1 12 October 2016 Chairman: Alderman F Agnew Vice Chairman: Councillor B Webb Committee Members: Aldermen

12 October 2016

Chairman: Alderman F Agnew

Vice Chairman: Councillor B Webb

Committee Members: Aldermen - T Campbell, J Smyth and R Swann Councillors - T Beatty, J Bingham, H Cushinan, B Duffin, T Hogg, D Hollis and S Ross

Dear Member

MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Mossley Mill on Monday 17 October 2016 at 6.00pm.

You are requested to attend.

Yours sincerely

Jacqui Dixon, BSc MBA Chief Executive, Antrim & Newtownabbey Borough Council

For any queries please contact Member Services: Kim Smyth 028 9448 1301 ([email protected]) Sharon McAree 028 9034 0098 ([email protected]) Dawn Hynes 028 9448 1301 ([email protected])

1 Part One - The Planning Committee has the full delegated authority of the Council to make decisions on planning applications and related development management and enforcement matters. Therefore the decisions of the Planning Committee in relation to Part One of the Planning Committee agenda do not require ratification by the full Council.

Part Two - Any matter brought before the Committee included in Part Two of the Planning Committee agenda, including decisions relating to the Local Development Plan, will require ratification by the full Council.

1 Apologies. 2 Declarations of Interest. 3 Report on business to be considered:

PART ONE Decisions on Enforcement Cases 3.1 Enforcement Case: LA03/2016/0203/CA - in confidence 3.2 Enforcement Case: LA03/2016/0233/CA - in confidence 3.3 Enforcement Case: LA03/2016/0264/CA - in confidence Decisions on Planning Applications 3.4 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0621/F 3.5 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0595/F 3.6 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0574/O 3.7 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0663/O 3.8 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0678/O 3.9 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0172/O 3.10 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0103/F 3.11 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0560/A 3.12 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0714/TPO 3.13 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0664/TPO

PART TWO Other Planning Matters 3.14 Delegated planning decisions and appeals 3.15 Proposal of Application Notifications for Major Development 3.16 Planning Applications T/2005/0977/F and T/2005/1054/F at Parkgate Quarry 3.17 NI Planning Statistics – First Quarter Statistical Bulletin 2016/2017 3.18 Quarterly update on Local Development Plan July-Sept 2016 3.19 Correspondence from Belfast City Council on its Local Development Plan 3.20 Planning Appeals Commission Annual Report 2015/16

2 REPORT ON BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 17 OCTOBER 2016

PART 1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

3 DECISIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS

ITEM 3.4

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0621/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

Full details of this application, including the application forms, relevant drawings, consultation responses and any representations received are available to view at the Planning Portal www.planningni.gov.uk

PROPOSAL: New dwelling and garage with access onto Neilsbrook Park

SITE/LOCATION: Rear garden of 31 Portglenone Road Randalstown

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Walder

AGENT: Slemish Design Studio LLP

LAST SITE VISIT: 17th August 2016

CASE OFFICER: Glenn Kelly Tel: 028 903 40415 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the existing rear garden of No.31 Portglenone Road, Randalstown. The site is currently an overgrown lawn with mature vegetation along the southern and eastern boundaries and a 1.2m high ranch style fence along the northern boundary. The site is currently undefined along the western boundary. The mature vegetation along the southern and eastern boundaries consists of dense hedging approximately 4-6m in height and a number of conifer trees which reach 8- 10m in height. The topography on the site falls in a west to south direction.

The site is located within the settlement limits of Randalstown as defined in the adopted Antrim Area Plan. No.31 Portglenone Road is located to the west of the proposed dwelling whilst to the north is an area of vacant land associated with the Randalstown Meeting House Church beyond. To the south of the site is an area of land which has a previous approval for 14 housing units (reference: T/2008/0456/F) and is currently the subject of a current planning approval (reference: LA03/2016/0803/F) for the same number of units. To the east of the site is Neilsbrook

4 Park which is a long established residential area. Building forms vary in design in the surrounding area but are typically two storey.

PROPOSAL This application is seeking full planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling and garage.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2008/0456/F - Lands at 17 & 19 and lands to the rear of 21-31 Portglenone Road, Randalstown - Demolition of No's 17 And 19 Portglenone road and the erection of 8 No. townhouses (5 No. 2.5 storey and 3 No. 2 storey) and 6 No. apartments (2 storey) – Permission Granted 29.05.2009

LA03/2016/0803/F - Lands at Neillsbrook Park (to the rear of 17 to 29 Portglenone Road) Randalstown - The construction of 14 No. dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping. The mix consists of 6 No. 3P2B houses, 4 No. 3P2B Cat1 apartments and 4 No. 2P1B apartments – ongoing case as of September 2016.

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Until the Council adopts its new Local Development Plan most planning applications will continue to be assessed against the provisions of the extant Development Plans for the Borough (the Antrim Area Plan and the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan) and relevant Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) which contain the main operational planning polices for the consideration of development proposals.

The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) published in September 2015 confirms that until such time as a Plan Strategy for the whole of the Council Area has been adopted the Council should continue to apply existing policy and guidance contained in retained PPSs and other relevant documents together with the provisions of the SPPS itself.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

SPPS – Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland: sets out that Planning Authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and other material considerations unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking (Revised 2005) and PPS 3 (Clarification 2006): sets out planning policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking.

PPS 7: Quality Residential Environments: sets out planning policies for achieving quality in new residential development. This PPS is supplemented by the Creating Places Design Guide.

5 Addendum to PPS 7: Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas: sets out planning policy and guidance on the protection of local character, environmental quality and residential amenity within established residential areas, villages and smaller settlements. It also sets out policy on the conversion of existing buildings to flats or apartments and contains policy to promote greater use of permeable paving within new residential developments.

CONSULTATION Council Environmental Health Section – No objections

NI Water – No objections

Transport NI – No objections subject to conditions

REPRESENTATION Six (6) neighbouring properties were notified and 73 letters of objection have been received. In addition to this One (1) petition has been submitted with 11 signatures. The full representations made regarding this proposal are available for Members to view online at the Planning Portal (www.planningni.gov.uk).

A summary of the key points of objection raised is provided below:  Traffic, parking and road safety concerns;  Impact upon privacy with the removal of vegetation;  Damage to the character of the area.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Design and Appearance  Neighbour Amenity  Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area  Other Matters

Principle of Development Regional Strategic Policy set out in the SPPS (paragraph 6.137 on page 69) indicates that within established residential areas it is imperative to ensure that the proposed density of new housing development, together with its form, scale, massing and layout will respect local character and environmental quality as well as safeguarding the amenity of existing residents.

Policy QD1 of PPS7 sets out that in established residential areas proposals for housing development will not be permitted where they would result in unacceptable damage to the local character, environmental quality or residential amenity of these areas. The principle of development on these lands can be considered acceptable subject to the detailed criteria which are addressed in the paragraphs below.

Design and Appearance The proposal entails a new two storey detached dwelling with accompanying detached garage in the rear garden of No.31 Portglenone Road, Randalstown. The topography on the site on which the dwelling is to be placed falls steadily in a west to east direction. The proposed dwelling has a frontage of 15m including the side

6 projection sunroom, which itself is shown to be set back from the front building line on the block plan but appears flush on the floor plans. The dwelling will have a depth of 7.5m including the front porch and a maximum height of 7.2m above ground level. The external walls of the dwelling are to be finished in painted render with natural stone to the front porch. The roof is to be completed using grey/black non profiled tiles or slate. Although the dwelling has a full two storey scale and form, there are no upper floor windows to the front elevation, with lighting brought into the bedrooms via side facing windows and roof lights. This creates an unsatisfactory design on the front elevation and creates an over dominant wall to window ratio. A detached garage is also proposed 10.5m east of the siting of the dwelling. This will be a standard single car garage in keeping with the finishes of the dwelling house.

Given the constraints of the overall width of the site, the rear of the dwelling will have a 1m distance between the back door and the southern boundary which leaves an unusable space particularly given steps are shown in place between the back door and the rear boundary. Private garden space has been shown to the side of the dwelling but this does not overcome the lack of amenity entering and exiting the dwelling. There is some additional space to the front, with a 2m gap, however again this does not offer enough space for recreational purposes. Views from within the dwelling both to the front and rear will also be heavily restricted with the fence along the northern boundary retained and a proposed 1.8m close boarded timber fence to the rear. Almost all of the mature existing vegetation along the southern boundary is to be removed by the scheme proposed which is considered unacceptable as this offers a soft buffer between the application site and the previously approved housing development.

Overall it is considered that the design is not in keeping with the area and offers an unacceptable solution to development of the site.

Neighbour Amenity Under part (h) of Policy QD 1 of PPS 7 it is stated that new development shall not create conflict with adjacent land uses and there should be no adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

A number of the objection letters to the proposed development received by the Council raise concerns regarding a loss of privacy if the development is approved given the large amounts of vegetation to be removed.

From carrying out a site visit and assessing the proposal there would not appear to be any conflicts created in terms of overlooking or impact upon the amenity of adjacent dwellings. The one upper floor window on the rear elevation is to be finished using obscure glazing. There is also a significant amount of private amenity space retained to the rear of No.31, with a new boundary between the sites to be defined by a 1.8m high rendered wall.

Although there are a number of objections on the impact of neighbouring amenity it is considered that a reason for refusal on this ground would be difficult to sustain at appeal.

Impact on Character of the Area

7 Policy QD 1 states that the design and layout of residential development should draw upon the positive aspects of the character of the surrounding area.

Almost all of the objection letters received raise concerns that the character of the area will be diminished if the proposal were to be approved. The site is set amongst a mixture of land and building uses, with the open land and church to the north and very differing house designs to the east and west. It is difficult to clearly define a specific character for the area and it is considered unlikely that the development proposed would demonstrably impact upon the character.

Other Matters All of the objection letters received strongly object to the development in terms of road safety and parking due to the proposed access opening onto Neilsbrook Park, where children are able to play safely and residents currently park.

Transport NI was consulted on the proposal and also provided with the objections and has responded with no objections subject to conditions and informatives. As the area of access is a road turning area it cannot be protected to allow children to play there. In addition there would appear to be a mixture of in-curtilage and on-street parking in place to accommodate existing residents.

As a consequence it is considered little weight can be afforded to the road safety objections raised by the objectors in the decision making process. With regards to in- curtilage parking for the proposal, part (f) of Policy QD 1 of PPS 7 states that adequate provision should be made for in-curtilage parking. Two spaces have been shown on the relevant plans and it is considered this provision will satisfy policy.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reason(s) for the recommendation:  The principle of the development on this site is considered acceptable  The design of the proposal is considered unacceptable, with inappropriate layout, scale and massing. Large scale removal of boundary vegetation will also create a hard boundary.  No neighbouring properties will be unduly affected by the proposal in terms of overlooking or overshadowing  Given the multitude of building types and land uses surrounding, the character of the area will not be diminished if the proposal were to be approved  Transport NI has no objections to the proposal and little weight can be afforded to objections relating to road safety.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASON OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy QD 1 of PPS 7; Quality Residential Environments, in that the design of the proposed dwelling is unacceptable in terms of layout, scale, massing and removal of established landscaping.

8 9 ITEM 3.5

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0595/F DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Continued use of lands for the provision of car parking for users of Belfast International Airport

SITE/LOCATION: Karl Business Park, 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore, Co. Antrim

APPLICANT: Karl Airport Parking Limited

AGENT: Juno Planning & Environmental Limited

LAST SITE VISIT: N/A

CASE OFFICER: Barry Diamond Tel: 028 903 Ext 40407 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the countryside along a minor public road. The site comprises a portion of the Karl Business Park which is located approximately 4km east of Belfast International Airport (BIA). The business park contains a mixture of commercial businesses.

The site has a number of areas of hardstanding and is defined by chainlink fencing approx. 1.8 metres in height and some mixed species trees ranging from eight to fifteen metres in height. There are floodlightling columns within the site which are 12- 15 metres in height.

The Karl Business Park is defined along its boundary with the Old Ballyrobin Road by a raised landscaped mound which has been in existence for some time. The site falls gradually from the Old Ballyrobin Road in a southerly direction.

At the time of site inspection there were some cars parked on the site which the applicant advises were related to Dooley Car Hire, no planning permission exists for this use on the site and the applicant has recently indicated that they intend to submit a planning application to retain this use on lands within Karl Business Park. In

10 addition the southernmost portion of the site was being used to store some builders materials and equipment.

PROPOSAL This application is seeking full planning permission for the continued use of lands for the provision of car parking for users of Belfast International Airport

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY LA03/2016/0075/PAN - Continued use of lands for the provision of car parking for users of Belfast International Airport at Karl Business Park 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore, Co. Antrim. (PAN Accepted 11-FEB-2016)

T/2007/0884/F - Temporary Use (for 1 year) as a Park and Ride Facility at 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore, Antrim. (Permission Refused 05.04.2011)

T/2003/0402/F - Erection of 4 No. Class 11 Distribution Warehouses at 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore. (Permission Granted 01.10.2003)

T/2008/0585/F - Erection of 4No. Class 11 Distribution Warehouse units (Renewal of Permission T/2003/0402/F) at 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore. (Permission Granted 29.07.2009)

T/1991/0630 – Creation of Building Contractors Yard incorporating Workshops and Office at 92 Old Ballyrobin Road, Muckamore. (Permission Granted 12.04.1992)

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

11 PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking (Revised 2005) and PPS 3 (Clarification 2006): sets out planning policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking.

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage: sets out the planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage. Policies BH12 (New Development in Conservation Areas) is applicable in this assessment.

PPS21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside: sets out planning policies for development in the countryside. This is supplemented by Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside.

CONSULTATION Transport NI – Amendments required

Environmental Health Section – No objection

Belfast International Airport, Aerodrome Safeguarding – No objection subject to conditions.

REPRESENTATION Eighteen (18) neighbouring properties were notified. Six (6) letters of objection, four (4) holding objections, fifty one (51) letters of support have been received. The full representations made regarding this proposal are available for Members to view online at the Planning Portal (www.planningni.gov.uk).

A summary of the key points of support raised is provided below:  The applicant has a well organised and established business;  The site is a brownfield site;  The airport has a monopoly;  Customers need choice;  The use of the site for airport parking provides local employment;  The business is more competitive than other operators;  The business offers a better service than other operators;  Other operators have no availability of parking spaces;  Less risk of fallout from passing aircraft;  The business helps ease congestion at the airport

A summary of the key points of objection raised is provided below:  There is a history of refusals for airport car parking on this site and elsewhere which were upheld at appeal;  No change in planning policy has occurred;  The applicants submissions are deeply flawed;  There is no need for the facility as defined under case law;  No assessment of the quantity of parking available at BIA has been made;  No qualitative assessment of either Cosmo or McCausland car parks have been carried out  An erroneous assessment of the qualitative assessment of BIA’s parking has been carried out

12  The customer survey carried out is biased, is based upon speculation and has leading questions;  The mystery shopper survey was based on only four surveys;  The application is invalid as the description of development is misleading;  The applicants established business was unlawful;  No firm baseline for parking provisions has been identified on which to base an analysis;  Providing choice is not an indicator of need;  There are no blurred lines in the policy which has been consistently interpreted by the Department, Council and PAC;  There is significant capacity within the approved parking facilities to accommodate customers;  The car parks at BIA have never all been fully booked;  BIA offers a door to door service;  The airport car park is safe and is monitored by airport staff and airport police;  The applicant’s business model is not unique and is offered by other providers;  Approval of the application would set a precedent for similar projects

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Access & Road Safety  Visual Impact and Landscape Character  Archaeology  Design of the Car Park  Other Matters

Principle of Development The application site is located within the countryside as defined in the Antrim Area Plan. The Area Plan offers no policy material to the consideration of the application. There is no conflict or change in policy direction between the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland: ‘Planning for Sustainable Development’ (SPPS) and those of Planning Policy Statement 21 ‘Sustainable Development in the Countryside’ (PPS21) regarding the proposal. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 states that there are a range of types of development which are considered to be acceptable in principle in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development. It goes on to state that planning permission will be granted for a range of non-residential development in accordance with existing published planning policies.

An application for a private car park should be considered in accordance with PPS3 Access Movement & Parking specifically Policy AMP 10 which is concerned with the principle of development and Policy AMP 9 which is concerned with the design of the car park.

Policy AMP 10 lists a number of criteria in the assessment of a car parking proposal. It is acknowledged that the site is not within a defined area of parking restraint. It is within an existing commercial yard and as a consequence the use of the site for car parking would be compatible with existing land uses; the use of the site for car parking would not be detrimental to the existing environmental quality of the area (discussed in more detail later); the development would not create or lead to any

13 particular issues with traffic congestion (also discussed in more detail later in the report).

The main policy issue which needs to be addressed in some detail is the requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that the car park meets a need identified by the Department for Regional Development in Transport Plans or accepted by DRD following robust analysis provided by a developer. Since the publication of the policy the Department for Regional Development has been transferred into the new Department for Infrastructure.

In order to demonstrate that there is a need for a car park at this location the applicant has submitted a “Robust Analysis of Need Report” which outlines that public transport alone cannot accommodate the needs of commuters to and from the airport and this issue is not contested by the objectors or the Council. The applicants Report sets out in the introduction to the report that there is both a quantitative and qualitative need for the facility. The main argument proffered in the report however is that either a quantitative need (the availability of parking) or a qualitative need (the quality of the parking) is enough to demonstrate that there is a need for the facility.

It would appear that BIA has some 9,451 parking spaces provided across its five car parks (Short Stay, Main Car Park, Long Stay, Park & Fly 1 & 2). According to the applicant the other private operators (Cosmo & McCausland) have an estimated 1450-2700 spaces (variation due to the temporary use of land for car parking) while Easi-Park on the Crooked Stone Road has approval for some 160 spaces and a further small operator on the Ballyrobin Road has lawful permission to park cars limited to 50-70 cars due to the restricted extent of the site. Overall the estimated lawful parking availability of users of BIA in the area is estimated to be somewhere between 11,100 and 12,380 spaces. The applicant incorrectly identifies that BIA has some 8,000 spaces which is a gross under estimation of the baseline on which they base their future assumptions.

The applicant seeks to argue within the report that the temporary use of a field by McCausland to meet a seasonal demand for additional parking space demonstrates that there is a need for parking to be provided at the application site. However, the temporary use of land as a car park for a period not in excess of 28 days in any calendar year, outside the curtilage of a building does not require planning permission. The attempt to equate a legitimate operators use of permitted development rights to meet a customer demand does not demonstrate a need for the applicants facility, rather it demonstrates that there is flexibility in the planning system to allow legitimate operators to expand their operations into adjoining areas to meet customer demands. During the same 28 day period that McCausland were utilising the field adjoining their premises the applicant contends that 500-600 cars were parked at the applicant’s facility and this demonstrates a need for off-site facilities. The applicant is tasked with demonstrating that there is a need for their facility given that demand cannot meet supply, the applicants case however, ignores all other parking operators other than McCausland and merely demonstrates that the operator can lawfully expand and contract their operation based on seasonal demand. There is no explanation as to why other operators are ignored, especially BIA, which has some 9,451 spaces available and represents the main parking provider for the airport.

14 The applicant goes on to present a series of four screenshots from their “Competitor Analysis Spreadsheet” which attempts to demonstrate that the McCausland & Cosmo operators were operating at full capacity during certain periods. The evidence has not been verified from any other source and once again offers no analysis of the other parking operators including BIA.

An extract from the airport’s terms and conditions for airport car parking is provided which sets out how BIA will accommodate customers in the event that the car park is full. The applicant attempts to suggest that this is an acknowledgement that BIA’s car park may be full at times while an objection received from the solicitor for BIA argues that this is merely the terms of a contractual arrangement between two parties (BIA and the customer) which must cover all possible situations. It is considered that this would be a realistic explanation for the wording and does not demonstrate to any extent that there has been a lack of parking provision for users of BIA. The applicant does provide some photographic evidence of a sign erected at the entrance to the long stay car park which directs customers to the nearest available car park if the long stay car park is full. This does not in itself equate to any lack of parking provision across the suite of existing authorised car parks.

A further attempt is made to demonstrate increasing demand for airport parking given the announcements by BIA of increased trade and further expansion including new flight routes to more destinations. While it is noted that future expansion may give rise to future increased demands on airport parking, the applicant has failed to properly quantify the existing parking availability and has failed to properly analyse the availability of parking provision across all lawful parking providers in the area.

The report goes on to assess the qualitative parking provision of the suite of car parks owned by BIA through an analysis of almost 7,000 surveys completed by former customers of the applicant’s former facility which were all sent emails. The survey appears to be based on a survey composed by the applicant and the results have not been independently, checked or verified. The survey was open only to former patrons of the applicants facility and not to the general public. Setting that aside the survey does not reveal whether any of those surveyed have ever parked at BIA and completely ignores the other parking providers in the area. It cannot be concluded that the survey has correctly captured the mood or comprehensively assessed the quality of the range of parking facilities or operators in the area.

The applicant commissioned SpotcheckNI to undertake a mystery shopping report and the methodology and objective of the survey was commissioned by the agent. The survey was limited to four visits to BIA’s car parks, no comparative analysis was undertaken of the applicant’s facility and no analysis was undertaken of the other authorised parking providers in the area. It is apparent that the lack of a broad and detailed analysis of the qualitative parking provision across the range of parking providers renders the survey results flawed, even those carrying out the survey refer to “…other providers…” providing a better service which is not limited to the applicants facility.

15 Access & Road Safety It is proposed to access the application site via the existing access and laneway for the Karl Business Park. Transport NI has been consulted on the application and they require the sightlines to be increased.

It is considered that the development would not create or lead to any particular issues with traffic congestion, the site is accessed via the Old Ballyrobin Road which has a junction with the Ballyrobin Road (A57) just 320 metres to the west. While the application site has the capacity to accommodate some 750 vehicles on the site, these are mostly parked for a number of days or even weeks and would not constitute a significant increase of traffic movement along the Ballyrobin Road or Old Ballyrobin Road.

