ICNIRP Declaration” certifies that the site is designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) guidelines of the International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for public exposure as expressed in the EU Council recommendation of July 1999.
This ICNIRP declaration takes into account the cumulative effect of the emissions from the proposed installation and all radio base stations present at, or near, the proposed location.
The radio emission compliance calculation is based upon the maximum possible cumulative values.
All operators of radio transmitters are under a legal obligation to operate those transmitters in accordance with the conditions of their licence. Operation of the transmitter in accordance with the conditions of the licence fulfils the legal obligations in respect of interference to other radio systems, other electrical equipment, instrumentation or air traffic systems. The conditions of the licence are mandated by Ofcom, an agency of national government, who are responsible for the regulation of the civilian radio spectrum. The remit of Ofcom also includes investigation and remedy of any reported significant interference.
The telecommunications infrastructure the subject of this application accords with all relevant legislation and as such will not cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest.
If you have any further enquiries concerning the “ICNIRP Declaration” certificate or anything else in this letter then please contact the CTIL EMF UNIT on 01753 564306.
Yours sincerely
PROJECT MANAGER
Our ref: CTIL 115868
Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines (“ICNIRP Declaration”)
Telefónica Limited 260 Bath Road Slough SL1 4DX Declares that the proposed equipment and installation as detailed in the attached planning/GPDO application at:
Land to the rear of Sion Hill 10 Ballygowan Road Hillsborough Co Down BT23 6HS is designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), as expressed in the EU Council recommendation of 12 July 1999 * “on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)”.
* Reference: 1999/519/EC
Date: 30th January 2019
Signed:
Name: Donna Sowerby
Position: Project Manager for Taylor Patterson Surveyors
NOTES 1. Cell Site Reference - 41615 2. Cell Name - HILLSBOROUGH REPLACEMENT SITE 3. JV ID - T0013371P EXISTING RADIO SITE 4. For further details refer to site layout plan 5. GRID REFERENCES: 134079 515074 6. DIRECTIONS: From Belfast take M1 motorway country bound and come off motorway at Junction 7 (Sprucefield.) Take the A1 towards Newry. At roundabout at Hillsborough keep straight on and take the next on the left. Travel over the bridge and turn right at the end onto the Ballygowan Road. Take the first on the right (nb gate is controlled by landlord by way of remotely controlled system.....use intercom located on gate pillars to contact landlord) up to dwelling house. Park in vicinty of garage. Walk over lawn to style into field where O2 site is located. Walk 200m to site over agricultrual field. (if vehicular access is required this is to be pre-arranged with landlord's tenant farmer.)
A First Issue VB JP 21/1/19
REVISION DESCRIPTION BY CH DATE CELL NAME
SITE LOCATION MAP - 1:50000 CELL I.D. CTIL TEF VODAFONE 115868 41615 -
CTIL
TAYLOR PATTERSON C H A R T E R E D B U I L DI N G S U R V E Y O R S THE STUDIOS, FIRST FLOOR, BLOCK A 89 HOLYWOOD ROAD, BELFAST, BT4 3BD PHONE: 028 9065 9555 FAX: 028 9065 9222 A D M I N @ T A Y L O R P A T T E RS O N . C O . U K PROJECT:PROJECT: ALTERATIONS TO RADIO SITE AT SITE LOCATION PLAN - 1:1250
PROJECT NO: TPS251/41615 TITLE: PLANNING SKETCH LOCATION MAP SITE PHOTO
DRG. NO. REV. SCALE DATE 100 A NA 21/01/2019
DRAWN BY: VB CHECKED BY: JP NOTES 1. Cell Site Reference - 41615 2. Cell Name - HILLSBOROUGH REPLACEMENT 3. JV ID - T0013371P
Agricultural Field
Existing hedgerow. Existing drainage ditch.
