1 14 June 2016 Chairman

14 June 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 20 June 2016 at 6.30pm.

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 Planning Applications 3.1 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0035/F 3.2 Planning Application No: LA03/2015/0564/F 3.3 Planning Application No: LA03/2015/0537/F 3.4 Planning Application No: LA03/2015/0563/F 3.5 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0122/F 3.6 Planning Application No: LA03/2015/0678/O 3.7 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0025/F 3.8 Planning Application No: T/2014/0399/F 3.9 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0226/F 3.10 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0299/F 3.11 Planning Application No: LA03/2016/0088/F

Decisions on Enforcement Cases 3.12 Enforcement Case: – LA03/2015/0015/CA – in confidence 3.13 Enforcement Case: – U/2013/0062/CA – in confidence 3.14 Enforcement Case: – LA03/2015/0023/CA – in confidence 3.15 Enforcement Case: – LA03/2015/0020/CA – in confidence 3.16 Enforcement Case: – LA03/2016/0103/CA – in confidence

2 Other Planning Matters 3.17 Pre-Determination Hearing for LA03/2015/0051/F 3.18 Delegated planning decisions and appeals

PART TWO 3.19 Local Development Plan Consultation 3.20 Local Development Plan Working Group

3 ITEM 3.1

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0035/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: COUNCIL INTEREST

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: Change of use of classrooms & storage building to provide staff living accommodation including new decking in front of adjacent storage building

SITE/LOCATION: World of Owls Centre, 32 Mount Shalgus Lane, Randalstown, Antrim

APPLICANT: World of Owls

AGENT: Park Design Associates

LAST SITE VISIT: 22nd January 2016

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

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The building, the subject of this application, is located within the World Of Owls (WOO) complex which is located to the eastern side of Mount Shalgus Lane within Randalstown Forest Park. This is approximately one (1) kilometre from the Staffordstown Road.

The complex consists of a single storey pitched roof building operating as a reception area, education room, exhibition space, service and administrative area. In addition there are animal rescue pens and bird aviaries as well as a classroom building, the subject of the current application.

The classroom building is a single storey prefabricated building finished with wooden trim. The building is elevated from the ground and has a wooden decked area, veranda and access steps leading up to the entrance door.

Immediately to the north of the site is No.32 Mount Shalgus Lane, a private dwelling. A public car park is located approximately two hundred (200) metres to the north of WOO. At this location there is a security barrier.

4 PROPOSAL The application seeks full planning permission for a change of use of classrooms and a storage building to provide staff living accommodation including new decking in front of adjacent storage building.

It is proposed to undertake internal alterations to the store room and both of the classrooms within the building to provide bedrooms for residential accommodation. The existing toilet area will be altered to provide a bathroom, the existing common room will provide for a living room. No changes are proposed to the external appearance of the building.

The current proposal seeks a change of use from a Class D1: Community and Cultural Use, part ‘d’ for the provision of education; to Class C3: Residential Institution, part ‘a’for the provision of residential accommodation in relation to the Planning (Use Classes) Order (NI) 2015.

At the time of the previous appeal on site, refer to planning history below, it was accepted that legal cases (Gravesham BC v SOS for the Environment (1982) and Moore v SOS for the Environment (1998)) established that the residential accommodation proposed, which is similar to the type of residential accommodation proposed in this application, did not constitute a dwelling house as defined in Class C1 of the Planning (Use Classes) Order (NI) 2004.

No further legal cases have been identified by the applicant or interested third parties which alters this understanding. The application is therefore being progressed on this basis.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2002/0406/F: Construction of 17 Aviaries For Owls at 32 Mount Shalgus Lane, Randalstown. Permission granted 03.07.2002

T/2004/0078/F: Mobile classroom, storage facilities, rehabilitation unit for animals, avaries for owls, replacement of 2 existing windows with doors and canopy at 32 Mount Shalgus Lane, Randalstown. Permission granted 09.02.2005

T/2010/0045/F: Change of use from a mobile classroom and storage to Staff accommodation and Office. All other buildings on this site are to remain the same use at 32 Mount Shalgus Lane, Randalstown Forest Park. Permission refused 04.11.2010 and Planning Appeal dismissed 31.10.12

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 Department of the Environment’s Development Plans and relevant Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) which contain the main operational planning polices for the consideration of development proposals.

5 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.

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.