As the recommendation is to refuse the application it is considered in this instance that to require the applicant to amend the submitted plans to accommodate Transport NI requirements would be nugatory work leading to wasted expense.

Visual Impact and Landscape Character The application site measures some 2.8 hectares and it would be anticipated that such a large swathe of parked cars in the rural area would have a significant visual impact on the visual amenity of this area of the countryside and would impact upon the character of the surrounding area.

In this case the application site is contained within the existing Karl Business Park which contains a number of high level industrial style buildings and has an established presence in the rural area. The application seeks to bring onto the site mostly private vehicles (753) and while there may be a large number of vehicles on the site these will have a very limited visual impact.

While the wider Karl complex can be viewed from the Old Ballyrobin Road and the Ballysculty Road, the proposed development will have limited vantage points due to the set back of the site from the public road, existing landscape mounds, existing boundary vegetation and existing tree/hedgerows along intervening field boundaries. It is considered that the proposed development will have limited viewpoints and will not adversely impact upon the character or visual amenity of the area.

Archaeology The application site abuts an historic monument, namely a rath (ANT055:026), however, the development does not propose any excavation or piling works that are likely to disturb any archaeological remains, nor would the development be likely to adversely impinge upon the setting of the monument given the limited viewpoints available of the monument from the public road network.

Design of the Car Park The design of the car park is considered to meet the minimum standard as the development will not have a significant impact on the character or visual amenity of the area due to the commercial nature of Karl Business Park and the limited critical views.

16 It is considered that a safe means of access could be achieved, although further information would be required. The policy requires that surface level car parks should be broken up with landscaping to reduce dead space. In this case it is considered that while boundary landscaping has been enhanced there has only been a minimal introduction of landscaping to break up the parking areas. This issue could be addressed through the submission of amended plans, however, as there are objections to the principle of development it is considered that this would be a nugatory exercise leading to unnecessary expense.

Other Matters A number of the supporters to the application have stated that BIA has a monopoly on airport parking and customers need choice and the facility eases congestion at BIA, however, as stated previously there are a number of authorised operators in the area. While it is noted that the application site is a brownfield site the policy provisions still require the applicant to demonstrate a need for the facility.

While price and standards of service are factors in customer choice they are not indicators of demand. In addition no comprehensive analysis of the range of parking providers has been provided by the applicant.

One supporter referred to the limited risk of fallout from aircraft at the applicants facility compared to the other parking operators, however the applicants facility is in the direct line of one of the main approaches to the airport, although the risk of fallout is extremely low the issue raised is not accurate.

The objectors all referred to previous decisions of the PAC which has consistently refused applications for similar types of development. It is accepted that this is the case and that the policy has been applied similarly in this report.

The objectors to the development have highlighted that they consider that the application is invalid as the description of development refers to the continued use of the land for parking and that is not the case as the applicant, by their own admission, has ceased the use of the land for parking of cars related to customers of BIA. There is little doubt that the applicant has previously used the land for car parking and while this is not material to the consideration of the application, it does bear some relevance to the description of development. The continued use of the land can be periodical and the recent cessation of operations by the applicant does not make the description of development void or incapable of being understood. It is considered that the description of development specifies the nature of the development and the reader would easily understand the nature of the development which forms the application.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The principle of the development is not acceptable as a need for the facility has not been established;  There are some concerns with the design of the development;  There are no concerns with the visual impact of the development on the character or visual amenity of the area;  There are no concerns with the impacts of the development on existing infrastructure, road safety or archaeology.

17 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy AMP 10 of the Planning Policy Statement 3: Access Movement and Parking in that the analysis provided by the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a need for the facility nor has any need been identified in any published Transport Plan.

2. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies AMP 2 and AMP 9 of the Planning Policy Statement 3: Access Movement and Parking in that it has not been demonstrated that a safe means of access can be achieved nor has sufficient landscaping been proposed to assist in breaking up the car parking area.

18 19 ITEM 3.6

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0574/O DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Site for five (5) dwellings in a cluster

SITE/LOCATION: 200m north of 6 Diamond Road, Aldergrove, Crumlin

APPLICANT: Bridget McMullan

AGENT: Park Design Associates

LAST SITE VISIT: 10th August 2016

CASE OFFICER: Johanne McKendry Tel: 028 903 Ext 40420 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the countryside outside the development limits of any settlement as designated in the Antrim Area Plan. The site is located on the northern side of Diamond Road between the currently vacant St. James’s Primary School to the west and a church carpark to the east. There are two dwellings to the northeast of the application site, which front Ballyquillan Road and four dwellings are located opposite the site to the south. A cluster of development, which includes a church, shop and dwelling has built up around the crossroads of Diamond Road, Ballyquillan Road, Ballynadentragh Road and Station Road which is located approximately 60 metres to the east.

The application site has an area of approximately 1.08 hectares and a frontage width of 80 metres which extends approximately 160 metres to the northwest. A mature hedge and trees align the northeastern site boundary. There is a 2 metre high mature hedge along the northwestern site boundary. The southwestern boundary consists of a fence and a sparse hedge. A low stone wall with trees and a hedge extends along the southeastern roadside boundary. Land within the site is generally flat.

20 PROPOSAL This application is seeking outline planning permission for five dwellings in a cluster. Although this is an outline planning application an accompanying concept plan indicates all five dwellings are to be two-storey and served by a single access. The configuration of the dwellings comprises two dwellings fronting the Diamond Road, with the remaining three dwellings to the rear.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

CONSULTATION Council Environmental Health Section – No objection

NI Water – No objection subject to informatives

Transport NI – No objection subject to conditions

Belfast International Airport – No objection

21 UK Crown Bodies DIO.LMS - No objection

REPRESENTATION Five (5) neighbouring properties notified two (2) letters of objection have been received. The full representations made regarding this proposal are available for Members to view online at the Planning Portal (www.planningni.gov.uk).

A summary of the key points of objection raised is provided below:  Dwellings at No. 2 and No. 4 The Diamond Road do not consider that their dwellings form part of the cluster or form part of a visual entity;  The site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster; and  The proposed development will not be absorbed into the cluster but extend development westwards.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area  Access, Parking and Road Safety  Other Matters

Principle of Development Paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS and PPS21 refer to ‘new dwellings in existing clusters’ and the policy states that provision should be made for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development which lies outside a farm provided it appears as a visual entity in the landscape; and is associated with a focal point; and the development can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside.

Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 sets out a range of development types which in principle would be acceptable in the countryside. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 refers to existing development clusters where it is in accordance with the provisions of CTY2a. Policy CTY2a indicates that provision should be made for a dwelling at an existing cluster provided all of the above-mentioned criteria set out in the SPPS are met. The first part of Policy CTY2a indicates what may be considered to constitute a cluster for the purposes of the Policy. In this case, the agent asserts that the development proposal respects all of the principles of Policy CTY 2a of PPS21 in that there is an existing cluster of development at this location, which he contends comprises 10 dwellings, a church, a shop and a vacant school.

It is accepted that there is an existing cluster of development in the vicinity of the application site but it is considered this is limited to the following grouping: St. James’s Church, the existing shop ‘Mill Cottage’, No. 1 Ballyquillan Road, No. 3 Ballyquillan Road, No. 2 Station Road and No. 4 Station Road. It is considered that the church and shop at the crossroads is a focal point in the immediate area and together with the existing buildings at the crossroads are a visual entity in the landscape. The application site and any other development are separated by the Ballyquillan Road and the church car park.

22 Policy CTY2a allows for the development of a single dwelling at an existing cluster of development and the policy does not support the development of a small housing development of five dwellings. The application site is located approximately 50 metres to the west of a crossroads and consists of an agricultural field. It is not clear if the site lies outside of a farm but land beyond the site to the northwest is within the applicant’s ownership. Although there is a vacant school building adjacent to the application site, it is not accepted that there is an existing cluster of development at this location as there are only two dwellings adjacent to the site to the northeast and given the visual separation of the buildings surrounding the application site, the apparent cluster does not appear as a visual entity in the local landscape.

Whilst the site has a mature hedge and trees along its northeastern site boundary there are critical views into the site from Ballyquillan Road, Ballynadentragh Road and Station Road. The 2 metre high hedge along the northwestern boundary and the lack of mature vegetation along the southwestern site boundary fails to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for each of the five sites proposed. Policies CTY 2a and CTY14 of PPS21 require that any new development does not impact upon the rural character of the area. It is considered that the proposed development is separated from the existing cluster and would not lead to a consolidation of an existing cluster; rather the proposed development would read as sprawling development protruding further into the countryside and would significantly alter the existing character.

Although this application seeks outline planning permission, a site concept plan in the form of a block plan has been submitted which provides details in relation to the siting of the proposed dwellings and the access arrangements. The plan states that the proposed dwellings are two-storey. Without detailed elevation plans it is not possible to carry out a detailed assessment of the impact on neighbouring amenities as required under the sixth policy criterion of CTY2a of PPS21. However, given the approximate 30 metre separation distances from the neighbouring dwellings to the east, these matters could properly be addressed at Reserved Matters stage.

In conclusion, the proposal fails to meet the provisions of Policy CTY2a which only permits the development of a single dwelling at an existing cluster of development. While it is accepted that an existing cluster of development does exist it is considered that: the proposed development lies beyond this cluster; the development of any one of the proposed dwellings would fail to be abutted on two sides by other development in the cluster; and the proposed development would sprawl into the open countryside and would be detrimental to the amenity and character of the area. The failure of the proposal to meet the requirements of Policy CTY2a means that it would result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the area and therefore does not comply with Policy CTY14 of PPS21.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area Policy CTY14 of PPS21states 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. It identifies that a new building will be unacceptable where, in relation to criterion (b) it results in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing or approved buildings and (c) it does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in that area and (d) it creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

23 The proposed site provides a visual break in the developed appearance of the locality and the infilling of this gap will be detrimental to the rural character of the area due to the cumulative effect of developing the proposed development along with the existing buildings in the vicinity.

Views into the site are most critical on the western approach along the Diamond Road and on both approaches along the Ballyquillan Road. The development proposal is suburban in nature, with a single access serving five dwellings and the proposal will create a ribbon of development along the Diamond Road. It is considered that the lack of existing vegetation along the boundaries of the individual plots within the site would not provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the five dwellings proposed.

Policies CTY 2a and CTY14 of PPS21 require that any new development does not impact upon the rural character of the area. It is considered that the development of a small housing development would obviously impact upon the rural character of the area. It is further considered that the proposed development is separated from the existing cluster as mentioned above and would not lead to a consolidation of an existing cluster but would read as sprawling development protruding further into the countryside. For this reason it is considered that the proposal will result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the area and therefore does not comply with Policy CTY14 of PPS21.

Access, Parking and Road Safety Transport NI was consulted on the application and offered no objections to the principle of an access serving five dwellings

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reason(s) for the recommendation:  The principle of the proposed housing development is not acceptable in the rural area and the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of policy;  The proposed dwellings on the site would result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings resulting in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement 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 and it fails to meet the provisions for a dwelling within a cluster in accordance with Policy CTY2a of PPS21.

2. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the buildings would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and would therefore result in a detrimental change to further erode the rural character of the countryside.

24 25 ITEM 3.7

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0663/O DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Proposed dwelling and garage.

SITE/LOCATION: Rear of and approx 40m East of 10 Tobergill Road, Templepatrick

APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Fleming

AGENT: FMK Architecture

LAST SITE VISIT: 8TH September 2016

CASE OFFICER: Michael O’Reilly Tel: 028 903 40424 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the countryside outside any established settlement development limit defined in the adopted Antrim Area Plan 2001.

The application site lies between two dwellings. The first dwelling is No.10 Tobergill Road which is located immediately west of the application site with a frontage to the Tobergill Road. The second dwelling is No.98 Connor Road which lies immediately to the east of the application site with a frontage to the Connor Road. A third dwelling, No.96 Connor Road is located at the south east edge of No.96 Connor Road.

On approach to the application site in a northerly direction No.98 Connor Road and No.10 Tobergill Road are visible on either road with the view rising upwards and the dwellings occupying a prominent position in the landscape which are visible over the top of roadside field hedgerows. The southern boundary of the application site is physically undefined.

PROPOSAL This application is seeking outline planning permission for a proposed dwelling and garage. The application is accompanied by a site location plan, an indicative block plan, artists impression for a 1.5 storey dwelling and garage and a supporting statement.

26 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

CONSULTATION Council Environmental Health Section – No objection

NI Water – No objection

Transport NI – Approve subject to conditions

REPRESENTATION Two (2) neighbouring properties notified and one (1) letter of objection has been received. The full representations made regarding this proposal are available for Members to view online at the Planning Portal (www.planningni.gov.uk).

A summary of the key points of objection raised is provided below:  The application fails to comply with PPS21 – CTY2A, 8, 13 &14

27  Detrimental impact to residential amenity – privacy, overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light, feeling of being hemmed in  Human Rights Act Protocol 1, Article 1; right to peaceful enjoyment of possession (home/land), proposal has dominating impact affecting quiet enjoyment of property  Human Rights Act Protocol 1, Article 8; Private and Family Life – Britton Vs SOS, protection of countryside falls within interests of Article 8, private and family life therefore encompasses home and surroundings.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Character and Appearance of the Area  Integration  Other Matters

Principle of Development The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) was published in September 2015 and is a material consideration. At paragraph 1.10 it states that, until such times as a Plan Strategy for the whole of the council area has been adopted, Local Planning Authorities will apply existing policies within the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that have not been cancelled, together with the SPPS. PPS21 is one such retained policy document.

Policy CTY1 of PPS21 sets out 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. Policy CTY1 indicates that the development of a small gap site within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage is such a form of acceptable development in accordance with policy CTY8. The supporting statement submitted by the agent is relying upon this Policy to establish the principle of development.

Policy CTY8 states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. It does however state that 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 considerations. Policy CTY8 defines a substantial and continuously built up frontage as including a line of three (3) or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

In this case the application site comprises an existing gap between three existing roadside dwellings but which are located on two different roads. No’s 96 and 98 Connor Road are located to the east of the application site, while No.10 Tobergill Road is located to the west of the site. These roads are connected by a ‘Y’ junction some 300 metres to the north. Given the dwellings front onto different roads the existing pattern of development cannot constitute a substantial and built up frontage as required by the policy.

28 The proposed dwelling will be accessed by a laneway running west to east over a distance of approximately fifty (50) metres from the Connor Road and will be centrally positioned between each of the roads. The resulting plot does not share a boundary with either road or have a frontage with it. The dwelling is indicated as being orientated southwards towards the ‘Y’ junction connecting the two roads.

The policy definition refers to a common road frontage, however, as indicated above, the proposal relies on two dwellings which front onto different public roads. As a consequence the exception test of Policy CTY8 ‘Ribbon Development’, cannot be complied with in this instance.

The applicant has not sought to argue that the proposed development falls into any other category of acceptable development identified in Policy CTY1. No evidence has been advanced that the proposed development could not be located in a settlement, or that the site is otherwise allocated for development in a development plan. Therefore the proposal is unacceptable in principle in the countryside and is contrary to CTY1 of PPS21.

Character and Appearance of the Area Policy CTY14 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. The SPPS also states that all development in the countryside must respect rural character at paragraph 6.70.

CTY14 identifies that a new building will be unacceptable where; (a) It results in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings. (b) It does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area (c) It is unduly prominent in the landscape

No’s 96 & 98 Connor Road and No. 10 Tobergill Road share a boundary with the road they access onto and each of the dwellings are orientated towards their respective roads. The proposed dwelling will be accessed by a laneway running west to east over a distance of approximately fifty (50) metres from Connor Road and will be centrally positioned between each of the roads.

If planning permission were to be granted the resulting development would link the four (4) dwellings and create a line of dwellings connecting these roads. It is considered that this would be at significant odds with the dispersed settlement pattern evident in this area and would not represent a traditional settlement pattern normally found in the countryside. The introduction of a new dwelling at this location will contribute to the erosion of rural character through the development of one off housing in the immediate area. As a consequence it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to criterion ‘b’ and ‘c’ of Policy CTY14.

Furthermore it is considered that the proposed dwelling will occupy a skyline position and will be viewed with No.10 Tobergill Road and No.98 Connor Road when travelling north on either of these public roads. The granting of planning permission will result in the loss of a valuable visual break in a prominent skyline location which would serve only to re-inforce the built up appearance of the area. This will have an

29 adverse impact on the visual amenity and rural character of the area and is considered contrary to Policy CTY14.

Integration Policy CTY1 states that all proposals for development in the countryside must be sited and designed to integrate sympathetically with their surroundings and must meet other planning and environmental considerations including those for drainage, access and road safety. The SPPS also states that all development in the countryside must integrate at paragraph 6.70.

Policy CTY13 indicates that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape. The application site has been carved out of a larger agricultural field. The southern boundary is physically undefined and the common boundary between the application site and No.98 Connor Road is a wire fence. It is considered the application site lacks long established natural boundaries for the building to integrate into the landscape and will rely primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration. This is contrary to criterion ‘b’ and ‘c’ of CTY13.

As described previously it is considered that the introduction of a dwelling at this prominent skyline location will have an adverse impact to the visual amenity and rural character of the area. It follows the proposal is contrary to criterion ‘a’ of CTY13.

Other Matters The letter of objection from No.98 Connor Road refers to Articles 1 and 8 of the Protocol of the Human Rights Act along with other matters relating to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light and a feeling of being hemmed in.

Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are substantive rights enabling those affected by the planning process to reinforce their objections by stating that to allow such a development to proceed would infringe upon their human rights. Procedural guarantees associated with these substantive rights ensure that all victims are given the chance of a fair hearing. It is only in exceptional cases that personal circumstances may be relevant to planning decisions. While the convention puts the rights of the individual first these rights are paramount only where there is no justification in the public interest.

Paragraph 2.3 of the SPPS states that the planning system operates in the public interest of local communities and the region as a whole. It does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. In principle there is the opportunity for the development of a single dwelling in the countryside. However, as the proposal does not comply with planning policy and this policy failure is not outweighed by other material considerations, the refusal of planning permission would be in the public interest.

This outcome would maintain the substantive rights of the objector but would curtail the applicant’s enjoyment of his property by eliminating financial reward derived from the proposed development. It would nonetheless strike a fair, reasonable and proportionate balance between the various conflicting interests which have both had rights to make representations to a democratic body within the planning system.

30 With reference to others matters raised in the objection letter it is considered that the application site is of reasonable size to accommodate a modestly sized dwelling without leading to an adverse impact to the residential amenity of No.98 Connor Road. Matters such as the internal floorspace arrangement and positioning of window voids can be addressed at reserved matters stage and the plot arrangement, siting, ridge height and boundary treatments can be controlled by planning condition. As it is considered the proposal is unacceptable in principle, the matters of design are not considered as carrying determining weight in this instance.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reason(s) for the recommendation:  It is considered the proposal fails to meet the requirements for an infill dwelling as defined under Policy CTY 8 of PPS21  It is considered that there are no exceptional circumstances that would warrant setting aside Policy CTY1 of PPS21 and justify a dwelling at this location.  The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the SPPS and CTY4 as the proposal will cause a detrimental change to and further erode the rural character of the area.  It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the SPPS and CTY13 as the dwelling cannot be visually integrated into the countryside.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement 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 and it fails to meet with the provisions for an infill dwelling in accordance with CTY8 of PPS21.

2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building would, if permitted, add to a ribbon of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to, and further erode, the rural character of the countryside.

3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building would, if permitted, be a prominent feature in the landscape and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure.

31 32 ITEM 3.8

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0678/O DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Site for infill dwelling

SITE/LOCATION: 50m North of 139 Seven Mile Straight, Antrim

APPLICANT: Robert Brown

AGENT: Park Design Associates

LAST SITE VISIT: 23rd September 2016

CASE OFFICER: Wayne Donaldson Tel: 028 903 40431 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located approximately 50 metres north of No.139 Seven Mile Straight, the site is set back approximately 50 metres off the public road with access via a private laneway that leads to No.139. The site comprises part of an overgrown field and also a yard area which contains a large metal shed which is green in colour; it is not clear what the shed is used for presently. The northern boundary of the site is defined by mature hedges and trees, the boundary adjacent to the private laneway is also defined by mature vegetation, the boundary with No.139 is defined by a post and wire fence, the western boundary is undefined.

The site is located within the countryside, a number of buildings are located in the vicinity along with a number of farm buildings including a poultry house to the north of the site. A dwelling has been granted approval to the north of the site, and the building has not been completed at the time of assessment.

PROPOSAL This application is seeking outline planning permission for a site for an infill dwelling.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2010/0342/F – Approval was granted adjacent and north of this application site for a dwelling with double garage, stables and associated site works. The proposal was

33 a change of house type to previous approval T/2008/0671/RM. This approval was conditioned to be commenced by 26th January 2011, the agent has indicated on a submitted drawing that the proposal has been commenced, however no construction work was evident at the time of site inspection.

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk (Revised September 2014): sets out planning policies to minimise flood risk to people, property and the environment.

CONSULTATION Council Environmental Health Section – No objections.

Transport NI – No objections.

Historic Environment Division – No objections.

Rivers Agency – No specific objections were raised however it was stated that an undesignated watercourse traverses the site and as such additional information may be required regarding flood risk and drainage.

34 Belfast International Airport – Response stated that a building up to a height of 10m would not raise safeguarding concerns; a number of informatives were also suggested.

Health and Safety Executive & Gas Pipeline Operator – No objections

REPRESENTATION One (1) neighbouring property notified and no letters of representation have been received.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Integration  Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area  Flood Risk

Principle of Development Policy CTY1 of PPS21 sets out 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. Policy CTY1 indicates that the development of a small gap site within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage is such a form of acceptable development in accordance with Policy CTY8.

Policy CTY8 states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. It does however state that 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 considerations. Policy CTY8 defines a substantial and built up frontage as including a line of three (3) or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

In this case the agent has indicated that the application site is a gap between the existing dwelling No.139 to the south and the dwelling approved under reference T/2010/0342/F to the north with a large poultry house located further north.