issues
Existing O2 electrical meter cabinet. Agricultural Field
O2 cabin Equipment installed in cabin Existing cable tray Existing equipment within O2 cabin and gantry poles to be refreshed 7000 Remove existing RRU and steel pole A First Issue VB JP 21/1/19
REVISION DESCRIPTION BY CH DATE Existing 17.5m high Hutchinson CELL NAME Engineering Mini Macro pole. CELL I.D. CTIL TEF VODAFONE 115868 41615 -
Existing 6no. panel antennae on head frame. 3no to be swapped out for new antennae and 3no to be removed (inculding yokes). Only 3no panel antennae will remain on headframe. 9no. proposed CTIL RRU to be installed. Proposed RRU's to be installed behind and below antennae
Agricultural Field Existing Line of 12m. x 10m. site demise. TAYLOR PATTERSON C H A R T E R E D B U I L DI N G S U R V E Y O R S THE STUDIOS, FIRST FLOOR, BLOCK A 89 HOLYWOOD ROAD, BELFAST, BT4 3BD PHONE: 028 9065 9555 FAX: 028 9065 9222 A D M I N @ T A Y L O R P A T T E RS O N . C O . U K PROJECT:PROJECT: ALTERATIONS TO RADIO SITE AT A S P R O P O S E D
PROJECT NO: TPS251/41615 TITLE: PLANNING SKETCH SITE PLANS
DRG. NO. REV. SCALE DATE 200 A 1:200 21/01/2019
DRAWN BY: VB CHECKED BY: JP NOTES 1. Cell Site Reference - 41615 2. Cell Name - HILLSBOROUGH REPLACEMENT 3. JV ID - T0013371P Top of Antennae +17.50m AGL Existing 6no. panel antennae on head frame. 3no to be swapped out for new antennae and 3no to be removed (inculding yokes). Only 3no panel antennae will remain on headframe. 9no. proposed RRU to be installed. Proposed RRU's to be installed behind and below antennae
Existing 300mm dia O2 radio dish at 13.4m AGL. Link ref HWTUK87117
Existing 17.5m high Hutchinson Engineering Mini Macro pole (fitted with access ladder).
Existing 12no antennae feeder cables fixed to monopole externally are to be removed.
A First Issue VB JP 21/1/19
REVISION DESCRIPTION BY CH DATE CELL NAME
CELL I.D. CTIL TEF VODAFONE 115868 41615 - Existing equipment within O2 cabin to be refreshed Existing O2 cabin
Existing O2 electrical meter cabinet. CTIL Existing hedgerow.
TAYLOR PATTERSON C H A R T E R E D B U I L DI N G S U R V E Y O R S THE STUDIOS, FIRST FLOOR, BLOCK A 89 HOLYWOOD ROAD, BELFAST, BT4 3BD Existing Remove existing RRU and steel drainage ditch. pole PHONE: 028 9065 9555 FAX: 028 9065 9222 A D M I N @ T A Y L O R P A T T E RS O N . C O . U K PROJECT:PROJECT: ALTERATIONS TO RADIO SITE AT
PROJECT NO: TPS251/41615 A S P R O P O S E D TITLE: PLANNING ELEVATIONS
DRG. NO. REV. SCALE DATE 300 A 1:200 21/01/2019
DRAWN BY: VB CHECKED BY: JP
General Background Information for Telecommunications Development
This document is designed to provide general background information on the development of the Vodafone and Telefónica networks. It has been prepared for inclusion with planning applications and supports network development proposals with generic information.
1.0 INTRODUCTION Over 25 years ago under the Telecommunications Act 1984, a licence was granted to Vodafone and Telefónica to provide a wireless (or mobile) phone service utilising unused radio frequencies adjacent to those transmitted for over 50 years by the television industry. Initially, because this wireless technology was new and the number of potential customers unknown, a number of tall masts were used to provide basic radio coverage to the main populated areas. The design strategy used was similar to that used by local radio/television i.e. tall masts to cover large distances over all types of topography.
It is important to note that in recent years form has followed function and digital technology has resulted in the development of smaller equipment. In addition, smaller radio coverage areas have resulted in antenna/mast heights being generally reduced. The industry has also been able to develop low impact designs for use in sensitive planning areas such as in Conservation Areas, on Listed Buildings, and in National Parks etc. The wireless telegraph pole solution is just one example of a design which has minimised impact on visual amenity of the local neighbourhood.
2.0 DIGITAL NETWORKS The Vodafone and Telefónica 2G digital networks were developed in the early 1990s. This digital technology is often referred to as GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) which is the common European operating standard enabling phones to inter- connect to other networks throughout Europe and Internationally.