While it is accepted there is a gap between the existing and approved development the critical consideration in this case is whether, in accordance with the policy, the existing buildings constitute a substantial and built up frontage. The buildings are all set back from the public road and accessed via private laneways; none of the buildings have a direct road frontage nor do they have a frontage on to a shared laneway. In the absence of the buildings having a frontage to the road the existing pattern of development cannot constitute a substantial and built up frontage as required by the policy. In addition the policy clearly refers to buildings, meaning existing built form and it is not possible, under the policy to consider a planning approval as forming part of a substantial and continuously built up frontage.

35 Integration Policy CTY1 also states that all proposals for development in the countryside must be sited and designed to integrate sympathetically with their surroundings. The SPPS also states at paragraph 6.70 that all development in the countryside must integrate. The application site is set off the public road and although all boundaries of the site are not well defined the site does have some mature vegetation that offers screening of the site from any views when travelling along the Seven Mile Straight. Given the distance the site is set back from the public road and the extent of the existing intervening vegetation it is considered that a dwelling could be integrated although a height restriction would be required to ensure development is not visible above the level of the existing screening.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area Policy CTY14 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. It identifies that a new building will be unacceptable where, it results in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings. The proposed dwelling when added to existing and approved development in the area will contribute to the erosion of the rural character through the continued development of one-off housing within the immediate area.

Flood Risk As previously stated Rivers Agency provided comment regarding possible flood risk, the response received does suggest that additional information may be required to ensure that any development does not result in a risk of flooding. Given that the application is for outline permission and the proposal is seen as unacceptable in policy terms no further information has been requested from the agent for the proposal and this would constitute nugatory work leading to unnecessary expense.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The principle of the development is not seen as acceptable as the proposal fails to meet any of the forms of development seen as acceptable under Policy CTY1 of PPS21.  The proposal fails to meet with Policy CTY14 as it will cause a detrimental change to, and further erode the rural character of the area due to a build-up of development.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not be at risk from flooding or would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement 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 and it fails to meet with the provisions for an infill dwelling in accordance with Policy CTY8 of PPS21.

36 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the building would, if permitted, add to a build-up of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to, and further erode, the rural character of the countryside.

3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy FLD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 15, Planning & Flood Risk in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not be at risk from flooding or would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

37 38 ITEM 3.9

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0172/O DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Dwelling and Garage

SITE/LOCATION: Approx. 60m west of 104 Staffordstown Road, Randalstown

APPLICANT: James Nelson

AGENT: Aidan Burke

LAST SITE VISIT: 08-03-2016

CASE OFFICER: Simon Russell Tel: 02890340427 e-mail: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site lies outside of any settlements as defined by the Antrim Area Plan 1984-2001. It is a square-shaped portion of land cut out of a larger agricultural field located on the eastern side of the Staffordstown Road. It is set back approximately 130m from the junction of the Staffordstown and Creeve Road. The site is accessed via a shared laneway which provides access to a number of single dwellings (No.106 and 108).

The site lies adjacent to the front garden area belonging to the farm dwelling at No.104 Staffordstown Road and a group of agricultural buildings associated with this property. The western boundary is defined by the shared laneway and a box-cut hedgerow while a belt of mature trees and a 1.2m high post and wire fencing define the southern boundary. The remaining boundaries are undefined and the topography of the site is relatively flat.

The surrounding land rises from the Staffordstown Road and then falls in a southeasterly direction towards the application site. The surrounding area is characterised by dispersed single dwellings and agricultural land. The site lies approximately just to the east of the hamlet of Creggan-Cranfield. Creggan Primary school lies approximately 200m to the west of the site.

39 PROPOSAL This application is seeking outline planning permission for a dwelling and garage on a farm.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No relevant site history.

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 2015: The site lies outwith of any settlement limits. The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

PPS 6: Planning and Archaeology and the Built Heritage: sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.

CONSULTATION DAERA Countryside Management Branch – Confirmed the farm business ID has been in existence for more than 6 years and that relevant farm payments have been claimed within the last 6 years.

Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Water Management Unit – No objections

40 Historic Environment Division – Historic Monuments Unit - No objections

Transport NI – No objections subject to conditions

NI Water – No objections

Council Environmental Health Section – No objections

REPRESENTATION Seven (7) neighbouring property were notified and no letters of representation were received.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development;  Impact on the character and appearance of the area;  Neighbour amenity;  Impact on Archaeological Assets; and  Access arrangements.

Principle of Development The policy context for determining this application is provided by Planning Policy Statement 21 “Sustainable Development in the Countryside” (PPS 21) and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 sets out the types of development that are considered to be acceptable in principle in the countryside. These include a dwelling on a farm in accordance with Policy CTY10. The SPPS contains a Regional Strategic Policy entitled ‘Dwellings on Farms’. Of relevance to this application, the SPPS replaces the definition of agricultural activity given in paragraph 5.39 of the Justification and Amplification to Policy CTY10. In line with the transitional arrangements set out in the SPPS, any conflict between the retained policy and the SPPS is to be resolved in favour of the SPPS.

Policy CTY10 of PPS 21 sets out three criteria which proposals for farm dwellings must satisfy. Criterion (a) requires the farm business to be currently active and established for at least 6 years. As outlined above, the SPPS replaces the definition of agricultural activity given in paragraph 5.39 of PPS21. This definition aids in establishing what can be regarded as active farming. The SPPS now refers the decision maker to the definition of agricultural activity in Article 4 of the European Council Regulations (EC) No 1307/2013. There is no material difference between the two definitions regarding what can constitute agricultural activity. In this case DEARA Countryside Management Branch has confirmed that the applicant has an active farm business which has been established for at least 6 years and for which Single Farm Payments (SFP), Less Favoured Area Compensatory Allowances (LFACA) or Agri Environmental Schemes are claimed.

Criterion (b) requires that no dwellings or development opportunities out-with the settlement limits shouild have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years from the date of the application and this provision applies from 25 November 2008. The policy goes on to say that planning permission granted under this policy will only be forthcoming once every 10 years. Paragraph 5.40 of the Justification and Amplification section states that planning permission will not be granted for a dwelling

41 under this policy where a rural business is artificially divided for the purpose of obtaining planning permission or has recently sold-off a development opportunity from the farm such as a replacement dwelling or other building capable of conversion. For the purposes of this policy “sold-off” means any development opportunity disposed of from the farm holding to any other person including a member of the family.

The applicant has confirmed in Question No.05 on the P1C form accompanying the application that no dwellings or development opportunities have been sold-off from the farm holding since 25 November 2008. However, a planning history search of the applicant’s lands has identified that a development opportunity has been sold off from the agricultural holding. Planning permission was previously granted for a dwelling and garage by DOE Planning on 02 July 2008 under planning reference T/2008/0257/F on lands identified as approximately130m north of Creggan House, Straffordstown Road, Randalstown. Planning permission was more recently approved under T/2013/0038/F on 22 April 2013 for a variation to the house design that was previously approved under the 2008 permission. This dwelling is now built and allegedly occupied by the applicant’s brother. The dwelling is registered as No.110 Staffordstown Road.

The applicant was requested to provide evidence of the date of transfer for this dwelling in order to prove that it meets with the terms of criterion (b). A letter from the applicant’s solicitor dated 30 August 2016 confirmed that the dwelling house at No.110 Staffordstown Road does not form part of the applicant’s farm at 104 Staffordstown Road. A copy of the Transfer confirmed that the land in question was transferred from James and Agnes Nelson to Christopher and Jill Graffin of 112 Staffordstown Road on 24 September 2010. Given that this parcel of land was sold off from the farm holding after 25 November 2008 the proposal fails to meet criterion (b) of policy CTY 10. No further justification was provided by the applicant as to what policy criterion they wished to apply for a dwelling in the countryside.

Criterion (c) requires that any new buildings are visually linked or sited to cluster with, an established group of buildings on the farm, and where practicable, access should be obtained from an existing lane. The application site is located in the adjoining field with a mature belt of trees lining the southern boundary between it and the existing farm holding. It is considered that the proposed building would be visually linked with existing buildings on the farm if it was not for the existence of the mature tree line. Paragraph 5.41 of the justification and amplification of Policy CTY 10 allows for this to ensure the retention of trees and hedgerows and therefore it is considered that criterion (c) is met in this instance.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area The SPPS para. 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting and respect the rural character of the area. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that a new building will be unacceptable where the site lacks long established natural boundaries, is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape or relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration. The application site is set back in excess of 150m from the road and has some integrating features such as a backdrop of very mature trees along its southern boundary. Critical views of the site are achievable from the Staffordstown Road when travelling north-eastwards, however these are quite restricted and will be filtered by the existing roadside development. Views when travelling south-westwards along the Staffordstown Road

42 are restricted due to the existing belt of mature trees which line the neighbouring field boundary to the northeast of the site.

It is considered that the natural screenings of the site along with the setback from the road would assist in the integration of a dwelling. The proposal is therefore considered consistent with the requirements of Policy CTY13 of PPS21. As this is an outline application, the design of the dwelling will be considered and assessed at the reserved matters stage.

Policy CTY14 of PPS21 identifies 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. It goes on to state that a new building will be unacceptable where, among other matters, it does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in that area. It is considered that the siting, scale and massing of the dwelling and detached garage are appropriate and will not have a detrimental impact upon the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposed development is therefore in general accord with the requirements of policy CTY14 of PPS21.

Neighbouring Amenity It is considered that impact on privacy or amenity of residents in the immediate vicinity of the site will not be adversely affected by the proposed development given the appropriate separation distances from the nearest neighbouring dwelling (104 Staffordstown Road).

Impact on Archaeological Assets The application site lies in close proximity to a scheduled monument, which is protected by Policy BH2 of PPS6. Given the proximity to the proposed development, Historic Environment Division advised that this is an area of high archaeological potential, but is content for the proposal to proceed on condition that there is a developer funded programme of archaeological works prior to any development taking place.

Access Arrangements It is proposed to provide visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m. Transport NI was consulted on the proposal and has requested conditions be attached to the grant of any planning permission requiring further details to be provided as part of a reserved matters application.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The principle of the development is considered unacceptable in that a development opportunity in the form of a dwelling approved under T/2008/0257/F has been sold off the farm holding in the last ten years.  There are no concerns with the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity or character of the area.  There is no perceived detrimental impact on archaeological assets in the vicinity of the site;

43 RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY1 of the Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

2. The proposal is contrary to policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered an exceptional case in that a development opportunity has been sold off from the farm holding since November 2008.

44 45 ITEM 3.10

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0103/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Dwelling (Change of house type from previously approved application T/2009/0001/F).

SITE/LOCATION: 100m south of 8 Barnish Road, Kells, Ballymena

APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Ivan Warwick

AGENT: DAC Design

LAST SITE VISIT: 08-03-2016

CASE OFFICER: Simon Russell Tel: 028 903 40427 Email [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The site consists of a roughly rectangular-shaped elevated flat portion of land located on the western side of the Barnish Road. The site is accessed via a recently constructed laneway and is set back approximately 100m from the public road. Foundations relating to a detached dwelling (approved under T/2009/0001/F) have been excavated on the site. At the time of inspection a large section of the slope had been removed to create a flat plateau and the domestic store associated with the previous grant of planning permission was under construction. Photovoltaic panels (approved under LA03/2015/0319/F) had been installed on the portion of land abutting the southeastern boundary.

The exposed face of the slope defines the western, southern and southeastern boundaries of the site. Post and wire fencing defines the southwestern boundary with a row of trees planted on the bank of the slope just beyond it. The eastern boundary is defined by a section of the existing laneway. Tardree Forest lies to the south of the site which provides a backdrop when travelling along the Doagh Road and Ballymena Road (B59). A public footpath associated with Tardree Forest overlooks the site from the south.

46 The application site lies within the countryside outwith of any settlements as defined by the Antrim Area Plan. The surrounding area is characterised by an area of undulating farmland with the occasional detached dwelling and farmstead. A large detached dwelling and its associated outbuildings at No.8 Barnish Road is located approximately 50m to the north and sits below the application due to the sloping topography of the site. Tardree Agricultural Supplies lies to the north east at No.7 Barnish Road.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for a dwelling. In effect the application is seeking a revised design from the dwelling previously approved and commenced under application (T/2009/0001/F).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2009/00001/F – Change of house type and construction of car store for private collection of cars, polishing bay, wash bay and general store for domestic use to replace three bay garage and basement (Approved 29 January 2009);

T/2005/0338/F – New dwelling and garage (Approved 02 September 2005);

T/2002/0616/O – Site of dwelling (Approved 01 October 2002); and

LA03/2015/0319/F - Installation of 20kw of Photovoltaic panels to generate electricity on ground mounted bucket system (Approved 08 Dec 2015);

PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

47 PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking (Revised 2005) and PPS 3 (Clarification 2006): sets out planning policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking.

PPS 21; Sustainable Development in the Countryside: sets out planning policies for development in the countryside. This is supplemented by Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside.

CONSULTATION In view of the previous approval at this site no consultations were considered necessary on this application which seeks an amended design.

REPRESENTATION One (1) neighbouring property was notified of the application and no letters of representation have been received.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development;  Design, Integration and Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area;  Neighbouring Amenity; and  Other Matters.

Principle of Development A material consideration in the determination of this application is the planning history of the site. The principle of development has been accepted through the approval of a previous planning permission T/2009/0001/F by DOE Planning on 29 January 2009. Foundations relating to the dwelling have been excavated on the site in order to implement this permission. It is considered that the principle of the development for a dwelling is acceptable.

Design, Integration and Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area Policy CTY 13 of PPS 13 states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in the countryside where it can visually be integrated into the surrounding landscape and is of an appropriate design. It goes on to state that a new building will be unacceptable where the design of the building is inappropriate for the site and its locality. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) reinforces this and states that in all circumstances proposals for development in the countryside must not have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area and be appropriately designed.

The extant planning permission approved the construction of a one and a half storey chalet bungalow with a large rectangular general purpose domestic store to the rear. As stated earlier in the report the applicant was in the process of constructing the domestic store and has put in the foundations for the dwelling. It is considered that this permission remains live and represents a legitimate fall-back position for the applicant.

The current application seeks planning permission for a single storey wooden cabin with a ridge height of 4m, a frontage of 14.0m, a gable depth of 7.6m and an overall footprint of 105sqm. The dwelling will provide for a modest level of living accommodation in the form of 2 no, bedrooms, 1 no. ensuite, utility room, and an

48 open kitchen, dining and living room. The dwelling is to be finished in Scandinavian red wood cladding with black/dark grey aluminium roof tiles.

Paragraph 5.77 of PPS 21 acknowledges that a new building may have little impact by itself, however taken cumulatively with other existing buildings and approved buildings and their ancillary features in the vicinity, it could result in the build-up of development detrimental to the rural character of that area.

The previous grant of planning permission was to be sited in front of the domestic store towards the front of the site which related reasonably well with each other. Although the proposed cabin is to be sited on the same footprint as the previously approved dwelling, it is of a smaller scale and size and will read as subordinate to the larger domestic store on the most open part of the site. The store has a ridge height of approximately 5.5m with a frontage of 45m and a gable depth of 13.5m and occupies a footprint in excess of 600m2.

Cabins are usually associated with temporary accommodation and/or holiday accommodation. In this case the applicant is seeking permission for the use of a log cabin as a residential home on a permanent basis and therefore any consideration under CTY 9 of PPS 21 is not applicable in the determination of this application. It is considered that the predominant use of redwood as an exterior building finish for a permanent dwelling in the rural area is not acceptable. In addition, the design and form of the building represents a building which is typically temporary in nature, however, the permanent retention of such a building, using non-traditional building materials is considered not acceptable as it would be incongruous in the landscape.

Policy CTY14 of PPS21 states that a new building should respect the traditional pattern of development in order to maintain and protect the rural character of the area. It is considered that approving this type of development at this location could lead to an unwelcome proliferation of similar types of dwellings in the locality which would inevitably contribute to a detrimental change in the character of the area.

During the processing of the application the applicant’s agent submitted a picture and Google Street View map (Document No.02) of a dwelling at 55 Collin Road, Ballyclare(which falls outside the Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough) which they considered was of a similar type of development to that being proposed. It is considered that the quoted example is not comparable to the current application as it differs in terms of design and site context. Furthermore the agent did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that planning permission had indeed been granted for this dwelling or any justification as to why this example was pertinent to the assessment of the current application. Therefore only limited weight has been afforded to the quoted example in the determination of the current application.

Neighbouring Amenity It is considered that the neighbouring property in closest proximity to the site (No.8 Barnish Road) will not be significantly affected by the proposal in terms of overlooking, loss of daylight or dominance due to the appropriate separation distance between the subject building and this property.

49 Other Matters The development proposes to utilise the same access as approved under the previous grant of planning permission. It is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy AMP 2 of PPS 3.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The principle of a dwelling is considered acceptable; however  The design and finishes of the proposed dwelling is inappropriate for this site and would, if approved, contribute to a detrimental change in the character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASON FOR REFUSAL

1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY13 and 14 of the Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the design of the building proposed is inappropriate for the site and will as a result lead to an erosion of the character of this rural area.

50 51 ITEM 3.11

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0560/A DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Aluminium plastic composite signage on steel frame (business entrance sign) – Existing

LOCATION: 10 Crooked Stone Road, Nutts Corner, Crumlin, BT29 4EH

APPLICANT: A Hyde Farm Feeds

AGENT N/A

LAST SITE VISIT: 9th September 2016

CASE OFFICER: Steven McQuillan Tel: 028 903 40421 Email [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT

SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located within the countryside at the roadside entrance to No.10 Crooked Stone Road. The site is within a small rectangular agricultural field and advertises 4 No. businesses operating from 10. Crooked Stone Road.

PROPOSAL The application seeks advertisement consent. The sign measures approx. 6sqm and has a double frontage on a triangular frame that is positioned to have visual impact from both approaches along the Crooked Stone Road. The signage is raised above ground level and has a maximum height of 3.78m above ground level.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY There is no planning history on the site of the advertisement; however the wider site at 10 Crooked Stone Road has an extensive planning history, specifically for airport car parking.

52 PLANNING POLICY Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001/Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

PPS 17: Control of Outdoor Advertisements: sets out planning policy and guidance for the control of outdoor advertisements.

CONSULTATION Transport NI - No objection

REPRESENTATION No neighbours were consulted as the proposal is for advertising consent. No representations have been received.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Advertisement  Visual Impact  Public Safety

The application for advertisement consent is retrospective and the plans as submitted would appear to be photographs of the actual signage, superimposed onto the elevational plan. The Dooley’s Car Rentals sign has recently been replaced on site with BCH Self Drive signage. Elevation A is also technically incorrect as it is a 'mirror' image to the signage on site, however, these details are minor and do not detract from the impact of what is proposed.

53 Principle of Advertisement The site is located in the countryside and the sign advertises four businesses at the site; Stone Bridge Premium Feeds, A. Hyde Farm Feeds & Supplies, Hyde Air Park Airport Parking and Dooleys Car Rentals (now BCH Self Drive).

The principle of an advertisement for a business is considered acceptable, especially in a countryside location where the businesses are not easily identified from the public road. It is accepted that the farm feed business is established on the site and approval has been granted through the appeals process for some airport parking, however the car hire use has not been approved on the lands nor is deemed to be lawful through a Certificate of Lawfulness.

Visual Impact The Crooked Stone Road is approximately 1.33km long and connects to the Ballyrobin Road at both ends, with no other roads accessing off the Crooked Stone Road. There is limited potential for through traffic on this road and anyone on the road is more than likely using it to access one of the businesses or residential properties on the road. There are 13 residential dwellings (2 of which include farms), an electricity substation and 4 No. businesses (as noted above) that are currently on Crooked Stone Road.

The signage incorporates 4 No. business signs, each of the businesses contributing approximately 1.5sqm advertising space. Views of the signage are restricted on approach from the east along Crooked Stone Road, however they are more open from the west. The advertisement is set against a backdrop of trees from both directions which makes the signage stand out against the natural backdrop. The advertisement is colourful and coupled with its overall size it appears incongruous in the landscape. Whilst there are limited 'passers by' on this road and 4 No. businesses are being advertised, a proliferation of large advertisements in the countryside is not normally an accepted practice due to the impact on rural character.

There are no competing advertisements for attention and the main purpose of the signage is not to advertise for potential new customers but rather direct customers to the correct site. As a result, it is not considered signage of this magnitude is necessary and while the principle of signage is acceptable, it is considered that the scale of the advertisement does not respect the rural character of this area.

Road Safety Being located roadside with a double frontage, the aim of the advertisement board is to attract the attention of road users. Drivers are faced with a number of varied and competing distractions during any normal journey, including advertising hoardings, which are deliberately designed to attract attention. At all times drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. This minor road does not attract a lot of traffic (as discussed above) and the average speed of traffic on this road is not considered to be excessive. As a result, it is considered that this advertising hoarding does not prejudice road safety to an unacceptable degree.

54 CONCLUSION Article 3 of the Advertisement Regulations state that a Council shall exercise its powers under the Regulations only in the interest of amenity and public safety. In this case, it is considered the signs do not respect the rural character of the area due to the size of signage.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT

PROPOSED REASON OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy AD 1 of Planning Policy Statement 17: Control of Outdoor Advertisements, in that the proposed signage would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on visual amenity of the area and will be overly dominant in the area.

55 56 ITEM 3.12

CASE REFERENCE: LA03/2016/0714/TPO DEA: MACEDON

COMMITTEE INTEREST: CALLED IN BY COMMITTEE MEMBER

TPO WORKS Felling of 2 no. trees and crown reduce 2 no. trees REQUESTED:

SITE/LOCATION: 4 Culmeglen, Jordanstown, BT37 0AU

AGENT N/A

LAST SITE VISIT: 9th September 2016

CASE OFFICER: Steven McQuillan Tel: 028 903 40421 E-mail: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: PARTIAL GRANT OF TPO WORKS CONSENT

SITE DESCRIPTION The Tree Preservation Order (TPO) site is located on the former site of Nos. 82-84 Circular Road, Jordanstown, which now comprises the residential development of Culmeglen. This residential development is characterised by large detached red brick dwellings. The trees subject to this request are located in the rear amenity space of No. 4 Culmeglen, mainly along the rear (southern) boundary. They are protected by the TPO on the lands (reference: TPO/1997/0010 dated 23rd December 1997) and are not excluded by the First Schedule of the Order. Under the provisions of the TPO and Section 122 of the Planning Act, consent from the Council is required to cut down, uproot, top or lop a protected tree, however exceptions include dead or dangerous trees, works by statutory undertakers and prevention of abatement of a nuisance.

The trees subject to this request correspond with Tree Tag Nos. 63, 66, 68 & 69 of the original TPO survey.

TREE CONDITION ASSESSMENT A visual assessment was carried out on the trees on 25th August 2016 and it was clear work had previously been carried out to all these trees, namely crown lifting. Given the location of these trees within the rear amenity space of No. 4 Culmeglen this is not an uncommon practice. The four trees are single stemmed with no obvious defect at ground level. There was evidence of a fungus bracket on a previous wound at approx. 4m, that the applicant has identified as ‘honey fungus’. Any wound, including pruning wounds, is like an open gate to pathogens like fungus and bacteria, although a tree can seal off wounds over time through compartmentalisation. The greater the number of wounds the greater the stress on the tree system.

57 Honey fungus is the most destructive fungal disease found in gardens that attacks and kills the roots of trees. The species of the tree in question is Beech, which is particularly susceptible to honey fungus. Symptoms of honey fungus include decaying roots (and soil rhizomorphs), white fungus between bark (often cracking at base) and wood, and the growth of mushroom like fungus on affected stumps in autumn (not always). The result of the infection is that the tree should show signs of dying back over time. In this case, the only evidence of honey fungus is a mushroom bracket growing out of a previous wound at 4m high. An inspection of this wound was carried out on 9th September 2016 and found decay that tunnelled into the inner heartwood of the tree. This pocket of decay extended as far as the eye can see and provides a pocket for collection of rain and entrance for pathogens into the tree.

No arboricultural report has been submitted with the request.

AMENITY VALUE ASSESSMENT Part of the consideration of this application is the assessment of the impact of the proposed works on the amenity value offered by the trees and the TPO as a whole. The trees subject to this request are only visible from within the confines of the Culmeglen development, however their size of approx. 12-14m projects beyond the ridge of existing buildings and provides high amenity value within the site by softening the impact of the development. Given their location to the rear of development, their retention should be sought where possible.

CONSIDERATION Crown reduction is proposed for two of the trees (tree tags 63 & 66), which is a form of tree management often utilised adjacent to residential development. This enables large trees to co-exist with residential properties without impact on site safety. Given their location along the southern boundary of the site, this will also allow for additional light into the rear amenity space. It is acknowledged there will be an immediate temporary impact on the amenity value in the aftermath of these works, however, tree management is an important responsibility to ensure site safety and thus it is recommended consent is granted for these works, subject to condition.

Felling is proposed for tree tag No. 68 due to its impact on the root system causing damage within the property. During a site inspection, it was clear the tree was lifting a portion of an existing decked area, however given its location closely surrounding the tree, it was only a matter of time before this occurred. The decking and an adjacent summer house have been constructed lawfully and would appear to have been in place when the house was purchased by the present owner in 2004. It is considered that the construction of the summer house and the decked areas were not a deliberate attempt to seek removal of this tree. Regardless, trees grow both vertically and horizontally and this issue could have been avoided by providing greater space for the tree to flourish. Ultimately, the owner could cut a larger area of decking away from around the tree to prevent impact.

Felling is also proposed for tree tag No. 69 due to a fungal infection. As highlighted above, there is evidence of decay tunnelling into the sensitive inner heartwood of the tree and this wound provides a channel for rainwater to collect internally and add further decay. It is unclear how far this decay and fungus extends into the tree, however, site safety must be prioritised over visual amenity. As a result, it is recommended the tree is felled subject to its replacement.

58 CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  Crown reduction is a form of tree management often used for trees adjacent to development. In addition, these works will allow more light into the rear amenity space.  Honey fungus has the potential to spread in the soil and impact other trees  Site safety must be prioritised over the amenity value of a protected tree  The decking area was erected too close to the existing tree and was only a matter of time before it began to impact upon it. Remedial works could be carried out to the decking to prevent impact around the tree stump

RECOMMENDATION: PARTIAL GRANT OF TPO WORKS CONSENT

PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. Felling shall be carried out to tree tag No. 69 (Beech) only as indicated in blue on attached Map B.

2. Replanting must be carried out to compensate for the loss of this protected tree. This replanting shall comprise an extra heavy standard tree of 14 – 16cm in girth and 3 - 5m in height at the time of planting. The replanting shall be carried out within one month of the trees removal (or within a timescale as otherwise agreed in writing with the Council) in a location as close to the location of the tree that has been removed. Species shall include Birch or another appropriate species agreed in writing by the Council prior to the removal of any trees.

3. If a replacement tree, within a period of 5 years, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, it shall be replaced within the next available planting season by trees of the same species, variety and size to those originally planted, in the same location, unless the Council gives its written consent to any request for variation.

4. Crown reduction shall be carried out to tree tag Nos. 63 & 66 (Beech & Horse Chestnut) as indicated in yellow on attached Map B.

5. Crown reduction shall be limited up to a maximum of 25% of the existing tree’s crown.

6. No branch, limb or trunk greater than 200mm shall be cut in the process of crown reduction.

REFUSAL REASON

1. The proposed felling of tree tag No. 68 (Sycamore) is refused as it is considered the decking around the tree was constructed too close to the tree without allowance for its growth and that remedial works to the existing decking could be carried out to secure the retention of this protected tree.

59 60 ITEM 3.13

CASE REFERENCE: LA03/2016/0664/TPO DEA: MACEDON

COMMITTEE INTEREST: CALLED IN BY COMMITTEE MEMBER

TPO WORKS Removal of 9 No. Cypress trees (and replacement with 12 no. birch REQUESTED: trees)

SITE/LOCATION: Marks & Spencer, Longwood Road, Newtownabbey, BT37 9UL

AGENT N/A

LAST SITE VISIT: 25th August 2016

CASE OFFICER: Steven McQuillan Tel: 028 903 40421 E-mail: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT TPO WORKS CONSENT

SITE DESCRIPTION The TPO site is located within the grounds of the Marks & Spencer retail unit at Longwood Road, Newtownabbey, adjacent the Abbey Centre complex. The trees subject to this request are located in the northeastern corner of the site, just in front of a 2m high wooden fence with the boundary separating the site from Merville Garden Village.

The trees subject to this request fall within the Modified Tree Preservation Order for lands at Longwood Road, Newtownabbey (reference: TPO/2000/0003 dated 3rd July 2003) and are not excluded by the First Schedule of the Order. Under the provisions of the TPO and Section 122 of the Planning Act, consent from the Council is required to cut down, uproot, top or lop a protected tree, however exceptions include dead or dangerous trees, works by statutory undertakers and prevention of abatement of a nuisance.

TREE CONDITION ASSESSMENT A visual assessment was carried out on the trees on 25th August 2016 and it was clear that all of these trees have had extensive cuts made to them over the years, which has resulted in a growth of multi-stems on each of the trees. Many of these trees have been faced to prevent their encroachment into the adjacent car parking area, namely those which are closer to the carpark (approx. 1m). This in itself would meet the legal definition of nuisance and thus would not require consent. The reason given for the proposed removal of these trees is that they have split stems leading towards neighbouring residential properties. During the site visit, it was clear that one of these trees was badly split in a number of its stems, however this did not appear to apply to all of the trees. There was evidence of deadwood within the crowns of each of the trees.

61 AMENITY VALUE ASSESSMENT Part of the consideration of this application is the assessment of the impact of the proposed works on the amenity value offered by the trees and the TPO as a whole. The trees subject to this request are only visible from within the confines of the retail site, although this is still a public vantage point for assessment. The cypress trees are coniferous (often referred to as 'leylandii') and their amenity value is much lower than their broad- leafed counterparts. The trees are located in a corner of the site and do not provide high amenity value within the site. The cuts that have taken place to the trees to date to prevent them encroaching on the carpark have created an unattractive and un-natural form to some of these trees. Despite the trees size and height of approx. 10-12m, it is not considered the trees offer high amenity value within the site or the TPO as a whole.

CONSIDERATION Cypress trees, by their nature, are a fast growing tree, which tend to have low biodiversity value when compared with their deciduous counterparts. Cypress trees do not adapt well to heavy pruning and do not develop new buds on older wood. This means that cutting new shoots back beyond the leaf will not result in regrowth and may result in bare spots on the tree. This is evident on the site on the most southern group of trees.

There are eight of the cypress trees growing with interlocking crowns and the removal of one of these trees is likely to result in a one sided crown on the adjacent tree resulting in exposed deadwood. In this case, the split tree could technically be removed without consent as it could be deemed dangerous. Its removal from the end of the interlocking crowns is likely to expose deadwood on its adjacent tree.

The crown of one of these trees is growing among a lighting column and within the thick dense crown, this is likely to raise security and safety issues within the car park on winter evenings. The crown could of course be trimmed back, however this is likely to detrimentally impact on the visual amenity and may involve trimming back beyond the shoot.

The removal of these trees will not provide any financial benefit to the retail unit or provide any additional car parking spaces. It is the owner’s intention to replace the 9 trees with 12 birch trees, which would be a condition of any decision to grant consent. The nine trees currently provide a separation with Merville Garden Village, namely No. 346, however a 2m high close boarded timber fence (with other vegetation) defines this site which has no views through and the dwelling itself is located approx. 30m from the boundary. The occupier is aware of this application and although they have raised overlooking issues with respect to the first floor restaurant window, it is considered that these trees are not located directly in-between. In addition, it is considered that there will not be any impact from car lights following the removal of the trees due to the solid timber fence referred to earlier. Lighting within the site is designed to illuminate the car park and given the separation distance between the lighting and the residential property, it is not considered to be significantly detrimental. In addition, new trees are proposed to be planted in lieu of the trees to be removed to minimise long term impact.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  Cypress trees have low amenity and biodiversity value;  Heavy pruning of Cypress trees can lead to crown bare areas;

62  The removal of one Cypress tree growing in a group with interlocking crowns is likely to lead to exposed deadwood which is visually detrimental;  There is not considered to be any significant detrimental impact on nearby properties  Replacement planting with 12 No. Birch trees is considered to be of longer term benefit.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT TPO WORKS CONSENT

PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. Felling to be carried out to the nine Cypress trees as indicated in blue in the approximate positions shown on attached Map B.

2. Replanting must be carried out to compensate for the loss of these protected trees. This replanting shall comprise 12 No. extra heavy standard trees of 14 – 16cm in girth and 3 - 5m in height at the time of planting. The replanting shall be carried out within one month of the trees removal (or within a timescale as otherwise agreed in writing with the Council) in an evenly spaced fashion and as identified in yellow on attached Map B. Species shall include Birch or another appropriate species agreed in writing by the Council prior to the removal of any trees.

63 64 PART 2 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNING POLICY AND CONSERVATION

65 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

ITEM 3.14

P/PLAN/1 DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS AND APPEALS

A list of planning decisions issued by Officers during September 2016 under delegated powers is enclosed for Members attention together with information received this month on planning appeals.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

66 ITEM 3.15

P/PLAN/1 PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTIFICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT

Members will be aware that prospective applicants for all development proposals which fall into the Major development category under the 2011 Planning Act are required to give at least 12 weeks notice to the Council that an application for planning permission is to be submitted. This is referred to as a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN). Three PAN’s have been registered during August and the details are set out below.

PAN Reference: LA03/2016/0789/PAN Proposal: Proposed residential development comprising circa 28no detached dwelling houses, landscaping and all associated site and access works. Location: Lands at Willowbrook, 401 Shore Road, Whiteabbey, Jordanstown Applicant: Amulet Developments Ltd Date Received: 05 September 2016 12 week expiry: 28 November 2016

PAN Reference: LA03/2016/0812/PAN Proposal: Driver Training Centre to address the road death figures on our roads. Also a British Association of Rally Schools (BARS) Centre for training and licencing for competition. Location: Nutts Corner, Moira Road, Ballydonaghy, Glenavy, BT29 4JL Applicant: James Crozier Date Received: 12 September 2016 12 week expiry: 5 December 2016

PAN Reference: LA03/2016/0885/PAN Proposal: Proposed residential development comprising circa 100 no. dwelling units, upgraded road access and all other associated site works. Location: Lands at Monkstown Road, Newtownabbey Applicant: Brayfield Developments Limited Date Received: 30 September 2016 12 week expiry: 23 December 2016

Members will recall that under Section 27 of the 2011 Planning Act obligations are placed on the prospective developer to consult the community in advance of submitting a Major development planning application. Where, following the 12 week period set down in statute, an application is submitted this must be accompanied by a Pre-Application Community consultation report outlining what consultation has been undertaken regarding the application and detailing how this has influenced the proposal submitted.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

67 68 69 70 ITEM 3.16

PLANNING APPLICATIONS – REFERENCES T/2005/0977/F AND T/2005/1054/F AT PARKGATE QUARRY - RETAINED FOR DETERMINATION BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE - HEARING BY THE PLANNING APPEALS COMMISSION

Members will recall that, following the request earlier this year by the Council for a hearing into the two planning applications at Parkgate Quarry outlined below, the Department for Infrastructure had written to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) requesting such a hearing.

Application Reference: T/2005/0977/F Proposal: Construction of a Waste Transfer & Recycling Facility for Construction & Demolition Wastes

Application Reference: T/2005/1054/F Proposal: Landfill Facility for inert Construction and Demolition Wastes

Location: Parkgate Quarry, Connor Road, Parkgate Applicant: Henry Bros (Magherfelt) Ltd

The PAC has now written to the Council to advise of the arrangements for this hearing which has been scheduled to commence at 10.00am on 27th January 2017 and continuing on the following day if necessary (see copy enclosed). A Pre- hearing has also been organised by the PAC for 1st November 2016 and the Council will be represented at this.

Officers understand that all those who have made representations previously to the Department in relation to these applications have also been be notified by the PAC of the arrangements for the hearing.

Officers will now organise the preparation of the Council’s Statement of Case opposing both developments which must be submitted to the PAC no later 4.00pm on Friday 2nd December 2016.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

71 ITEM 3.17

P/PLAN/1 - NORTHERN IRELAND PLANNING STATISTICS 2016/17 – FIRST QUARTERLY BULLETIN FOR THE PERIOD APRIL – JUNE 2016

The first quarterly provisional planning statistics for 2016/17 produced by the Analysis, Statistics and Research Branch of the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), a copy of which is enclosed, were released on 29 September 2016.

The figures show that during the period from April to June 2016, the total number of planning applications received in Northern Ireland was 3,438, which is an increase of 11.0% over the previous quarter and 8.6% on the same quarter in 2015/16. The total number of decisions issued during this period was 3,490.

During this first quarter period a total of 198 new applications were received by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council (an increase of some 10% over the same period last year in line with the NI trend) and 203 decisions were issued.

In relation to performance against statutory targets the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) figures show that the Council took on average 59.8 weeks to process and decide Major planning applications during the first quarter against the target of 30 weeks. While this performance marks a decline from last year’s performance where the Council was the only Council in NI to meet the Major processing target it still ranks third out of the 11 Councils and also reflects well against the average processing time of 67.1 weeks across all Councils. However, Members should note that these figures relate only to a small number of Major applications (four applications during the first quarter) and should therefore be interpreted with care. A more realistic performance figure may only become apparent at year end. It should also be noted that the Planning Section is currently seeking to reduce the number of backlog applications greater than 12 months old which is likely to impact on Major processing times this year.

The DfI figures show that the Council took on average 13.7 weeks to process and decide Local planning applications during the first quarter against the target of 15 weeks. This performance ranks third out of the 11 Councils and again reflects well against the average processing time of 18 weeks across all Councils.

In relation to enforcement the DfI figures highlight that the Council’s planning enforcement team recorded the shortest time taken, 10.1 weeks, to process 70% of enforcement cases to target conclusion. This compares very favourably against both the performance target of 39 weeks and the average processing time of 26.3 weeks across all Councils.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

72 ITEM 3.18

FP/LDP1 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2016 QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT

The Council`s Plan Timetable advises that progress reports on the Local Development Plan will be submitted on a quarterly basis to the Planning Committee. This report covers the second quarter of 2016-2017 (July – Sept 2016).

The Planning Section prepared a Plan Vision and Spatial Strategy Paper which was presented to the Members workshop on 14th September 2016. Further evidence relating to Society and Planning Policy was circulated to Members for discussion at a work shop held on 15 September 2016.

Work has continued on the preparation of the Sustainability Scoping report with Shared Environmental Services.

The first meeting of the Local Development Plan Steering Group took place on 8 September 2016.

In terms of the Plan Timetable, the date for publication of the Preferred Options Paper is now to be December 2016.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

73 ITEM 3.19

P/FP/LDP/52 - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSULTATION

Belfast City Council has written to the Chief Executive to announce the commencement of work on its Local Development Plan and the publication of their Plan Timetable and Statement of Community Involvement (copy of letter and Plan Timetable diagram enclosed).

In addition, Belfast City Council also wishes to discuss cross boundary matters with the Council, and to explore impacts and mutual interests within emerging policies and options in the preparation of its Preferred Options Paper.

At this stage it is intended that Officers from the Council’s Forward Planning team, which is taking forward work on the Council’s new Local Development Plan, will liaise with colleagues from the City Council to consider how matters of common interest should be taken forward.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted

74 ITEM 3.20

P/PLAN/1 PLANNING APPEALS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 2015/16

The Planning Appeals Commission has forwarded a copy of its Annual Report for 2015/16 to the Council, a copy of which is enclosed. The Report provides information on and an analysis of its planning appeal and water appeal casework during 2015/16.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

75 Delegated planning applications decisions issued 1 September 2016 - 30 September 2016

Reference Number Applicant Name & Address Location Proposal Decision Decision Date Decision Date Issued

LA03/2015/0558/F Mr & Mrs Daniel Approx 80m SW of Erection of dwelling and garage in Permission 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 McArthur 22 Village Hill 231 Rashee Road substitution for U/2011/0223/O & Granted Straid BT39 9WQ Ballyclare U/2014/0319/RM LA03/2015/0576/DC Ballyclare Developments Ltd 36 Hillhead Discharge of Conditions 24, 25 & 26 - Condition 05/09/2016 08/09/2016 Road Ballyclare remediation works for proposed Discharged mixed use development incorporating business/light industrial non-food retail and residential units (47 dwellings)

LA03/2015/0683/O Mr & Mrs P Cooke Lands 270m North of no Site for replacement dwelling Permission 23/09/2016 26/09/2016 25 Old Ballybracken Road 25 Old Ballybracken Road Granted Doagh BT39 0TG Doagh LA03/2016/0095/RM Mr Jim McAteer Between 13 and 15 Whitehill Dwelling and garage Reserved 02/09/2016 05/09/2016 17 Whitehill Drive Drive Randalstown (Site 1) Matters Randalstown BT41 2EH Granted

LA03/2016/0099/RM Mr Jim McAteer Between 13 and 15 Whitehill Dwelling and Garage Reserved 30/08/2016 05/09/2016 17 Whitehill Drive Drive Randalstown (site 2) Matters Randalstown BT41 2EH Granted

LA03/2016/0146/DC Gahan and Long Lands 430m North East of Discharge of Condition 4 (Application Condition 28/09/2016 29/09/2016 Archaeological Services 60 Crosskennan Road for the excavation licence) of Discharged 7-9 Castlereagh Street Antrim planning approval T/2013/0182/F for Belfast BT4 5NE Erection of single wind turbine - 32.3m hub height with 16m blades (250kw output)

LA03/2016/0161/F Thornton Roofing LTD 43a Gallagh Road Proposed covered storage extension Permission 14/09/2016 20/09/2016 43a Gallagh Road Toomebridge BT41 to existing workshop Granted Toomebridge BT41 3QU 3QU

LA03/2016/0162/F Ms H Meuwissen 110m SW of 80 The Proposed dwelling on a farm Permission 22/09/2016 23/09/2016 47 North Parade Grantham Longshot Ballyclare Granted NG31 8AT BT39 0QX LA03/2016/0185/F K & M Restaurants Ltd 287-295 Antrim Road Extension of existing building to Permission 31/08/2016 08/09/2016 Thunderdome 287-295 Glengormley. provide external balcony, staircase Granted Antrim Road and associated toilets. Construction Glengormley Belfast of external fire escape staircase.