In April 2000, Vodafone and Telefónica were successful in their bids for two of the five licences available to provide a ‘Third Generation’ mobile telecommunications service known as 3G or UMTS. In addition to voice services, this technology enables Vodafone and Telefónica to offer high resolution video and multi-media applications. Among other things this enables office services, virtual banking, e-retailing, video conferencing and high quality broadband internet access to be provided to users on the move. This is all made possible by higher rates of data transfer allowing wireless broadband access to the Internet for mobile phones and laptop computer data card users. The 3G radio base station is designed to provide a service via cells in a similar way as the GSM (2G) system but with a few differences. Due to the increased data transfer, the location of base station sites is even more critical. Base stations must be located where the local demand exists in order to provide the required levels of service, otherwise the network will not function. In February 2013, Vodafone and Telefónica were successful in their bids for 4G spectrum. 4G (sometimes called LTE (Long Term Evolution)) is the next major enhancement to mobile radio communications networks and will allow customers to use ultra-fast speeds when browsing the internet, streaming videos or sending emails. It also enables faster downloads. To meet this demand and improve the quality of service, additional base stations or upgrades to the equipment at an existing base station may be needed. Vodafone and Telefónica will ensure they comply with planning policy guidance by ensuring apparatus is installed on existing buildings and structures, including masts wherever possible. However, in spite of these efforts, there are likely to be instances where there is a need to install additional base stations to provide contiguous service. This is largely due to the characteristics of radio propagation at these frequencies, demands on the service and the high data transfer rates. It is very important to note that mobiles can only work with a network of base stations in place where people want to use their phones (or other wireless devices). Without base stations, the mobile phones we rely on simply won’t work.
2.1 How the cellular radio network works The building blocks of the mobile telecommunications network are called radio base stations which transmit and receive calls to and from mobile phones using radio waves, similar to those used in domestic television and radio equipment. Radio base stations are often associated with free-standing masts, however they can be located on, or even inside, existing buildings and other structures. Vodafone and Telefónica use “radio frequencies” to transmit and receive calls at 900 MHz or 1800 MHz for 2G whilst 3G uses slightly higher frequencies within the 2100 MHz range. 4G will use frequencies within the 800 MHz and 2600 MHz ranges.
2.2 How radio signals are transmitted The radio signals are transmitted from antennas which are part of the radio base station and cover an area known as a “cell”, hence the term “cellular phone”. The size of the cell is dependent on a number of factors including: the height at which the radio base station is positioned; the topography of the surrounding landscape; anticipated demand; and the population density in the area.
CTIL CTIL General Background Information (NI) v.6 20170805 CTIL
Radio signal transmission from a radio base station can be likened to water being distributed from a garden sprinkler. The area immediately adjacent to the sprinkler remains almost “dry”. However the grass gets progressively wetter moving further away from the sprinkler, until a wettest point is reached. Then the further away from the centre, the ground becomes progressively drier. Radio base stations provide network services in a similar manner. The area immediately beneath the antennas receives limited or, occasionally, no signal. Moving further away, the signal steadily improves until it reaches an optimum level and then gets progressively weaker.
In order to use mobile phones whenever and wherever we are, a network of radio base stations is required to maintain a continuous signal or ‘network service’ across a geographical area. The network is designed so that the cells from each radio base station slightly overlap. Travelling even a short distance may take us through a number of cell areas. Mobile phones are designed to monitor the strength of signal from surrounding radio base stations and automatically select the clearest signal, which often comes from the nearest site. As you approach the edge of the cell area, the phone will automatically select the adjoining radio base station, to provide a continuous service. This process is known as ‘call handover’.
2.3 Factors affecting network services The siting of a radio base station is largely dependent on the characteristics of the radio signals which they transmit. Physical features such as buildings or landscape can obstruct the signals. In open rural areas one base station can typically cover several kilometres in radius. However in urban areas where surrounding buildings will obstruct the signal, this range can be reduced to as little as a few hundred metres.
2.4 Network Capacity Radio base station sites can only receive and transmit a limited number of simultaneous calls to and from mobile phones. In areas where the use of phones is particularly high, such as major towns or cities, many sites will reach the maximum number of calls they can process. When a customer attempts to make a call in an area where the network has reached its full capacity, the ‘network busy’ message is displayed on their mobile phone. In order to continue to meet customer demand and improve the quality of services in these areas, there is a need to increase the capacity of the network to allow more calls to be made.
2.5 Technical Requirements Vodafone / Telefónica radio engineers identify the need for a new radio base station where the existing signal strength is insufficient to support network requirements, or where demand on the system is such that we need to increase capacity. The location of each radio base station is determined by the following factors:- • The proximity of adjacent radio base stations and the signal coverage from them. • The terrain height of the area and surrounding topography. • The height and density of the buildings and structures within the area. • The potential customer demand within the area. • The service type that is required.