LA03/2016/0218/F Mr Rodney McBride 20m NE of 101 Proposed conversion of existing Permission 01/09/2016 05/09/2016 101 Ballyutoag Road Ballyutoag Road Belfast stone barn to living accommodation Granted Belfast ancillary to the main dwelling

LA03/2016/0306/F Northern Health and Antrim Area Hospital Oil tank storage compound for Permission 29/09/2016 29/09/2016 Social Care Trust Brettan emergency generators Granted Hall B ush Road Antrim BT41 2RL LA03/2016/0321/O John Boyd 90 Old 242-244 Carnmoney Road Proposed 3no. townhouses to Permission 15/09/2016 20/09/2016 Ballyrobin Road Newtownabbey BT36 6JZ replace the existing 2no. semi- Granted Antrim BT41 4TJ detached houses. LA03/2016/0338/RM Mr & Mrs Owen Between 63 & 67 Dwelling and garage Reserved 12/09/2016 13/09/2016 McConnon 63 Barnish Craigstown Road Matters Road Randalstown BT41 Randalstown Granted 2EJ LA03/2016/0339/RM Mr & Mrs Owen Between 63 & 67 Dwelling and garage Reserved 12/09/2016 13/09/2016 McConnon 63 Barnish Craigstown Road Matters Road Randalstown BT41 Randalstown Granted 2EJ LA03/2016/0340/F RFB Developments LTD Plot no's 37 and 37a 2no. new apartments with associated Permission 02/09/2016 06/09/2016 1 Shanoguestown Glenavna Whiteabbey parking. Granted Muckamore BT41 4QL BT37 0ZT LA03/2016/0366/NMC Steve and Caroline Britton- 34 Rickamore Road Non material change to planning Non Material 23/09/2016 27/09/2016 Hall 34 Rickamore Road Templepatrick approval LA03/2015/0465/F Change Templepatrick BT39 0ET Antrim BT39 0ET (Proposed single storey extension to accepted family room, proposed 2 storey extension to form new lobby and staircase and associated internal alterations)Proposed minor alteration to the shape of the extension LA03/2016/0389/F Latner 10 Developments 89 Site 4 lands at Upper Erection of dwelling as a change of Permission 01/09/2016 05/09/2016 Broughshane Street Hightown Road 30m to house type to include a garage for Granted Ballymena BT43 6ED the south of Hightown site 4 (Previously approved under Terrace Newtownabbey application U/2015/0069/F) Co Antrim BT36 7AU LA03/2016/0396/O Jamie Haslan 268 Seven Adjacent to 268 Seven Mile Proposed infill dwelling and garage Permission 28/09/2016 29/09/2016 Mile Straight Crumlin Straight Crumlin BT29 4YT Granted BT29 4YT LA03/2016/0423/RM Mr Timothy Gregg & Miss Adjacent to and 30m New dwelling and garage Reserved 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 Emma Houston 36 North of 36 Oldwood Matters Oldwood Road Randalstown Road Randalstown Granted

LA03/2016/0434/F Mr & Mrs Warren Ewing 68A Bernice Single storey extension (bedroom Permission 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 66 Bernice Road Road with ensuite) (retrospective) Granted Templepatrick BT39 0HW Templepatrick

LA03/2016/0436/F Education Authority, Property Ballyclare Secondary School Alterations to existing access, Permission 25/08/2016 01/09/2016 Services 52-56 Ballymoney Doagh Road Ballyclare Co provision of pedestrian access and Granted Street Ballymena BT43 6AN Antrim BT39 9BG construction of perimeter walls and gates LA03/2016/0455/F Karen McNeilly 13 100m north of 28 Erection of dwelling, garage and Permission 21/09/2016 26/09/2016 Bryantang Meadows Rickamore Brae domestic stables (Change of house Granted Straid Ballyclare Templepatrick BT39 type to that previously approved BT39 9ZX under T/2013/0035/F including extended site boundary) LA03/2016/0471/F Anne Weir 9 Greystone 9 Greystone Road Residential Development (retaining Permission 02/09/2016 06/09/2016 Road Antrim BT41 Antrim BT41 1HD the existing dwelling with three new Granted 1HD detached 2-storey dwelling to the rear) LA03/2016/0472/RM Mr Grant 8 Mount Pleasant Site 20m North of 368a Proposed 2no new dwellings Reserved 30/08/2016 26/09/2016 View Jordanstown BT37 Ballyclare Road Matters 0ZY Newtownabbey Granted

LA03/2016/0481/F Ken Mairs 100 Green 100 Green Road Proposed replacement dwelling Permission 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 Road Ballyclare Ballyclare BT39 9PR Granted BT39 9PR LA03/2016/0482/O Ian Fleming 6 Lylehill Road 35m N.W of No 6 Lylehill Proposed Dwelling & Garage on a Permission 23/09/2016 23/09/2016 East Newtownabbey Road East. Farm. Granted BT36 8QR

LA03/2016/0487/O Mr John Moss 34 Adjacent to and 40m Site of dwelling and garage on a farm Permission 01/09/2016 05/09/2016 Ballynoe Road Antrim approx South East of 32 (2 storey) Granted Ballynoe Road Antrim LA03/2016/0516/F Lindsey McDowell 178 Rashee Road Demolish existing single storey rear Permission 02/09/2016 05/09/2016 178 Ballyclare BT39 Ballyclare BT39 extension and erect a 2 storey rear Granted 9JB 9JB extension for assisted wheelchair use and disabled bedroom above

LA03/2016/0519/RM Mr & Mrs C McCoy Between 72A and Proposed infill site for new dwelling Reserved 06/09/2016 08/09/2016 72B Roguery Road 72B Roguery Road Matters Toomebridge BT41 3TJ Toomebridge Granted

LA03/2016/0525/F William Lavery 47 Portlee 47 Portlee Walk Disabled facilities bedroom and Permission 25/08/2016 01/09/2016 Walk Antrim BT41 1EL Antrim BT41 1EL shower room extension to rear of Granted dwelling LA03/2016/0527/F Jonathan Cahoon 8 8 Ballydonnelly Road Alterations and extension to existing Permission 21/09/2016 26/09/2016 Ballydonnelly Road Randalstown BT41 dwelling to allow reconfiguration of Granted Randalstown BT41 3JG dwelling and provide side extension 3JG with living room, kitchen/dining, utility, store and wc

LA03/2016/0535/F Stephen Loughins 44 44 Lynda New Garage/Utility Room to rear/side Permission 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 Lynda Meadows Meadows garden plus new entrance to road, Granted Jordanstown Jordanstown block up existing entrance and demolish existing garage.

LA03/2016/0540/F Trevor Taylor 19 17 Carnanee Retention of existing storage building Permission 14/09/2016 16/09/2016 Carnanee Road Road for transport and distribution Granted Templepatrick Templepatrick business BT39 0BZ LA03/2016/0544/F Mr E Hickey 59 59 Hollybrook Manor Single storey extension to side and Permission 28/09/2016 29/09/2016 Hollybrook Manor Hightown Road rear to provide accessible bedroom Granted Hightown Road Glengormley BT36 and en-suite shower room Glengormley BT36 7XR 7XR LA03/2016/0548/F Stacey & Glenn Ward 11 Glentoye Park Single storey kitchen extension to Permission 16/09/2016 21/09/2016 11 Glentoye Park Jordanstown BT37 rear of dwelling and provision of en- Granted Jordanstown BT37 0RW 0RW suite

LA03/2016/0549/F Mr & Mrs R Ireland 73 Glen 73 Glen Road Ballyclare New detached garage to side of Permission 02/09/2016 05/09/2016 Road Ballyclare BT39 Newtownabbey BT39 existing dwelling Granted 9LT 9LT LA03/2016/0550/A John Moore 162A Antrim 162A Antrim Road Retention of 2 signs. 1x LED sign Consent 26/08/2016 05/09/2016 Road Newtownabbey Newtownabbey BT36 over front door and 1 x hoarding sign Granted BT36 7QZ 7QZ on gable wall. LA03/2016/0553/A Food Programme Delivery 27 Main Street 2 x internally illuminated logos (Sign Consent 13/09/2016 16/09/2016 Orchid Group 1 Angel Ballynure BT39 9TU A1 & A2); 1 x non-illuminated acrylic Granted Square Manchester M60 letters (Sign B); 1 x internally 0AG illuminated projector (Sign C); 1 x non-illuminated post office projector (Sign E); 1 x post office service menu board (Sign F); 2 x non-illuminated wall mounted aluminium panels (Signs G & H)

LA03/2016/0554/A Food Programme Delivery 10-12 Beverley Road 2 x illuminated fascias logo only Consent 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 Orchid Group 1 Angel Glengormley BT36 (Signs A & G); 2 x non-illuminated Granted Square Manchester M60 6QD fascias (Signs B & F); 1 x non- 0AG illuminated projector (Sign C); 1 x internally illuminated suspended logo (Sign D); 1 x post office service menu board (Sign E) LA03/2016/0584/F Phillip Catherwood 21 21 Drennan's Road Proposed extension to rear of Permission 30/08/2016 01/09/2016 Drennan's Road Killead Aldergrove BT29 existing dwelling including conversion Granted Killead Aldergrove 4YL of existing outbuilding to living area. BT29 4YL LA03/2016/0585/F Camden Group 4-7 Steeple 4-7 Steeple Road Industrial Proposed new cladded façade to Permission 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 Road Industrial Estate Estate Antrim BT41 1AB front elevation of existing factory Granted Antrim BT41 1AB building (No additional floor space) LA03/2016/0593/F NIHE Twickenham House 10 52 55 56 57 59 61 63 Repairs to aluminium structural frame Permission 27/09/2016 27/09/2016 Mount Street Ballymena Grant Avenue and external wall finish. Improvement Granted BT43 6BP Randalstown BT41 3AP of thermal insulation to external walling. Improvements to kitchens/bathroom fittings. Replacement of external doors and kitchen windows. External works around the perimeter of each dwelling to support the thermal improvements to the walls.

LA03/2016/0596/F NIHE Twickenham House 8 10 11 14 15 22 23 25 31 Repairs to aluminium structural frame Permission 22/09/2016 23/09/2016 Mount Street Ballymena Hollybush Gardens and external wall finish. Improvement Granted BT43 6BP Ballyclare BT39 9AN of thermal insulation to external walling. Improvements to kitchens/bathroom fittings. Replacement of external doors and kitchen windows. External works around the perimeter of each dwelling to support the thermal improvements to the walls.

LA03/2016/0603/F David Rea 12 Cambrai 12 Cambrai Park Proposed extension to the side and Permission 06/09/2016 12/09/2016 ParkN ewtownabbey BT37 Newtownabbey BT37 rear of dwelling Granted 0AL 0AL LA03/2016/0613/F Mrs Anna Byrne 155 The Wayside Halt 155 Proposed additional car parking area Permission 21/09/2016 26/09/2016 Lisnevenagh Road Lisnevenagh Road Granted Antrim BT41 2JU Antrim BT41 2JU LA03/2016/0615/O Fionnuala Walls 104 104 Roguery Road Replacement Dwelling & Garage Permission 22/09/2016 26/09/2016 Roguery Road Moneyglass Granted Toomebridge BT41 Toomebridge BT41 3PT 3PT LA03/2016/0631/DC Robert McMorran Neo- Lands 90m West of and lands Discharge of Condition 02 Condition 16/09/2016 16/09/2016 Environmental Wright to the South of 72 Milltown (Archaeological Programme of Discharged Business Centre 1 Road (known as Millar Farm) Works) for planning approval Lonmay Road Glasgow Antrim BT41 2JJ T/2015/0094/F (Installation of solar G33 4EL farm) LA03/2016/0636/DC Gina Baban Department for 207 Ballyeaston Discharge of Condition 2 Condition 22/09/2016 26/09/2016 Communities Causeway Road Ballyeaston (Archaeological Report) of planning Discharged Exchange 1-7 Bedford Ballyclare BT39 9SQ approval LA03/2016/0062/F for Street Belfast BT2 7EG (Proposed 2 storey extension to rear to improve kitchen and family area with an additional bedroom above, allowing reconfiguration of existing bedroom to front to include a new bathroom)

LA03/2016/0653/DC Robert McMorran Neo Land North and West of no 63 Discharge of Condition 2 Condition Not 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 Environmental Ltd Moira Road Crumlin (Programme of Archaeological Work) Discharged Scottish Office (Head of Planning Approval T/2014/0201/F Office) Wright Business for Solar Farm Centre 1 Lonmay Road Glasgow G33 4EL

LA03/2016/0654/DC Robert McMorran Neo 20 Knockcairn Discharge of condition 5 (Programme Condition Not 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 Environmental Ltd Road Crumlin of Archaeological Work) of Planning Discharged Scottish Office (Head Approval T/2014/0066/F for Solar Office) Wright Business Farm Centre 1 Lonmay Road Glasgow G33 4EL

LA03/2016/0674/NMC Mr & Mrs S McKay 85m east of 52 Magheralane Non-Material Change to Planning Non Material 13/09/2016 16/09/2016 Road Randalstown approval T/2011/0473/F (New farm Change Antrim BT41 2NT dwelling). Reduce the size and accepted height of RHSide return; remove first floor area; reduce the volume of stone used; remove all dormers; add a front porch; alterations to windows; slight rotation of dwelling LA03/2016/0677/NMC Lightsource SPV 168 Ltd Lands 90m west of and Non-Material Change to Planning Non Material 12/09/2016 13/09/2016 7th Floor 33 Holborn lands to the south of 72 approval LA03/2016/0226/F (Solar Change London EC1N 2HT Milltown Road (known as farm). The provision of detailed rejected Millar Farm) Antrim BT41 elevations for proposed client sub- 2JJ station and auxiliary transformer the position of which have already been approved LA03/2016/0688/DC Robert McMorran Neo Lands approximately 140m Discharge of conditions 2 & 4 Condition Not 07/09/2016 08/09/2016 Environmental Ltd Wright west of 66 Belfast Road (Programme of Archaeological Work) Discharged Business Centre 1 Nutts Corner Crumlin of Planning Approval Lonmay Road Glasgow BT29 4TH LA03/2015/0257/F for Solar Farm G33 4EL LA03/2016/0696/DC Aidan Collins Lightsource Lands adjacent to 40 Solar Farm (Discharge of condition Condition 18/08/2016 05/09/2016 Renewable Energy Holdings Sealstown Road 19 relating to a programme of Discharged Ltd Scottish Provident Newtownabbey BT36 maintenance for the land during life Building 7 Donegall Square 4QU span of the solar farm) for planning West Belfast BT1 6JH approval LA03/2015/0655/F

LA03/2016/0712/DC Graham Irvine RIBA GI Land Adjacent to and west Discharge of Condition 10 Condition 01/09/2016 05/09/2016 Architects 72 Carrowkeel of the junction of Fairview (Landscaping Scheme) of planning Discharged Road Lisbellaw BT94 Road and Ballyduff approval LA03/2015/0012/F for 5GF Road Newtownabbey. Erection of Housing Development of 8 No. Semi-Detached Houses, 1No. Detached House and all associated Site Works.

LA03/2016/0722/F Thomas and Sharon Gordon 134 Braepark Road 2 storey extension to front of dwelling Permission 15/09/2016 16/09/2016 134 Braepark Road Ballyclare BT39 to provide new snug area to ground Granted Ballyclare BT39 9SX 9SX floor with bedroom extension over, provision of new porch and modification to existing sun room roof

LA03/2016/0778/CONTPO Julie McCloskey, l Rear of 77 Merville Crown reduce and crown thin trees Works 19/09/2016 21/09/2016 McConnel Chartered Garden Village protected by Conservation area to Granted Surveyors Montgomery Newtownabbey BT37 9TQ the rear of 77 Merville Garden Village House 29-31 Montgomery Street Belfast BT41 4NX T/2015/0068/O EPISO c/o Agent Lands to south of Homebase Retail warehouse/retail warehouse Permission 26/08/2016 01/09/2016 Junction One and 230m club floorspace with associated Granted South West of Stilesway landscaping (renewal of previously Roundabout Ballymena Road approved T/2010/0003/O) Antrim Current Appeals

AUTHORITY Antrim and Newtownabbey

ITEM NO 1 Planning Ref: T/2014/0223/F PAC Ref: 2015/A0094 APPELLANT Northern Ireland Housing Executive LOCATION Land At Junction Of Ballgore Road And Sussex Square Rathenraw Antrim

PROPOSAL Temporary BT41 2SL siting of facility for Irish Travellers

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 03/08/2015 Appeal Procedure Written Reps

Date due to PAC 13/10/2015

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit Not Applicable

ITEM NO 2 Planning Ref: U/2013/0147/O PAC Ref: 2015/A0140 APPELLANT University Of Ulster LOCATION University Of Ulster Jordanstown Campus Shore Road Newtownabbey BT37 0QB

PROPOSAL Redevelopment masterplan for a mixed-use scheme including 600 dwellings; village centre (providing local retail, office and services facillities): relocated playing pitches; a research and development park and retention of existing facilities (sport centre, student accommodation and FireSERT research building). (Amended design and access statement, layout details and further information) APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 28/10/2015 Appeal Procedure Informal Hearing

Date due to PAC 01/03/2016

Date of Hearing 05/04/2016

Date of Site Visit Not Applicable

Page 1 of 6 Current Appeals

ITEM NO 3 Planning Ref: T/2015/0099/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0019 APPELLANT Racarbry Developments Ltd LOCATION Lands At Beechvale Farm West Of Ballytromery Road Opposite Ballytromery Avenue South And South West Of Baptist Church And Cumbria Lodge

PROPOSAL ProposedSouth East residential Of Tromery develop Drivement (96 dwellings), new access, landscaping and other operationalCrumlin development

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 18/04/2016 Appeal Procedure Written Reps

Date due to PAC 19/07/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit Not Applicable

ITEM NO 4 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0712/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0050 APPELLANT Fridgeair LOCATION 10a Dunsilly Road Antrim BT41 2JH

PROPOSAL Retention of part change of commercial shed from refrigeration sales to coal and logs sales

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Appeal Procedure Written Reps with Site Visit Date Appeal Lodged 01/06/2016

Date due to PAC 31/08/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit 03/11/2016

Page 2 of 6 Current Appeals

ITEM NO 5 Planning Ref: LA03/2016/0202/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0055 APPELLANT Mervyn Kelly LOCATION 212 Lisnevenagh Road Antrim BT41 2JT

PROPOSAL Replacement dwelling and garage

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Appeal Procedure Written Reps with Site Visit Date Appeal Lodged 10/06/2016

Date due to PAC 18/05/2016 27/09/2016 Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit 17/092016

ITEM NO 6 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0606/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0061 APPELLANT Gary Stewart LOCATION Between 10 And 18 Hollybank Road Parkgate BT39 0DL

PROPOSAL Two Infill Dwellings and Garage

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Appeal Procedure Written Reps with Site Visit Date Appeal Lodged 20/06/2016

Date due to PAC 27/08/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit 27/10/2016

Page 3 of 6 Current Appeals

ITEM NO 7 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0034/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0068 APPELLANT Mr A Espie LOCATION 642 Shore Road Newtownabbey BT37 0PR PROPOSAL 2 No. New Dwellings & Garages including siteworks (Amended plans)

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 24/06/2016 Appeal Procedure Informal Hearing

Date due to PAC 27/10/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit 17/11/2016

ITEM NO 8 Planning Ref: LA03/2016/0023/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0069 APPELLANT Brendan McQuillan LOCATION Approx 90m East Of 62 Niblock Road, Antrim BT41 2JQ

PROPOSAL Proposed shed for grain and farm machinery storage

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 24/06/2016 Appeal Procedure Written Reps with Site Visit

Date due to PAC 02/09/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit 11/11/2016

Page 4 of 6 Current Appeals

ITEM NO 9 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0537/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0088 APPELLANT Vegas Urbutis LOCATION 20M West Of 2 Whinney Hill Road Randalstown. BT41 2NU

PROPOSAL 2 Storey Modern Dwelling House and Detached Garage.(Amended plans received)

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 27/07/2016 Appeal Procedure Written Reps

Date due to PAC 05/10/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit Not Applicable

ITEM NO 10 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0681/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0098 APPELLANT Gerard McCann LOCATION Rear Of 110 Moneynick Road Randalstown BT41 3HU

PROPOSAL Single dwelling house and garage

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 10/08/2016 Appeal Procedure Written Reps

Date due to PAC 17/10/2016

Date of Hearing Not Applicable

Date of Site Visit Not Applicable

Page 5 of 6 Current Appeals

ITEM NO 11 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0338/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0114 APPELLANT Wm Hurst LOCATION Lands Adjacent To And South Of 76 Crosskennan Road Ladyhill Antrim BT41 2RG

PROPOSAL Erection of 2 no. dwellings and associated detached garages in compliance to PPS21 Policy CTY8.

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 05/09/2016 Appeal Procedure Pending

Date due to PAC 19/09/2016

Date of Hearing

Date of Site Visit

ITEM NO 12 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0519/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0122 APPELLANT Mr Shaun McElhone LOCATION 20m South West Of 48 Gallagh Road Toomebridge Co Antrim

PROPOSAL Proposed children's nursery

APPEAL TYPE Plg Refusal: permissions Date Appeal Lodged 20/09/2016 Appeal Procedure Pending

Date due to PAC 04/10/2016

Date of Hearing

Date of Site Visit

ITEM NO 13 Planning Ref: LA03/2016/0380/O PAC Ref: 2016/A0128 APPELLANT Mr Peter McCann LOCATION Site adjacent to and south of 68 Shore Road, Toomebridge

PROPOSAL Proposed residential dwelling and garage under PPS 21 CTY8

Plg Refusal: permissions APPEAL TYPE Date Appeal Lodged 29/09/2016 Appeal Procedure Pending

Date due to PAC 13/10/2016

Date of Hearing

Date of Site Visit Page 6 of 6 Appeal Decisions Notified

Date From: 9/1/2016 12:00:00 AM and Date To: 9/30/2016 12:00:00 AM

AUTHORITY Antrim and Newtownabbey

ITEM NO 1 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0379/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0001 RESULT OF APPEAL Appeal Upheld Appeal Decision Date 05/09/2016 APPLICANT Orla Heatley LOCATION 40 Collinbridge Gardens Collinward Newtownabbey BT36 7SU

PROPOSAL Raising roof of property to provide 4 bedrooms, bathroom and ensuite at first floor level

ITEM NO 2 Planning Ref: LA03/2015/0230/F PAC Ref: 2016/A0003 RESULT OF APPEAL Appeal Dismissed Appeal Decision Date 05/09/2016 APPLICANT Mr Vincent Connon LOCATION 70m Approx North West Of 5 Ballyquillan Road Crumlin

PROPOSAL Proposed allotment plots with store for equipment and materials (farm diversification)

Page 1 of 1

NRTHERN IRELA

Contents:

Key points 3 Introduction 4 Overall NI Planning Activity 6 Department Activity 9 Major Development 10 Local Development 11 Development Type 13 Compliance & Enforcement 1 5 Renewable Energy 17 User Guidance 19

Published by: th Theme: People and Places Date of Publication: 29 September 2016 Analysis, Statistics & Research Branch Coverage: Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure Frequency: Quarterly Room 4.36, Clarence Court Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8GB

Statistician: Ian Walsh

Telephone: 028 90540223

Email: stats.planning@infrastructure- ni.gov.uk

Website: https://www.infrastructure-

ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity- statistics

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3/ or email: [email protected].

Where we have identified any third party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is also available at https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity-statistics.

Any enquiries regarding this document should be sent to us at [email protected].

Key Points

• There were 3,438 planning applications received in Northern Ireland (NI) during April to June 2016 (Q1), an increase of 11.0% over the previous quarter and 8.6% on the same quarter in 2015/16. This comprised 3,409 local development and 29 major development applications. No new Regionally Significant Developments applications were received in the first quarter.

• During Q1, 3,490 planning applications were decided, up 8.0% over the quarter and a notable 72.8% on the previous year. In Q4 2015/16 and continuing into Q1 2016/17, the number of decisions issued exceeded the number of applications being received.

• In Q1, the average processing time for major development applications across councils was 67.1 weeks, compared to 35.4 weeks in the same quarter in 2015/16. This is over 37 weeks longer than the statutory processing time target of 30 weeks, although it is still a relatively early stage in the year.

• The number of local planning applications received in NI during Q1 2016/17 was 3,409, the highest number of local planning applications received in any quarter since the transfer of planning authority in April 2015. Across councils, Belfast City (471), Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (396) and Newry, Mourne and Down (378) received the highest number of local planning applications during the quarter.

• In NI, across councils it took on average 18.0 weeks to process local applications to decision or withdrawal in Q1 2016/17, very similar to first quarter performance last year but three weeks longer than the statutory target. The shortest average processing time was 9.8 weeks in Mid and East Antrim whilst the longest was 27.2 weeks in Newry, Mourne and Down. Notably, however, this council processed four times as many applications in Q1 compared to the same time last year. Five of the 11 councils were within the 15 week target in the first quarter for 2016/17.

• The number of enforcement cases opened in Northern Ireland during Q1 2016/17 was 943, an increase of over one quarter (25.2%) compared to the same period last year. This is the highest number of first quarter enforcement cases opened in any year since 2010/11 when 1,028 cases were opened. Belfast City (113), Ards and North Down (110) and Antrim and Newtownabbey (107) opened the largest number of enforcement cases in Q1.

• In Q1 2016/17, 81.3% of enforcement cases across Northern Ireland were concluded within 39 weeks, over 11 percentage points above the statutory target and an improvement of just over 7 percentage points on the equivalent quarter last year. Ten of the eleven councils were on track to meet the statutory enforcement case target during this first quarter.

• The NI approval rate for all planning applications for Q1 2016/17 was 94.5%, the same as the rate for Q1 2015/16. First quarter approval rates varied across councils from 92.6% to 96.3%.

• The number of renewable energy applications received in Q1 2016/17 was the lowest first quarter figure in over ten years (since 2004/05). Of the 27 applications received in Q1, nearly half were for single wind turbines. The average processing time for renewable energy applications was 54.4 weeks in Q1, up from 47.9 weeks when compared to the same period last year. 3

Introduction legislation, and for formulating and co-ordinating policy for securing the orderly and consistent development of land, remains with the Department. This statistical bulletin presents a summary of Northern Ireland (NI) Consequently, the responsibility for development management is shared planning volumes and processing performance for the new district between the 11 new councils and the Department. councils, and the Department of Infrastructure, during the first quarter of 2016/17. Note that from the 8th May 2016, Ministerial responsibility for The Department will continue to have responsibility for the provision and planning transferred from the former Department of Environment to the publication of Official Statistics relating to the overall development new Department of Infrastructure (the ‘Department’) following management function, including enforcement. The quarterly and annual departmental reorganisation. reports provide the NI headline results split by district council (and the Department where relevant). These data will also provide councils with Whilst the bulletin and accompanying tables report data for the first information on their performance in order to meet their own reporting quarter of 2016/17, the detailed tables also include comparable data from obligations under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. Note previous years. Commentary will be mainly focussed on changes over the that whilst pre-transfer activity volumes can be mapped historically to the year and changes over the latest quarter. In the absence of historic data new organisational areas from which the demands arise, it would not be for the new councils prior to 2015/16, reference may instead be made to valid to do the same with performance data as the newly established their more recent quarterly figures. Please note that quarterly figures for district councils did not exist, nor do they neatly overlap with the old area the 2016/17 year are provisional and will be subject to scheduled revisions planning office jurisdictions. The first year of data under the new ahead of finalised annual figures being published in June 2017. organisational areas was 2015/16, therefore, 2015/16 is regarded as the base year for reporting of performance-related data at council level with Background comparative trend data building from that point onwards. Whilst historic The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (the ‘2011 Act’) sets out the comparisons of performance at NI level can still be made, it is important to legislative framework for development management in NI and provides be aware that there have been a number of significant recent changes to that, from 1 April 2015, councils now largely have responsibility for this the Planning system which will have had an impact. Where relevant these planning function. Planning applications for development categorised as have been highlighted throughout the report. being either major development or local development are determined by Statistics included in this report the councils. Responsibility for planning applications for regionally significant development rests with the Department. In addition, the This bulletin provides an overall view of planning activity across NI. It Department retains responsibility for legacy ‘Article 31’ applications (i.e. provides summary statistical information on council progress across the 3 Article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991). Furthermore, statutory targets for major development applications, local development the Department has the power to ‘call in’ both major and local applications and enforcement cases as laid out in the Local Government development applications from councils, where it so directs, and (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. It determine them (see ‘User Guidance’ for a fuller description of the also provides information relating to Departmental performance against different planning application types). Responsibility for planning quantitative Corporate Business Plan targets.

All of the information underlying the charts and graphs featured in this (iii) Legacy versus New Council Activity – in order to provide additional bulletin are included in accompanying Excel tables (see Appendix 1 for context around council performance, two additional analyses have been additional ‘Definitions’ used in these tables). This summary bulletin included in the companion tables. Table 8.1 shows the volume of legacy provides an overview and high level commentary with more details and work which each council inherited on 1st April 2015 and to what extent it further analyses available in the Excel tables. Where relevant, some of the has since been reducing, while Table 8.2 splits out processing performance more detailed findings may be referred to in the commentary. for major and local development into legacy versus new council applications. These tables will be retained until the legacy applications Revisions and changes since Quarter 1 2015/16 become a negligible part of overall council workload.

(i) Major versus Local Classification - following the publication of the first Future Releases quarter provisional bulletin in November 2015, a number of planning application classification issues were identified which required further The next quarterly release is due in December 2016. This will contain investigation. This led to a number of revisions to the first quarter 2015/16 planning data up to 30th September 2016 (i.e. for Q2 2016/17). provisional figures which are reflected in later quarterly bulletins. The validation exercise additionally highlighted some inconsistencies in major The next annual report covering 2016/17 is planned for release in late June and local development classification between the 2015/16 and 2014/15 2017. when the new classification hierarchy was first administratively implemented. It was decided, therefore, that 2015/16, when the See Gov.UK Release Calendar for release dates of future publications – classification hierarchy was given full legal effect, would be the base year https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements. for future comparisons of major and local development activity. As such, back-comparisons at council level for these application types are not possible.

(ii) ‘Discharge of Conditions’ - whilst forming part of a council’s workload, these are not planning applications per se and hence should be excluded from the assessment of target processing performance. This led to some further revisions from the previously released first quarter 2015/16 results. However, whilst there were some small changes to activity volumes, their exclusion did not materially affect average processing times across the vast majority of councils. See ‘User Guidance’ for further detail on excluded planning activity. Table 9.1, in the accompanying bulletin tables, provides volumes and processing times for all such ‘non-application’ workload.

1. Overall NI Planning Activity In Q1, Belfast City council received the most (474) planning applications, followed by Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (397); between them Applications Received accounting for one quarter (25.3%) of all applications received across NI. The councils receiving the least applications were Antrim and The number of planning applications received in Northern Ireland (NI) by Newtownabbey (198) and Mid and East Antrim (200). councils and the Department in the period April to June 2016 (Q1), was 3,438, an increase of 11.0% on the previous quarter (3,097) and an The volume of planning applications received in Q1 increased in nine of the increase of 8.6% on the same period in 2015/16 (3,165). When compared eleven councils over the year with the largest increases in percentage to the same quarter in earlier years, Q1 2016/17 had the highest number terms occurring in Lisburn and Castlereagh (+31.7%), Armagh City, of planning applications received since Q1 2011/12, having followed a Banbridge and Craigavon (+20.3%) and Belfast City (+12.3%). Where general downward trend from the full series peak of 10,924 received in Q1 decreases were recorded, these were in Mid and East Antrim (-8.7%) and 2005/06. Of the 3,438 applications received in Q1 2016/17, over three Derry City and Strabane (-2.5%). quarters were for full planning permission (76.4%). Fig 1.2 Applications received by council, Q1 2015/16 & Q1 2016/17 Fig 1.1 NI planning applications, quarterly from Apr 2006 – Jun 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 9,000 Antrim & Newtownabbey

8,000 Ards & North Down Applications Received 7,000 Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Applications Decided Belfast City 6,000 Causeway Coast & Glens 5,000 Derry City & Strabane

4,000 Fermanagh & Omagh Q1 3,000 Q1 Lisburn & Castlereagh

Mid & East Antrim 2,000 Mid Ulster 1,000 Newry, Mourne & Down

0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

At council level, Mid Ulster (25.3) and Fermanagh and Omagh (24.6) Across NI in Q1, there were 18.6 planning applications received per 10,000 received the most planning applications per 10,000 population, whilst population. This is a stark decline when compared to the 63.2 applications Belfast City (14.0) and Antrim and Newtownabbey (14.1) received the received per 10,000 population in the same quarter of 2005/06. 6

least. The supporting Excel table provides activity per head of population Fig 1.3 Applications decided by council, Q1 2015/16 & Q1 2016/17 for each district council. Refer to Tables 1.2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Antrim & Newtownabbey Applications Decided Ards & North Down The number of planning decisions issued during April to June 2016 was Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon 3,490, representing increases of 8.0% over the quarter and a very Belfast City significant 72.8% on the same period a year earlier (2,020). In the first Causeway Coast & Glens quarter of 2015/16, immediately following the transition of planning Derry City & Strabane authority out to councils, the level of decisions issued dropped sharply. However, they quickly recovered in subsequent quarters and have since Fermanagh & Omagh closely tracked applications received. Nearly 8 out of every 10 decisions Lisburn & Castlereagh made (78.1%) were for full planning permission. Mid & East Antrim Mid Ulster In Q1 2016/17, 143 applications were withdrawn, almost double the Newry, Mourne & Down number compared to the same period a year earlier (75). Applications can be withdrawn at any stage prior to a decision being made. Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015

Applications Decided by Council Refer to Tables 1.1, 1.2

In addition to processing applications, councils deal with a range of other The number of decisions issued in Q1 2016/17 was higher across all planning related work. For example, during Q1, they processed to decision councils when compared to the same quarter a year earlier. The councils or withdrawal 103 discharge of conditions, 97 certificates of lawfulness issuing the most planning decisions in Q1 were Newry, Mourne and Down and 125 non material changes. A further breakdown of these figures is (601), issuing just over four times as many as the same quarter a year provided in Table 9.1. earlier (149), and Belfast City (406) who issued over twice as many (196). Approval Rates The number of planning applications decided across councils in Q1 ranged from a high of 601 in Newry, Mourne and Down to 203 in Antrim and The overall Northern Ireland approval rate for all planning applications for Newtownabbey. In the latter case, this is largely reflective of the much Q1 was 94.5%, which was the same as the rate a year earlier. The first lower volume of applications received. Newry, Mourne and Down, quarter approval rate over the last five years has been fairly stable. Causeway Coast and Glens, Mid and East Antrim and Antrim and Newtownabbey councils all issued more planning decisions during the In Q1, planning approval rates varied across councils from highs of 96.3% quarter than they received – by 58.6%, 23.3%, 14.5% and 2.5% in Belfast City and 96.0% in Lisburn and Castlereagh to a low of 92.6% in respectively. Antrim and Newtownabbey, Derry City and Strabane and Mid and East 7

Antrim. Five out of the eleven councils had an approval rate which was 2016, 20.8% of live applications were over one year old compared to lower than the overall NI approval rate of 94.5%. 19.6% at the end of the previous quarter. Refer to Table 1.3

Refer to Tables 1.2 Fig 1.5 Live applications by council at end of Jun 2016 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fig 1.4 Approval rates by council, Q1 2016/17 Antrim & Newtownabbey

Ards & North Down

Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon

Belfast City

Causeway Coast & Glens < 6 mnths 6 - 12 mnths Derry City & Strabane > 1 yr Fermanagh & Omagh

Lisburn & Castlereagh

Mid & East Antrim

Mid Ulster

Newry, Mourne & Down

The proportion of live applications over one year old at the end of June 2016 varies across councils as shown in Figure 1.4. Antrim and Newtownabbey had the lowest proportion of cases over one year (10.7%), which equates to just under 1 in every 9 applications compared to Newry

Mourne and Down (33.3%) who had the highest proportion (1 in every 3). Live applications1 Over the last quarter, five of the eleven councils have reduced the At the end of June 2016, across NI there were 1,475 live applications in proportion of live cases in the system for over a year, with the greatest the planning system for over one year. In other words, just over 1 out of changes in Ards and North Down (- 2.4pp) and Fermanagh and Omagh (2.2 2 every 5 live applications in the planning system was over one year old, pp) . which was similar to the end of March 2016. However, at the end of June Refer to Table 1.4

1 It is important to note that the vast majority of cases currently over one year will have been inherited from the Department. 2 Percentage Point change (pp)

2. Departmental Activity During Q1, the Department received 2 new applications, 1 called-in while the other was a conservation area consent. This is a reduction on the 5 At the end of June 2016, there were 5 ongoing regionally significant applications received for the same period a year earlier. development (RSD) applications, 5 called-in; 3 conservation area consents

(i.e. consent to demolish); and 26 retained applications. Eighty-two It is a target for the Department to contribute to sustainable economic percent of live applications (32 of 39) at the end of June were in the growth by processing 50% of Regionally Significant Planning system over a year. Applications to a Ministerial Recommendation within 30 weeks,

subject to pre-application discussions having taken place and meeting RSD applications are similar to former Article 31 applications in that they the requirements of relevant Environmental Legislation. will be determined by the Department. These developments have a critical contribution to make to the economic and social success of Northern Ireland as a whole, or a substantial part of the region. They also include At the 30 June 2016, of the 5 RSD applications that were live in the developments which have significant effects beyond Northern Ireland or planning system, three were not subject to Pre-Application Discussions and involve a substantial departure from a local development plan. During Q1, therefore will not fall under the remit of the target. The remaining two there were no new RSD applications received. cases, taking account of environmental requirements, currently have a target date for decision in 2016/17 and therefore will be assessed in future Refer to Table 2.2 reports alongside any new applications which may come into scope

Fig 2.1 Live Departmental applications by development type at end Jun’16 The Department reached decisions on 2 applications during Q1, the same 0 5 10 15 20 as the equivalent period last year. One of these decisions was on a RSD application while the other was a conservation area consent. The decided Regionally significant RSD application was not subject to a Pre-Application Discussion and therefore does not fall under the remit of the target.

Retained Section 26 During Q1 there was 1 Retained Section 29 (former non Article 31) application withdrawn, equivalent to the number withdrawn over the Retained Section 29 same period last year. Overall, the average processing time in Q1 2016/17 for those applications Called-in which were processed by the Department to a decision or withdrawal was 151.4 weeks up from 94.6 weeks reported for the same period last year. Note, however, that these times are based on very small numbers and it is Conserv Area Consent not possible, at this stage, to robustly assess any change in performance

< 6 mnths 6 - 12 mnths > 1 yr Refer to Table 2.1

3. Major Development Planning Applications applications potentially being submitted ahead of the new process coming into effect. Major Developments have important economic, social and environmental Of the 29 major applications received in Q1, Derry City and Strabane (8) implications. The majority of major applications are multiple housing, and Causeway Coast and Glens (4) received the most. commercial and government and civic types of development. Excluding RSD applications (reported in Section 2), the number of major planning Over the quarter, 38 major planning applications were decided and 2 applications received in NI during Q1 2016/17 was 29. withdrawn. Since Q2 2015/16, the number of planning decisions issued had far exceeded the numbers received but have greatly converged in this Fig 3.1 Major Development applications, quarterly Apr 2015 – Jun 2016 most recent quarter when 29 were received.

120 Newry Mourne and Down (9) issued most decisions on major applications followed by Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (5) and Belfast City (5). 100

80 It is a statutory target for each council that their major development planning applications will be processed from the date valid to decision 60 issued or withdrawal date within an average of 30 weeks. 40 Fig 3.2 Major processing times by council, Q1 2015/16 & Q1 2016/17 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Antrim & Newtownabbey 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Ards & North Down 2015/16 2016/17 Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Applications Received Applications Decided Belfast City

Causeway Coast & Glens From 1st July 2015, pre-application community consultation became Derry City & Strabane a pre-requisite to a major application. This means that major Fermanagh & Omagh applications will not be accepted until they have gone through the Lisburn & Castlereagh minimum 12 week consultation process and notice has been Mid & East Antrim submitted to the council or the Department. This helps explain the very significant drop in major applications when you compare Q1 Mid Ulster 2015/16 with the small numbers received in subsequent quarters. It Newry, Mourne & Down may also mean that Q1 2015/16 was atypically high with major All Councils 30 wks Apr-Jun2016 10 Apr-Jun2015 During Q1, the average processing time to process major applications to a 4. Local Development Planning Applications decision or withdrawal was 67.1 weeks across all councils, up significantly from the 35.4 weeks reported in the same period last year. This is over Local Development planning applications are mostly residential and minor thirty seven weeks longer than the statutory processing time target which commercial applications received and determined by a council. The is an average of 30 weeks. number of local planning applications received in NI during Q1 2016/17 was 3,409. This is the highest number of local planning applications Refer to Table 3.1 received in any quarter since the transfer of planning authority and represents an increase of 11.7% on the same quarter last year. Whilst Fig 3.2 has been provided for completeness, none of the councils had processed a sufficient number of major applications during the first Across councils, Belfast City (471), Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon quarter, either this year or last, to provide any meaningful assessment of (396) and Newry, Mourne and Down (378) received the highest number of their individual performance. Comparisons against target, and with each local planning applications during Q1. Nine of the eleven councils received other, will become more robust as additional cases are processed and more local applications in Q1 compared to the same period last year. reported upon in subsequent quarters. At this point, no councils are close to meeting their statutory 30 week processing target. Fig 4.1 Local applications, quarterly, Apr 2015 – Jun 2016 4,000 Q1 Refer to Table 3.2 3,500 Q1 A further breakdown of these figures by legacy cases (those applications 3,000 received prior to transition of planning powers) and council received cases 2,500 is provided in Table 8.2. 2,000 It is interesting to note that the average processing time for major 1,500 applications which were processed entirely by councils (i.e. received post- 1,000 April 2015) is significantly shorter (47.0 weeks) than for those which had already been partially processed by the Department (83.0 weeks). 500 However it should be borne in mind that the former is still based on 0 comparatively few cases and hence will be subject to greater change as the Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 year progresses. 2015/16 2016/17

Applications Received Applications Decided

The number of local applications decided in Q1 2016/17 was 3,451 and, as Down (based on 592 local applications decided and 29 withdrawn). Five of with the applications received, represents the highest quarterly figure the 11 councils, namely Mid and East Antrim (9.8), Fermanagh and Omagh decided since the transfer of planning authority. (10.8), Antrim and Newtownabbey (13.7), Mid Ulster (14.7) and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (15.0) were within the 15 week target. In the first quarter of 2015/16, immediately following the transition of planning functions to councils, the number of decisions reached on local Fig 4.2 Local processing times by council, Q1 2015/16 and Q1 2016/17 planning applications was considerably lower than the number of 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 applications being received. Moving through 2015/16, in each subsequent Antrim & Newtownabbey quarter the number of planning decisions increased whilst the number Ards & North Down being received remained fairly static. In Q4 2015/16, and continuing into Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon the first quarter of 2016/17, the volume of local applications decided Belfast City exceeded the number of applications being received. Causeway Coast & Glens Derry City & Strabane During Q1 2016/17, Newry Mourne and Down (592), Belfast City (401), Fermanagh & Omagh Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (370) and Causeway Coast and Lisburn & Castlereagh Glens (368) issued the most local decisions across councils, partly reflecting Mid & East Antrim the high volumes of applications received. Mid Ulster Newry, Mourne & Down Over the quarter, there were 141 local applications withdrawn across NI, All Councils this ranged from 29 applications withdrawn in Newry Mourne and Down to 15 wks Apr-Jun2016 5 in Ards and North Down. Apr-Jun2015 Seven of the eleven councils improved their processing times for local It is a statutory target for each council that their local development applications in Q1 when compared with the same period last year. planning applications will be processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 15 weeks. Refer to Table 4.2

In Q1, the average processing time to bring local applications to decision A further breakdown of these figures by legacy cases (those applications or withdrawal was 18.0 weeks across all councils, a small improvement on received prior to transition of planning powers) and council received cases the 18.2 weeks achieved in the same quarter last year but still three weeks is provided in Table 8.2. longer than the statutory target. Refer to Table 4.1 It is interesting to note that the average processing time for local The shortest average processing time for local applications in Q1 was 9.8 applications which were processed entirely by councils (i.e. received post- weeks in Mid and East Antrim (based on 226 local applications decided and April 2015) is significantly shorter (16.0 weeks) than for those which had 7 withdrawn) whilst the longest was 27.2 weeks in Newry, Mourne and already been partially processed by the Department (72.0 weeks). 12

5. Development Type Appendix 1 – ‘Definitions’ for a description of the types of applications included in these categories. Generally the majority of planning applications received are for residential development and this has continued in Q1 2016/17. Residential At NI level, the overall number of applications increased by 8.6% in Q1 applications received during Q1 made up 62.5% of all Northern Ireland when compared to the same period a year earlier. This was driven by planning applications, this was 3.2 percentage points more than the same increases of 14.5% in the number of ‘Residential’ applications received (up period last year (59.3%). Fig. 5.1 illustrates the profile of development from 1,876 to 2,148) and by 21.2% in ‘Other’ (up from 415 to 503). These happening across councils and at the regional level. increases were slightly offset by a marked drop of 29.8% in the number of ‘Government and Civic’ applications received (down from 373 to 262), Fig 5.1 Applications received - development type & council, Q1 2016/17 which was caused by the sharp decline in renewable energy applications 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% over this period (refer to Section 7 for more details). Antrim & Newtownabbey Ards & North Down Fig 5.2 NI Residential applications, quarterly from Apr 2006 – Jun 2016

Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon 7,000

Belfast City 6,000 Causeway Coast & Glens Applications Received Applications Decided Derry City & Strabane 5,000 Fermanagh & Omagh

Lisburn & Castlereagh 4,000

Mid & East Antrim 3,000 Mid Ulster

Q1 Newry, Mourne & Down 2,000 Q1 Northern Ireland

1,000 Residential Government & civic Change of use Mixed use Commercial Agricultural Industrial Other

In Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon and in Newry Mourne and Down, 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 seven out of every ten applications (70.5% and 70.4%) were for residential 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 development, compared to just under five in every ten in Belfast City (48.1%). Refer to Table 5.2

The overall number of residential planning applications received in total Belfast City (26.2%) and Derry City and Strabane (24.6%) both receive a for Northern Ireland in Q1 was 2,148, an increase of 14.5% compared to much higher proportion of applications in the ’Other’ category. See

13 the previous year (1,876). This is the highest number of residential Omagh and 96.7% in Mid Ulster down to 92.6% in Antrim and planning applications received in any quarter since Q1 2011/12 (2,345). Newtownabbey. The number of residential planning applications decided in Q1 was 2,122, Over the quarter, there were 73 residential applications withdrawn, more an increase of 70.9% on the same period last year. The number of than double the number withdrawn during the same period last year (34). decisions issued between April and June 2016 is the highest for this period in any year since 2011/12 (2,437). Refer to Table 5.4

Refer to Table 5.3 Fig 5.4 shows that of the residential applications received; new single dwellings in rural areas and alterations/extensions in urban areas continue Fig 5.3 Residential approval rates by council, Q1 2016/17 to dominate, together making up over half (53.2%) of all residential applications received during Q1.