3.0 SITE SELECTION PROCESS The following site selection procedures apply to each new installation to identify and sequentially discount alternative site options:- 1. Following a technical review which identifies need, Vodafone / Telefónica radio engineers undertake a desktop analysis to identify the best way of meeting the site requirement. This is completed by using computerised radio propagation modelling tools. These tools show every site on the existing networks and identifies those areas where insufficient signal level exists or where there is a need to increase capacity. 2. The desktop search also identifies other operators’ existing telecommunications installations. This interrogation of databases ensures any mast-sharing opportunities are maximised. Where available the LPA’s mast register is also reviewed. 3. The radio engineers define a search area, which is then issued to an acquisition agent who undertakes a detailed ground search with the radio engineer to identify suitable options. 4. The acquisition agent will obtain site-specific details to identify those sites that are viable options. The possible options are short-listed according to those that combine the following: location within or close to the search area, a willing landlord with acceptable commercial terms, adherence to planning and environmental policy, and other site specific issues such as initial power and link availability. These options are then returned to the radio engineers for a computer modelling assessment, taking into account the ground height, potential available antenna height and surrounding obstructions. 5. Discussions are offered to the local planning authority to consider local policies and any protected areas and to agree additional public consultation if required. These discussions are used to identify a ‘preferred’ option.
CTIL CTIL General Background Information (NI) v.6 20170805 CTIL
6. A plan for local consultation is drawn up, and where appropriate, a consultation exercise is undertaken with the local community. 7. Finally a site survey provides a full structural analysis of the site including confirming power routes and how the site will be linked into the network. Terms with the landlord are then finalised, detailed plans prepared and the application submitted. Vodafone and Telefónica are committed to ensuring the number and visual impact of any additional sites is minimised.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS (SPPS, PPS10 AND DCAN 14) In September 2015 the DOE adopted the SPPS. The SPPS is a statement of the Department’s policy on important planning matters that should be addressed across Northern Ireland. It reflects the Environment Minister’s expectations for delivery of the reformed planning system. The SPPS consolidates and takes precedent over the old Planning Policy Statements, however, PPS 10 will remain a material consideration for a transitional period until each specific new LPA adopts a Plan Strategy for the entire council area. TEL 2 of PPS 10 is cancelled.
PPS10 aims to ensure that new telecommunications infrastructure is developed in a way which continues to provide Northern Ireland with world class telecommunications services, whilst minimising the environmental impact of the new or replacement equipment.
PPS10 seeks to support the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland in promoting the development of an up-to-date and competitive telecommunications infrastructure to the standard that the economy requires. Such infrastructure would also facilitate the development of rural industries, business and enterprises.
PPS10 contains “Policy TEL 1: Control of Telecommunications Development,” against which all planning applications for telecommunications proposals will be assessed.
4.1 Need for development The SPPS acknowledges that high quality communications infrastructure is considered essential for sustainable economic growth and affirms the need for a modern efficient telecommunications infrastructure that will give Northern Ireland a competitive advantage.
The SPPS considers modern telecommunications to be an essential and beneficial element of everyday living for the people of and visitors to the region. It stresses the importantance to continue to support investment in high quality communications infrastructure which plays a vital role in the social and economic well-being of the region.
PPS10 recognises that telecommunications code system operators are obliged to provide their services to meet their licence requirements within the constraints of the technology. As such development may need particular locations to work effectively. Therefore cognisance requires to be given to the special needs and technical constraints associated with such development.
Policy TEL 1 requires developers to demonstrate that proposals have regard to technical and operational constraints and have been sited and designed to minimise visual and environmental impact.
4.2 Siting and design The aim of the SPPS in relation to telecommunications is to facilitate the development of such infrastructure in an efficient and effective manner whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum.
PPS10 advocates that telecommunications equipment should become an accepted and unobtrusive feature of urban and rural areas. Telecommunications proposals should minimise visual and environmental impact. For siting and design the following checklist of options should be considered: “ installing smaller antennas; disguising antennas and equipment, for example as part of a building or street furniture; designing antennas and equipment so that they appear to be an integral part of a building, structure or landscape; sharing existing sites, masts and other infrastructure; installing antennas on a building or structure not already used; and developing a new mast only when other options are not possible or it represents a better environmental solution than other options.” (paragraph 6.3)
Development Control Advice Note 14 (DCAN14) : Siting and Design of Radio Telecommunications Equipment provides further detailed advice on various siting and design options that should be considered dependant upon the nature and landuse of the proposed location. Detailed advice is outlined in relation to the series of siting and design options in PPS10 and for the siting of equipment where it would affect environmentally sensitive features and locations.