Fig 5.4 NI Residential applications received by urban/rural, Q1 2016/17 0 200 400 600 800

Urban new single dwellings

Urban replacement single dwellings

Urban domestic alterations & extensions

Rural new single dwellings

Rural replacement single dwellings

Rural domestic alterations & extensions

Housing developments

Other

Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015

The Northern Ireland approval rate for residential planning applications in Q1 2016/17 was 94.7%, a little higher than the rate for the same period in The largest increase in the number of residential applications received was the previous year (94.3%). Approval rates for residential planning in urban domestic alterations and extensions, up 19.2% from 447 to 533 applications varied across councils with highs of 98.1% in Fermanagh and applications when compared to the same quarter a year earlier.

Residential applications were up across the board with the exception of 6. Compliance and Enforcement Activity urban replacement single dwelling which decreased by almost half (from 17 to 9 applications). The number of enforcement cases opened in Northern Ireland during Q1 2016/17 was 943, an increase of just over one quarter (25.2%) compared Decisions on residential applications increased considerably when to the same period a year earlier. This is the highest number of compared to Q1 2015/16 (up by 70.9% from 1,242 to 2,122), with the enforcement cases opened in this quarter since Q1 2010/11 when 1,028 number of applications decided for housing developments and new urban cases were opened. single dwellings more than doubling. The number of applications decided was greatest for rural new single dwellings and urban domestic alterations The number of enforcement cases closed during Q1 was 753, this was up and extensions which are in line with the volume of applications received. by a notable 31.4% on the same quarter last year.

Refer to Table 5.5 Fig. 6.1 Enforcement cases opened & closed, quarterly Apr 2009–Jun 2016 1,800 Fig 5.5 NI Residential applications decided by urban/rural, Q1 2016/17 1,600 0 200 400 600 Cases opened

1,400 Cases closed Urban new single dwellings

1,200 Urban replacement single dwellings 1,000 Q1 Urban domestic alterations & extensions 800 Q1 Rural new single dwellings 600 Rural replacement single dwellings 400

Rural domestic alterations & extensions 200

Housing developments - Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Other 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015 Across the councils Belfast City (113), Ards and North Down (110) and Refer to Table 5.6 Antrim and Newtownabbey (107) opened the largest number of enforcement cases in Q1. 15

Belfast City (134) and Antrim and Newtownabbey (112) recorded the In Q1 2016/17, 81.3% of enforcement cases across Northern Ireland were highest number of enforcement cases closed during the same period. concluded within 39 weeks, over 11 percentage points above the statutory target and an improvement of just over 7 percentage points on the Of the 753 closed cases in Q1 2016/17, the main reason in over a third of equivalent quarter last year. cases (34.9%) was that no breach had actually occurred while a further 25.1% cases had been remedied or resolved. Ten of the eleven councils are on track to meet the target with highs of 93.9% concluded within 39 weeks in Antrim and Newtownabbey and Refer to Table 6.1 90.0% in Mid and East Antrim during Q1 2016/17. Newry, Mourne and Down (51.1%) are currently below the target level.

It is a statutory target that 70% of all enforcement cases dealt with by Refer to Table 6.2 councils are progressed to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt

of complaint. During Q1 2016/17 there were 8 prosecutions initiated, double the number compared to the same quarter in the previous year. The number Fig. 6.2 Percentage of cases concluded within 39 weeks by council, of prosecutions dropped significantly between 2012/13 (145) and 2014/15 Q1 2016/17 (35). In 2015/16 there were 23 prosecutions over the year. Causeway 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Coast and Glens initiated 4 prosecutions in Q1 2016/17. During the Antrim & Newtownabbey quarter four of the eleven councils initiated prosecutions. There were 5 Ards & North Down convictions over the same period. Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Refer to Table 6.3 Belfast City

Causeway Coast & Glens Derry City & Strabane The number of live enforcement cases at the end of June 2016 was 3,007, Fermanagh & Omagh 9.3% more than at the same time last year. The number of cases over two Lisburn & Castlereagh years old stood at 764, accounting for over a quarter (25.4%) of all live Mid & East Antrim cases. This proportion is 1.5 percentage points lower than the last quarter Mid Ulster and considerably lower than the 34.6% reported at end of June 2013. Over Newry, Mourne & Down the last two years, the proportion of live enforcement cases in the planning system for more than two years has remained relatively static. Northern Ireland

70% Refer to Table 6.3, 6.4 Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015

7. Renewable Energy (RE) Activity across NI, over 6 weeks longer than the equivalent quarter last year (47.9 weeks). The overall number of renewable energy applications received in Q1 2016/17 was 27, the lowest Q1 figure since 2004/05 (13). The number of In Q1, nearly half of all renewable energy applications were for single wind applications received during April to June peaked in 2013/14 with 238 turbines (13 of 27). Although single wind turbines continue to dominate applications. In Q2 2015/16, the number of renewable energy applications renewable energy applications, the number of applications being received received dropped to below one hundred for the first time since Q4 is vastly reduced, falling from 114 in Q1 last year to 13 in Q1 2016/17. 2009/10. This decline in 2015/16, and continuing into Q1 2016/17, may be partly due to a reduction in government funding available, as well as a lack Fig 7.2 RE applications received by council, Q1 2015/16 & Q1 2016/17 of capacity on the power grid to allow for new connections. Over the last 0 10 20 30 year, renewable energy applications received fell markedly from 143 to 27. Antrim & Newtownabbey Ards & North Down Fig 7.1 Renewable Energy applications, quarterly from Apr 2006 – Jun 2016 Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon 300 Belfast City Applications received Causeway Coast & Glens Applications decided 250 Derry City & Strabane Fermanagh & Omagh 200 Lisburn & Castlereagh Mid & East Antrim 150 Mid Ulster Newry, Mourne & Down

100 Strategic Planning Division Q1 Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015 50

Q1 Refer to Table 7.1, 7.2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/155 2015/16 2016/17 Figures 7.2 shows the spread across councils with Fermanagh and Omagh (6), Lisburn and Castlereagh (4) and Newry, Mourne and Down (4) The number of applications decided between April and June 2016 was 95, receiving the most renewable energy applications in Q1 2016/17. a significant increase of 69.6% when compared to the same period last year (56). During this period, the average processing time was 54.4 weeks

Of the 95 decisions issued in Q1, the majority (73) were for single wind The overall NI approval rate for renewable energy was 72.6% in Q1 turbines. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (17) and Fermanagh and 2016/17, down by over 20 percentage points from the 92.9% recorded at Omagh (14) issued the most decisions. the same point a year earlier.

Fig 7.3 RE applications decided by council, Q1 2015/16 & Q1 2016/17 Fig 7.4 Location of approved wind energy applications by council, 0 10 20 Q1 2016/17 Antrim & Newtownabbey Ards & North Down Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Belfast City Causeway Coast & Glens Derry City & Strabane Fermanagh & Omagh Lisburn & Castlereagh Mid & East Antrim Mid Ulster Newry, Mourne & Down Strategic Planning Division

Apr-Jun2016 Apr-Jun2015

Twenty-six renewable energy applications were withdrawn during Q1, over three times as many compared to the same quarter last year, with Causeway Coast and Glens (6), Fermanagh and Omagh (4) and Newry

Mourne and Down (4) recording the most. Refer to Table 7.3, 7.4 At the end of June 2016, there were 356 live renewable energy applications, mainly comprising 266 single wind turbines, 26 wind farms Work is currently underway to develop interactive maps for renewable and 23 for hydroelectricity. The number of live renewable energy energy planning applications. The maps will be held on the Northern applications was down by just over a fifth (20.5%) over the quarter when Ireland Neighbourhood Information Sharing (NINIS) website and a direct compared with end of March 2016. link to them will be included in future reports.

User Guidance are some differences between the initial administrative hierarchy classifications in place from 1st April 2014 and the final classifications set Notes on Data Source and Quality out in the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R.2015 No.71). The records of all planning applications from 1st April 2016 to 30th June

2016 were transferred in July 2016 from a live database. This included all Regionally significant developments (RSD) are similar to former Article 31 live planning applications in the Planning Portal. The data were validated applications in that they will be determined by the Department. These by Analysis, Statistics and Research Branch (ASRB) which involved quality developments have a critical contribution to make to the economic and checks and inspection of coding of classifications in the Planning Portal. social success of Northern Ireland as a whole, or a substantial part of the Local councils were provided with their own headline planning statistics region. They also include developments which have significant effects before the release of this publication as part of the quality assurance beyond Northern Ireland or involve a substantial departure from a local process. On completion of ASRB and council validation, a final extract was development plan. Applications for these development proposals will be taken in August 2016. Please note the quarterly data for 2015/16 are now submitted to and determined by the Department. However, the finalised and will not be subject to further scheduled updates. Quarterly thresholds for RSD may mean that applications which may have previously data for 2016/17 are regarded as provisional and will remain this status been dealt with by the Department will now be classified as major until the annual report for 2016/17 is published in June 2017. development and thus determined by the relevant council. Like major

applications, RSD proposals will be subject to pre-application consultation Users should be aware that quite a number of structural changes have with the community. been made to the Planning Portal and associated processes, in order to comply with new planning legislation and it will inevitably take time for the Major developments have important economic, social and environmental new validation procedures to become properly embedded. It is considered, implications for a council area. The majority of applications for major however, that these finalised annual figures have now reconciled any data developments will be dealt with by councils under the new planning issues that were highlighted during the course of the transitional year system and will be subject to pre-application consultation with the (2015/16). community.

Regionally Significant / Major / Local Development Applications after 1st Local developments will comprise of all other developments (other than April 2014 permitted development) that do not fall within the classes described for

major or for regionally significant developments. They comprise of the Note that a new classification hierarchy of development for planning vast majority of residential and minor commercial applications to be application came into effect on 1st April 2014, on an administrative basis, received and determined by a council. with the introduction of the following new categories – regionally

significant, major and local development. The hierarchy was subsequently

placed on a statutory basis in line with the transfer of planning functions to

the new district councils on 1st April 2015. It should be noted that there

Departmental activity • case has been remedied or resolved (the breach may have been removed or amended accordingly); Retained Section 26 (former Article 31) applications are Major applications • planning permission has been granted (so no breach has occurred); being processed by the Department as Article 31 (under the Planning (NI) it would not be expedient to take further action; Order 1991) and, where a decision had not issued before 1 April 2015, • no breach has actually occurred; the breach may be immune from which will now be determined under Section 26 of the Planning Act (NI) enforcement action (it may be outside the time limit in which to 2011. initiate action); • Or an application has been allowed on appeal or indeed the notice Retained Section 29 (former non Article 31) applications are those being has been quashed. dealt with by the Department’s Strategic Planning Division which were close to determination at 1 April 2015 and which were retained for The time taken to conclude an enforcement case is calculated from the determination as if the Department had called them in under Section 29 of date on which the complaint is received to the earliest date of the the Planning Act (NI) 2015. following:

Called-in applications are those initially made to councils where the • a notice is issued; Minister/Department directs that these should fall to the Department for • legal proceedings commence; determination. • a planning application is received; • the case is closed. Appeals Please note that the number of cases closed is not a sub-set of the number All applicants of a planning application have the right to appeal a decision of cases concluded in that period - cases that are concluded in any given or the conditions attached to a decision. The statistics reflected in this period may not be closed until subsequent periods, and cases that are publication only reflect the original decision and not any subsequent closed in any given period may have been concluded in previous quarters. decision on appeal. The value at 70% is determined by sorting data from its lowest to highest Enforcement Activity values and then taking the data point at the 70th percentile of the sequence. Compliance and enforcement are important functions of the planning system. The summary data presented in this report and accompanying Processing Times Excel tables covers enforcement cases opened, enforcement cases closed, court action taken and the live caseload as at the end of the quarter. Cases The time taken to process a decision/withdrawal is calculated from the may be closed for a variety of reasons: date on which an application is deemed valid to the date on which the decision is issued or the application is withdrawn. The average processing

time is the median. The median is determined by sorting data from its (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 for lowest to highest values and then taking the data point in the middle of permitted development and do not require planning permission, or uses the sequence. The median is used because some planning applications can that have become lawful due to the length of time they have been in take several years to reach a decision. As a consequence, these extreme existence. cases (outliers) inflate the mean and the result is that the mean may not be considered as ‘typical’. Therefore the median may be taken to better Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) represent the ‘average’ or ‘typical’ processing time. While applications for planning permission and other consents were

included in the operational statistics produced prior to transfer, Tree Geographical Classification Preservation Orders (TPOs) were excluded. In the interests of consistency

TPOs will also be excluded from the new operational statistics. The method of classifying the urban and rural marker has been updated to reflect the latest NISRA guidance using the 2015 Settlement limits: Non Material Changes (NMCs) http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/geography/settlement15-guidance.pdf This method is preferred to the previous method as it more accurately Applications for a Non Material Change (NMCs) to an existing planning considers which of the 8 Settlement bands fall into mainly urban or rural permission are provided for under the 2011 Act, but they are not planning areas. The limitation of the previous method was that all settlement bands applications. There is no requirement to advertise or consult on NMCs. were classified as urban. Under the new method it is recognised that smaller settlements are more rural than urban in character and should be Pre-Application Discussions (PADs) distinguished as such. Pre-Application Discussions (PADs) are not provided for in planning

legislation and councils may adopt different approaches in relation to The method of classifying the Parliamentary Constituencies is based on the these, as may the Department. x and y co-ordinates as recorded on the planning application in conjunction with Westminster Parliamentary Constituency boundaries (2008). Proposal of Application Notices (PANs)

Note on Exclusions: Proposal of Application Notices (PANs) are provided for under Section 27 of the 2011 Act, but they are not planning applications. They are Certificates of Lawful Use or Development (CLUDs) essentially advance notices of major/RSD planning applications and detail

how a developer proposes to engage with the community. A major/RSD Certificates of Lawful Use or Development (CLUDs), either proposed or development planning application cannot be submitted without a PAN existing, have not been included in the Official Statistics bulletin since having been issued, community consultation undertaken and a report 2012/13. These are not actually applications for planning permission. A prepared and submitted with the application by a developer. council will issue a CLUD if it is satisfied that a particular development is lawful within the provisions of planning legislation. Examples include proposed extensions, which fall within the provisions of the Planning

Discharge of Conditions (DCs) Further Information

It will be necessary to seek to discharge a condition where planning Information and statistics for the other devolved administrations and approval has been granted and a condition has been attached to the Republic of Ireland can be found at the following links. decision which requires the further consent, agreement or approval of the council (or the Department). England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications- statistics

Scotland:

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Planning

Wales:

http://gov.wales/topics/planning/planningstats/development- management-quarterly-survey/?lang=en

Republic of Ireland:

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/construction/

Building Control (LPS Starts and completions):

https://www.dfpni.gov.uk/topics/statistics-and-research/new-dwelling- statistics

Housing bulletin DSD:

https://www.dsdni.gov.uk/topics/dsd-statistics-and-research-

housing/housing-statistics

https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-

housing-bulletin-january-march-2016

Appendix 1 – Definitions Industrial and Manufacturing

The Statistical Categories referred to in Section 5 and Excel Table 5.1 are These include factories, warehousing, light and general industrial floor defined below. space, quarries, sand and gravel extraction and fuel depots.

Agricultural Mixed Development

These include agricultural buildings or structures for the storage of slurry These include applications for mixed development incorporating a number and/or manure, agricultural glasshouses, stables and livery yards and of development types such as residential, retailing, offices, community and infilling of land for agricultural purposes. leisure.

Commercial Residential

These include food supermarkets and superstores, non food retailing, These include housing developments (incorporating a mixture of house major retail developments exceeding 1000 sq m, alterations, extensions types and apartments), purpose built apartment developments, sheltered and improvements to buildings used for retailing, retail warehouses, clubs, housing schemes, single dwellings including dwellings on farms, holiday post offices, factory outlets, petrol stations, offices, purpose built office chalets, caravans and mobile homes, alteration, extension or improvement developments, restaurants, car parking, and motor vehicle display, hire, of existing dwellings, residential homes or nursing homes, hotels or repair or sale. motels.

Government and Civic Change of Use

These include police stations, coastguard stations, civic amenity sites, These include applications for a change in the use of land or buildings recycling centres, schools and colleges, hospitals, clinics, other medical including changes to residential, retailing, offices, community or leisure establishments including surgeries and dental practices, ‘Hard uses. infrastructure’ facilities such as roads, water mains, water treatment works, trunk sewers, waste water treatment works and natural gas Other types of application pipelines. Also includes recreational facilities, including indoor and outdoor All other types of applications not mentioned above are put into the sports facilities, and swimming pools and renewable energy applications, ‘Other’ category but mainly comprise ‘Works to Facilitate Persons Who including wind turbines, wind farms, solar panels, biomass burners, Are Disabled’, ‘Advertisements’, and ‘Listed Buildings’. hydroelectric schemes etc. Note that this category also includes non public sector applications related to the above topics.

The application types referred to in Excel Table 5.6 are defined below. Listed Building Consent

Outline permission Works that would affect the character of a listed building need listed building consent. This includes work to the internal or external fabric of An application for outline planning permission can be used to ascertain the building or any demolition. It should be noted that the requirement whether a proposed development is acceptable in principle. This usually for Listed Building Consent is in addition to any requirement for planning means that detailed drawings are not needed. However, the council or, as permission for works to a listed building. the case may be, the Department, may, in certain circumstances, require the submission of additional information or insist that an application for Conservation Area Consent full planning permission be submitted. Works that would entail the full or partial demolition of a non-listed building in a conservation area need conservation area consent. It should Full permission be noted that the requirement for Conservation Area Consent may be in addition to any requirement for planning permission. An application for full planning permission requires the submission of all details of the proposal. This type of application would be appropriate, for Hazardous Substances Consent example, if the erection of new buildings is proposed and / or if a change of use of land or buildings is proposed. The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (No2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 are concerned with the storage and use of hazardous substances Approval of Reserved Matters which could, in quantities at or above specified limits, present a risk. Hazardous Substances Consent ensures that hazardous substances can be If outline planning permission is granted, then a subsequent application kept or used in significant amounts only after the council or, as the case and approval relating to the siting, design, external appearance, means of may be, the Department has had the opportunity to assess the degree of access and landscaping details, known as ‘reserved matters’, will be risk arising to persons in the surrounding area and to the environment. required before building work can commence. The reserved matters application must be consistent with the outline planning permission and Reader Information take into account any conditions that have been attached to it. If the development proposal changes, then it may be necessary to submit a new This document may be made available in alternative formats, please planning application. contact us to discuss your requirements.

Consent to Display an Advertisement

Advertisement consent is normally required to display an advertisement, particularly large signs and illuminated adverts.

Belfast City Local Development Plan (LDP) 2035 - Timetable

Notes on Proposed Indicative Key Stages Process Timescales

Publication of Statement of Community · Final SCI to be submitted to Department for Involvement (SCI) approval April 2016

· Consult Statutory Stakeholders Publication of Timetable · Final SCI to be submitted to Department for May 2016 approval k r

o Preparation of evidence base to underpin · Commission specific, specialist studies required (e.g. Population and Housing Growth)

W production of Plan Strategy and Local · Internal Council consultation to develop evidence

y Policies Plan

r base and identify key issues

a · Identification of key issues in relation to specific May – June 2016 n

i themes for consultation with relevant statutory consultees and key stakeholders m Informal consultation with Elected i

l · Consult consultation body (DAERA) with

e Members, statutory stakeholders and Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating SEA) r community representatives Scoping Report P

· 12 week public consultation · Publish Topic Papers and supporting evidence Publication of Preferred Options Paper alongside POP, including appraisal of alternative September – options · Publication of Sustainability Appraisal (inc. SEA) November 2016

Interim Report ) · Initial EqIA and HRA Screening A E S (

t n e m s

Consideration of responses to POP · Preparation of Public Consultation Report s

e Early 2017 consultation · Informal consultation with key stakeholders s s A

l a t n

· 12 week public consultation, followed by 12 week e m

Publication of Draft Plan Strategy consultation on representations n o y · Publication of Sustainability Appraisal (inc. SEA) r

i Second half 2017 g and Public Consultation Report v n e E t · Publication of EqIA and HRA where required

c a i r g t e t S a

· Advisory report to Central Government r Soundness Based Independent t n · Central Government Issues binding report to S Spring 2018

Examination g l Council n i t P a r o p r

· Changes made to finalise Plan Strategy o Adoption of Plan Strategy c · Publication of final Sustainability Appraisal (inc. n i

( Early 2019*

SEA) and Public Consultation Report l

· Publication of final EqIA and HRA where required a s i a r p p A

y t i l i

· Informal consultation with relevant statutory b a

consultees and key stakeholders n Informal consultation with Elected i Spring 2018 –

· Consult consultation body (DAERA) with a t

Members and statutory stakeholders Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating SEA) s Early 2019 u

Scoping Report S n a l · 12 week public consultation, followed by 12 week P consultation on representations s Publication of Draft Local Policies Plan Spring - Autumn · Publication of final Sustainability Appraisal (inc. e i SEA) and Public Consultation Report 2019 c i

l · Publication of final EqIA and HRA where required o P

a Soundness Based Independent · Advisory report to Central Government c · Central Government Issues binding report to Early 2020

o Examination Council L

· Advisory report to Central Government Adoption of Local Policies Plan · Central Government Issues binding report to Late 2020* Council

d n a w Monitoring and Review of LDP, including:

r e

i · Annual Monitoring Reports · Advisory report to Central Government o v

t · 5 and 10 year review (leading to · Central Government Issues binding report to On going i e commencement of a replacement Local Council n R

o Development Plan) M * May require a longer period depending on changes required following Independent Examination ANNUAL REPORT of the Chief Commissioner

Planning and Water Appeals Commissions

2015-16 Contents Page Chief Commissioner’s statement 2

Section 1: Introduction and staffing 6

Section 2: Analysis of casework 12

Section 3: Performance measures and targets 22

Section 4: Financial statement 26

Front cover (and page 21) photo of Strangford Lough - copyright Northern Ireland Tourist Board resulted in a failure to meet our performance targets, particularly in relation to the timeliness of appeal Chief Commissioner’s statement decisions. I am conscious of the need for greater efficiency in the determination of appeals but there is a limit to what can be achieved without increased resources and a restoration of the management structure This is the Annual Report of the Planning and Water Appeals Commissions for within the Commissions. the year April 2015 - March 2016. The Commissions have sought efficiency savings through a review of general administrative expenditure. The past year has been particularly challenging for the Commissions due to During the course of the year we have reviewed advertising costs, hearing venues and the Commissions’ reductions in budget and staffing levels. Budget reductions have affected both accommodation needs in order to ensure that our budget is used efficiently and effectively. We have also administrative staff and Commissioners. On the administrative side the wider Civil achieved savings and improved efficiency through increased use of electronic working. Service Voluntary Exit Scheme has resulted in the loss of experienced case officers. Further administrative staff were redeployed to the sponsor department following the out workings We continue to work on improving our service to the public. Early problems with the on-line appeals of an administrative staff review in 2014-15. The full recommendations of the review have not been system, which allows for both completion of appeal forms and payment of fees on-line, have been largely implemented, however, with the result that considerable pressure has been placed on the Commissions’ resolved and we continue to promote this facility. We have re-launched our website and updated the staff to maintain an efficient and effective service to our customers. We have reviewed our processes to content to reflect the legislative changes introduced in April 2015. We have also updated a number of our achieve efficiencies, where possible, and it is to their immense credit that staff have responded with drive procedural guides and will update the remainder as resources permit. and determination to the challenges posed. We continue to carry vacancies at Principal Commissioner level as the result of two resignations in the 2014-15 year. This has placed added pressures at management During the past year we have continued to promote a wider understanding of the appellate system. In level within the organisation and the reduction in Commissioner numbers has affected service delivery 2014-15 we participated in capacity building for the new planning authorities. Following the transfer of due to delays in allocating casework, particularly complex casework. As with the administrative staff, planning powers to local government on 1st April 2015, we have built on these working relationships Commissioners have risen to the challenge to ensure that the high quality of decisions is maintained through a focus group with planning managers followed by presentations on the work of the Commissions despite the reduction in resources. to six of the eleven new Councils. We have also continued to engage with outside bodies through contributions to seminars and support to the Queen’s University postgraduate planning course. We meet In managing reduced resources, my task as Chief Commissioner has been to progress major schemes with our sister appellate bodies in England and Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland on an annual without unnecessary delay whilst maintaining the delivery of an efficient appeal service. We have basis and in 2015 hosted the meeting in Belfast. We also contributed to an organisational review of An conducted three public Inquiries into cases referred by government departments and issued decisions Bord Pleanála during the course of the year. on three pieces of major casework. During the course of the year, six Commissioners were involved at various times in these cases. As a result, the number of Commissioners available for appeal work Sponsorship of the Commissions moved to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service in May varied throughout the year. Despite a reduction in the number of appeals received during the year, 2016 following the restructuring of government departments. I wish to record my thanks to the sponsor the complexity of much of our casework has been maintained. For example, a significant increase in team in OFMDFM for their support to the Commissions over the past 15 years and during my time as renewable energy proposals has involved a total of fourteen Commissioners in wind farm proposals at Chief Commissioner. The Commissions look forward to continued positive engagement with the new various times. These proposals, together with major casework, have involved significant resource input sponsor body. from both administrative staff and Commissioners, particularly in view of the complex and wide ranging environmental issues they raise and the extent of third party interest. In addition, the introduction of the This is my final annual report as Chief Commissioner and I would like to take this opportunity to express 2011 Planning Act in April 2015 and the Department’s Strategic Planning Policy Statement in September my gratitude to the Management Board, Commissioners and staff for their unstinting loyalty and support 2015 have added new dimensions to decision making, most notably through the introduction of the plan to me and to the Commissions over the past 4½ years. I wish them well for the future. led system, the power for the Commission to award costs and adjustments to regional policy in a range of areas.

Notwithstanding the above challenges, I am pleased to report that we have increased the number of ELAINE KINGHAN appeal decisions issued by more than 10% over the previous year and continue to review our processes Chief Commissioner to improve efficiency whilst maintaining the high standard of our decisions. Unfortunately the volume and complexity of our caseload, combined with the reduction in Commissioner and staff resources, have August 2016

2 3 Introduction and staffing

4 5 Core values

Introduction The Commission, as an independent appellate body, attaches great importance to the following values in the exercise of its work: Function • Impartiality

The Planning Appeals Commission is an independent appellate body established under statute to decide • Integrity a wide range of appeals and to report on various matters under planning and other legislation. • Openness • Fairness Aims and objectives • Professionalism

The Commission aims to make the best possible appeal decisions and offer the best possible advice to • Quality Departments, consistent with the evidential context within which appellate functions are exercised. • Valuing workforce • Customer care In pursuance of this aim the Commission has the following strategic business objectives: (1) To provide an efficient and effective service compatible with the maintenance of quality, high professional standards and available resources; Water Appeals Commission (2) To maintain its independence, free from any improper influence or external control; The Water Appeals Commission is a separate appellate body and exercises a wide range of functions under water, fisheries and drainage legislation. It shares the vision, aims, objectives and core values of (3) To provide clear, readily available and up-to-date information and guidance to all who come into the Planning Appeals Commission. contact with the Commission; (4) To achieve all performance measures and targets set by the Commission; and Accountability (5) To train, develop and maintain an efficient, well-motivated and united workforce. During the period of this report the Commissions were sponsored by the Office of the First and deputy First Ministers which was responsible for providing resources and services to them. The Chief Commissioner is responsible for the financial, operational and administrative management of the Commissions. Vision The Commissions exercise their decision-making role in an independent manner, free from influence by The Planning Appeals Commission’s vision is to: the Department or any other body. Their decisions are subject to the supervision of the Courts reflecting their independent appellate roles in planning and environmental processes. Provide a fair, efficient and effective appellate service to the public; A pply expertise and experience to information gathered through the process; and Contribute to the quality of our environment by making the best possible decisions.

6 7 Commissioners Administrative staff

Chief Commissioner Ms E Kinghan BA MSc MRTPI Chief Administrative Officer Mr C Purvis

Deputy Chief Commissioner Mr T A Rue MA Dip TP MRTPI Office Manager Ms D Mulligan

Principal Commissioners Mrs M McCabe BA MA MRTPI Team Leaders Mr F Daly Mr G Scott BSc MRTPI Trevor Rue Mrs L Donaldson Ciaran Purvis Mr C Morgan Senior Commissioners Mr A Beggs BSc MSc MRTPI Ms R Daly BSc MSc MRTPI Case Officers Miss Y Adgey Ms J de-Courcey BSc MSc LLB MRTPI Mrs E English Mrs M English Ms M Jones BA BArch ARIBA Mrs I Garrett Mr B Martin BSc MRTPI Mr R Mageean Mr A Speirs BSc MSc MRTPI Miss J Millar Marion McCabe Mr J Nelson Commissioners Mrs P Boomer BSc DipTP MRTPI Ms H Fitzsimons BSc DipTP MRTPI Personal Secretary to Mrs S Quinn Mr D Hannon BA DipTP MRTPI Chief & Deputy Chief Mrs B McGlinchey BSc MA MRTPI Commissioners Ms D McShane BA MTP MEPPA MRTPI Ms P O’Donnell BSc DipTP MRTPI Typist Mrs E McShane Dr D O’Neill BSc DipTP PhD MRTPI Mr M Watson BSc DipTP MRTPI George Scott

8 9 Analysis of casework

10 11 Appeals overview Planning Appeals Commission Appeals caseload

Appeals received from April 2015 to March 2016 The following tables set out detailed information on the volume of casework of the Planning Appeals Commission, the means of processing appeals, the clearance times achieved and the appellant’s success rate for each procedure. 9% Refusal or conditional Year grant of planning 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 permission 18% Refusal or conditional grant of 301 278 215 221 Non Determination of 224 planning application planning permission Appeals Enforcement related received Non Determination of planning 13 24 33 33 8 application Other

3% Enforcement related 115 74 58 60 58 70% Other 22 28 23 31 29

TOTAL 451 406 329 345 319

Appeals received – 2015/16 Other – breakdown Appeals decided from April 2015 to March 2016 Advertisements 19 Roads 7 Environmental 2 10% Refusal or conditional grant of planning permission Trees 1 12% Non Determination of TOTAL 29 planning application

Enforcement related There has been a slight decrease in the total number of appeals received overall this year compared to Other 2014-15.

8% 70% Appeals against decisions on planning applications account for 70% of the total appeal intake representing a slight increase over previous years. The past year has seen a marked decrease in the number of appeals against non-determination of applications which now represent less than 3% of all appeals.

Enforcement related appeals (including Certificates of Lawfulness) have remained around the same level since 2012-13. They represent 18% of all appeals compared with 25% in 2011-12.

In 2015-16, 59 appeals were withdrawn before a decision could be issued. Many of these appeals were at an advanced stage in the administrative process before the withdrawal was requested.

12 13 The increase in the number of appeals decided relates mainly to single houses in the countryside and Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 renewable energy proposals. Single dwellings in the countryside represent the largest single category of Refusal or conditional grant of 237 362 233 172 207 appeals decided. The number of decisions in relation to renewable energy proposals has risen significantly planning permission since 2014-15 with single turbines continuing to represent a high proportion of renewable energy appeals Appeals decided. decided Non Determination of planning 17 13 18 22 24 application Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Enforcement related 63 74 63 42 34 Hearing 117 162 158 109 120 Other 15 28 21 26 29 Appeals Written representations with 92 157 127 95 98 TOTAL 332 477 335 262 294 decided by accompanied site visit method of processing Written representations with 123 158 50 58 76 Appeals decided – 2015/16 Commissioner site visit

Other – breakdown TOTAL 332 477 335 262 294 Advertisements 18 Roads 6 Written representations procedures continue to be preferred by appellants and almost 60% of appeal decisions in the last year related to these methods. Written representations with an accompanied site visit Environmental 4 accounted for 33% of decisions compared with 26% for written representations with a Commissioner’s Trees 1 site visit. TOTAL 29 There was an increase over the previous year in the number of appeals decided following the hearing The number of appeals decided has increased since 2014-15. Appeals against decisions on planning procedure but the percentage remains at just over 40%, reflecting the average over the past five years. applications represent 70% of the total appeals decided and broadly reflect the pattern of recent years. There was a reduction in the number and proportion of enforcement related appeals which account for 12% of all decisions. Appeals in hand at year’s end

Appeals decided by appeal type No % 2011/12 355 Single dwelling in countryside 95 41.1 2012/13 220 Single dwelling in urban area 10 4.3 2013/14 174 Appeal Householder 13 5.6 Types* 2014/15 163 Multiple housing 20 8.7 2015/16 183 Residential care 1 0.4 Tourist accommodation 2 0.9 Renewable energy 50 21.7 The reduction of appeals in hand in 2013-14 and 2014-15 has not been maintained in the current year although the figure is still well below the average over the five year period. Agrcultural 9 3.9 Other non-residential 30 13.0 Mixed use 1 0.4 TOTAL 231 100

* Excluding enforcement related and ‘other’ categories

14 15 Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Refusal or conditional grant of 64 125 82 44 59 Hearing 39 39 26 28 32 planning permission Appeals Appeal Written representations with 35 31 20 23 25 allowed Non Determination of planning 5 8 12 11 18 decisions accompanied site visit application median time (weeks) Written representations with 31 33 20 22 29 Enforcement related 19 17 16 11 14 Commissioner site visit

Other 3 20 8 5 9 All appeals 35 34 22 24 29

TOTAL 91 179 118 71 100 The significant improvement in processing times between 2011-2015 has not continued in 2015-16. % of appeals allowed 27% 36% 35% 27% 34% There has been an increase in median times across all procedures and delays in processing appeals has resulted in a failure to meet targets. Although the current year has seen a 7% increase in appeals allowed, the overall success rate of 34% reflects the average over the past five years. There has been an increased success rate in appeals where Appeals decided within target 2013/14 - 2015/16 no decision has been made by the planning authority within the statutory period and a reduction in 83 success rates for appeals against the refusal or conditional grant of planning permission and enforcement 78 80 74 75 related appeals. It is not unusual for success rates to vary from year to year and between different appeal 72 74 70 71 2013/14 types as appeals are decided on their individual circumstances. 70 65

60 2014/15 Year 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 54 49 Total No 117 162 158 108 120 50 2015/16 Hearing and % 41 70 53 35 54 43 40 allowed 35% 43% 34% 32% 45% Appeals Total No 92 157 127 95 98 Percentage % allowed by Written representations 30 method of with accompanied site and % 28 59 48 25 31 processing 20 visit allowed 30% 36% 38% 26% 32% Total No 123 158 50 59 76 Written representations 10 with Commissioner site and % 22 41 17 11 15 visit allowed 18% 30% 34% 19% 20% Informal WR WR All hearing accompanied unaccompanied appeals Of the 34% of appeals allowed overall, 54% followed the written representations procedures and 46% were decided following an informal hearing. The percentage of appeals allowed following an informal Costs decisions hearing represents an increase over the five year average of 38%. As each appeal is decided on its own Powers to enable the Commission to make orders particular facts, the Commission considers that there is no connection between the appeal outcome and as to the costs of the parties in planning and 2015/16 the processing method selected. related appeals were introduced in April 2015. No award 4 Of the seven costs applications made in 2015- Partial award 2 16, four were brought by third parties against Award of costs Full award 1 appellants and three by appellants against 7 Councils. Three of the costs claims were upheld. TOTAL

16 17 Other casework Water Appeals Commission

Public Inquiries Appeal caseload George Best Belfast City Airport – The Commission conducted a public inquiry to consider a proposed Appeals to the Water Appeals Commission were brought under the Water (NI) Order 1999, the Water modification to the Planning Agreement for Belfast City Airport in May 2015. The report was sent to the Abstraction and Impoundment (Licensing) Regulations (NI) 2006 and the Nitrates Action Programme Department in October 2015. Regulations (NI) 2014. Appeal activity in this area remains at a low level.

Queen’s Parade, Bangor – Public inquiries were held in February 2016 to consider a comprehensive Year development scheme and vesting order at Queen’s Parade in Bangor. The Commission’s report was 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 completed in the current financial year. Water Appeals received 5 3 6 6

Water appeals withdrawn North South Electricity Interconnector – This case was originally referred to the Commission in July 2011 3 3 2 1 but the Public Inquiry which commenced in March 2012 was subsequently adjourned due to procedural Water appeals decided 2 0 4 1 difficulties. The case was referred back to the Commission in February 2016 and a conjoined Inquiry is planned in the current financial year.

Hearings Quality Major Planning Applications Complaints and Judicial Reviews Retail Proposals, Magherafelt – The Commission reported on three major retail proposals in June 2015 The complaints system allows for the investigation of complaints made by any party involved in proceedings following a conjoined hearing in 2014-15. before the Commissions. Where complaints are found to be justified, an explanation and apology are provided to the complainant. Of those complaints considered in 2015-16, two were found to be justified. Residual Waste Treatment Facility, Newtownabbey, Wind Farm, Coleraine, Hydro-Electric Scheme, Ardmore – Hearing requests were received for these schemes which are programmed for 2016-17. Year 2014/15 2015/16

Retirement Village and Nursing Home, Co Armagh – A hearing requested in the 2014-15 financial year Total 10 13 was programmed for June 2015 but was subsequently withdrawn. Complaints Number justified 2 2 Waste Treatment Facility, Belfast and Hydro-Electric scheme, Claudy - Hearings were requested for these schemes but the requests were subsequently withdrawn. Two parties whose complaints were not upheld by the Commission subsequently raised complaints with the Ombudsman. These complaints were found to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. One of the complainants also raised concerns with the Information Commissioner who was satisfied that the Environmental Impact Assessment Commission had acted correctly. The Commission received two requests for hearings under the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012. The requests were subsequently withdrawn. Year 2014/15 2015/16

Number of challenges 4 5 Judicial reviews Successful challenges 3 3

18 19 The Commissions’ decisions can be challenged by an application for judicial review to the High Court only on a point of law. In circumstances where there is agreement that the decision is flawed, the judicial review application is not contested by the Commissions. In these cases the appeal is reheard by a different Commissioner following receipt of the Court Order and a new decision is issued. The Commission agreed to the quashing of three decisions in 2015-16 and the appeals were remitted for re-determination.

Performance measures and targets

20 21 Performance measures and targets Quality 4. To ensure that the number of appeal decisions giving rise to a justified complaint or a successful judicial review challenge in 2014-15 and 2015-16 amounts to no more than 1.5% of the total number 2015-16 of appeal decisions issued in that two-year period. The performance measures set out in the Commission’s Business Plan for 2015-16 and performance The proportion of appeal decisions giving rise to a justified complaint or a successful judicial review against targets are set out below. challenge over the 2 year period was 1.8%. Although the numbers involved are small, the Commission remains committed to ensuring that decisions are of the highest quality. The issues arising from these Appeals cases have been shared with Commissioners and staff to ensure that all procedures are correctly followed and the high quality of decisions is maintained. 1. To decide 80% of appeals* within specified periods as follows: • Informal hearings within 30 weeks; • Written representations with an accompanied site visit within 28 weeks; • Written representations within 26 weeks; and • Enforcement within 34 weeks. * excluding delays caused by the appellant and cases involving EIA development

70% of cases involving written representations with an accompanied site visit were decided within the target period but decisions in the other categories were significantly delayed with the result that the Commission decided only 53% of appeals within the specified periods. Median times have increased by 5 weeks to 29 weeks. The reduced performance is largely due to the reduction in Commissioner and administrative resources and complexity of casework.

Major Casework

2. In 80% of hear-and-report cases, to conduct a pre-inquiry or pre-hearing meeting within 16 weeks of the receipt of all relevant documents from the Department, or where no such meeting is held, to open the public inquiry or hearing within 24 weeks of the receipt of those documents.

The Commission achieved 100% within the target periods. One pre-hearing meeting was held and three cases were programmed for hearing or inquiry in 2015-16 without pre-inquiry or pre-hearing meetings.

3. To deliver 100% of all reports on hear-and-report cases to the Department by the indicative date announced at the end of the public proceedings.

The Commission conducted three public inquiries and one hearing in 2015-16 and reported in year on one of the public inquiries. Reports were also provided in relation to three cases heard in the previous financial year. Although the hearing reports were delivered within target, the public inquiry report was delayed by approximately two weeks from the indicative date announced which resulted in the Commission achieving 75% within the target period.

22 23 Financial statement

24 25 Financial Statement Running costs

2014/15 2015/16

£ % £ %

Commissioners’ Salaries/Fees £1,326,840 63.6 £1,314,374.00 64.67 Administrative Staff Salaries £484,403 23.22 £431,832.00 21.24 Overtime £0 0 £0.00 0 Travel and Subsistence £16,048 0.77 £15,845.00 0.78 Accommodation Charges £102,712 4.92 £100,643.00 4.95 Advertising £39,965 1.92 £31,845.00 1.57 External Training £5,420 0.26 £4,511.00 0.22 Legal Fees £22,313 1.07 £31,156.00 1.53 Postage & Telephones £21,731 1.04 £17,460.00 0.86 Electricity £12,464 0.59 £11,821.00 0.58 Library £9,460 0.45 £9,663.00 0.48 Stationery/Printing £8,934 0.43 £6,920.00 0.34 Contract Cleaning £8,923 0.43 £8,678.00 0.43 Office Equipment £2,541 0.12 £5,363.00 0.26 Hospitality £1,189 0.05 £2,933.00 0.14 Incidental Expenses £986 0.05 £18,665.00 0.93 Software Maintenance Contract £12,017 0.58 £12,201.00 0.6 Refund of Fees £10,394 0.5 £8,602.00 0.42 Total £2,086,340 100 £2,032,512.00 100

Planning and Water Appeals Commissions Receipts Park House 87/91 Great Victoria Street 2014/15 2015/16 Belfast £ £ BT2 7AG

Appeal fees £65,605 £86,735.00 Tel: 028 9024 4710 Photocopying charges £137 £82.00 Email: [email protected] Total £65,742 £86,817.00 Website: www.pacni.gov.uk

26 27