CTIL CTIL General Background Information (NI) v.6 20170805 CTIL
5.0 SITE / MAST SHARING
Vodafone and Telefónica actively encourage and support site sharing for both commercial and environmental reasons. All operators are required to explore site-sharing opportunities under the terms of their licences. Relating to site/mast sharing within the SPPS, the main strategic objectives include: - ensure that where appropriate new telecommunications development is accommodated by mast and site sharing; - ensure that the visual and environmental impact of telecommunications and other utility development is kept to a minimum; - encourage appropriate provision for telecommunications systems in the design of other forms of development.
PPS10 strongly encourages mast and site sharing where it represents the best environmental option in order to limit the number of sites for such installations and thereby visual intrusion. Vodafone and Telefónica has implemented a number of measures to identify and maximise site-sharing opportunities.
6.0 COUNCILS 6.1 Moratoria Government guidance on mobile telecom installations advises that local authorities should make suitable council owned property available to network operators for base station development. If suitable council sites are not made available, operators may have to look for alternative sites which the local community might find less acceptable.
Moratoria may also increase the number of new sites needed as council owned buildings are often better suited for base stations e.g. tall buildings. The operators believe it is preferable to deal with proposed developments on council property on a case by case basis.
6.2 Mast register
The Mobile Operators Association welcomes the provision of registers of base stations by planning authorities in addition to Ofcom's public database of UK base stations. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/sitefinder/. To assist with this in accordance with the commitments outlined in section 7 below the operators jointly and electronically send copies of their annual rollout plans for Northern Ireland to the Planning Service each October.
7.0 CONSULTATION In 2001 the Mobile Operators Association (formerly FEI) in agreement with the UK Government formulated the Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice to help address public concern regarding telecommunications development. Commitments 1and 2 relate to pre-application consultation with the community and the planning authority. Such consultation is undertaken in accordance with MOA’s Traffic Light Rating and Site Selection & Planning Model, and Vodafone and Telefónica consultation procedures. Details of the Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice and the Traffic Light Rating Model for Public Consultation are contained as Annex D and Annex E of DCAN14.
The operators fully comply with the Guidance on pre application consultation with schools and colleges. They provide evidence to the council that they have consulted the relevant body of the school or college.
A recent report stated that here is no scientific basis for siting base stations away from schools (NRPB report, January 2005)
8.0 LEGAL CASES The following legal cases may be helpful;-
8.1 Harrogate case November 2004 The Court of Appeal gave a judgment that Government Planning Guidance in PPG8 and now replaced by the NPPF (in England) is perfectly clear in relation to compliance with the health and safety standards for mobile phone base stations. The Court of Appeal
CTIL CTIL General Background Information (NI) v.6 20170805 CTIL and the High Court both upheld Government policy in response to a planning inspector’s decision that departed from that policy and failed to give adequate reasons for doing so.
8.2 Winchester case November 2004 The Court of Appeal decision upheld an earlier decision by Mr Justice Sullivan that a mobile phone network operator should not use its compulsory acquisition powers as part of its day to day radio base station siting processes.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Justice Sullivan that these far-reaching statutory powers were never intended for use in day to day planning situations and should be used by an operator only as a last resort when there is no other siting alternative.The House of Lords on 16 March 2005 refused leave to appeal the Court of Appeal ruling.
9.0 FURTHER INFORMATION We trust the above answers your main queries regarding our planned installation. The enclosed site-specific details will identify any alternative discounted options and reasons why they were rejected and how the proposed site complies with national planning policies and the development plan. The following web links may also be of interest:
Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS): http://www.planningni.gov.uk/spps
Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) Telecommunications : http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_supplementary_planning_guidance/pps10.htm
Development Control Advice Note 14 (DCAN14) Siting and Design of Radio Telecommunications Equipment: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/supplementary_guidance/dcans/dcan14.htm
Mobile Operators Association : http://www.mobilemastinfo.com/
CTIL CTIL General Background Information (NI) v.6 20170805 CTIL