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 Council Environmental Health Section - No objection

NI Water - No objection

Transport NI - No objection

Northern Ireland Environment Agency (Water Management Unit and Natural Heritage and Conservation) - No objection

REPRESENTATION One (1) neighbour was notified in accordance with the required procedures. Seven (7) 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:  There is no demonstrable need for a permanent residence on site  The drawings submitted read as more than staff accommodation, rather it looks like a family dwelling unit is proposed  Doubt is expressed as to why wild birds need human rearing  The number of visitors attracted to the site is questioned as no detailed analysis has been provided  Queries are also raised regarding references made in the applicant’s statement of support from certain individuals/groups, yet no evidence has been provided to substantiate these.

6 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Neighbour Amenity  Other Matters

Principle of Development The planning history for this site indicates that planning permission was refused by DOE Planning for a similar development in November 2010. This refusal was subsequently appealed to the Planning Appeals Commission who dismissed the appeal in October 2012.

The decision notice issued by DOE Planning indicated that the planning application was considered contrary to Policy CTY7 of PPS21. The Commissioner at the time of the subsequent planning appeal advised that PPS21 does not provide specific policy for this type of proposal but that Policy CTY7 which deals with the principle of residential accommodation associated with a non-agricultural business enterprise would be the policy most relevant to the proposal.

Since the time of the previous appeal the SPPS has been published. In comparing and contrasting the SPPS with CTY7 of PPS21 it is evident that the thrust of planning policy remains the same.

Policy CTY7 indicates that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in connection with an established non-agricultural business enterprise where a site specific need can be clearly demonstrated that makes it essential for one of the firm’s employees to live at the site of their work.

Policy CTY7 states that applicants will need to provide sufficient information to show that there is a site specific need and furthermore indicates that a business which has been operating satisfactorily without residential accommodation will be expected to demonstrate why accommodation is now considered necessary in order to enable the enterprise to function properly. The policy amplificatoin goes on to state that the need to provide additional security from vandalism by having someone living on the site is unlikely on its own to warrant the grant of planning permission.

At the time of the previous appeal the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) considered that the main thrust of the operations of WOO related to educational activity directed at visiting members of the public and local schools. The provision of work placements to national/international students was also identified, but the PAC whilst acknowledging this was a valuable source of income for the charity, considered that it had not been demonstrated that it was essential for those on placement to reside at the facility.

At the time of this current application WOO has been operating successfully for some twelve (12) years in relation to the provision of environmental education and sixteen years (16) years overall on conservation matters.

With reference to information provided by the applicant it is asserted that visitor numbers to WOO have risen from approximately 4,500 in 2013/14 to 14,000 in 2014/15.

7 It is also asserted that as the largest animal education resource in Northern Ireland there is an average target of visiting 30,000 children per school term. It is noted that the number of animals and birds kept on site has also increased recently due to the demise of a similar type facility in Cumbria, England.

The agents have indicated that despite the increase in visitor numbers and success of the charity, WOO is currently unable to provide placements to national/international students in part due to the closure of nearby B&B accommodation. It is nevertheless noted that the recent success of WOO and the increase in the scale of operations undertaken has occurred even though there is no full- time physical human presence on site. It is not considered therefore that the environmental/animal education element of the charity operations would of itself warrant the provision of on-site residential accommodation.

With regard to the animal rescue element of WOO it is noted that no information has been provided to demonstrate the level of animal rescue undertaken by the charity at this time. The agent asserts this activity occurs and the applicant indicates within his own statement that the 24/7 response offered is in jeopardy as it is no longer possible to bring animals needing care to his home. This is because he is unable to purchase or rent a house in the immediate area as there is no suitable housing stock in Randalstown and that he has had to move some eighteen (18) miles away. There is no specific indication of any animal rescue or care directly taking place at WOO although there is no reason not to accept the applicant’s assertion that this service/facility is still available.

No detailed evidence has been supplied to indicate why it is considered by the applicant that there are no suitable alternative housing arrangements available in close proximity to the site, the surrounding area or nearby in Randalstown. It is noted that the applicant and his family have had to move away, however, again this is considered insufficient justification to warrant the grant of planning permission in the circumstances.

In the absence of supporting information it can only be concluded this rescue and care activity occurs on an ad-hoc basis and is incidental to the main use as an animal educational facility and bird sanctuary. The information provided fails to demonstrate a site specific need for staff members to reside at WOO. The clear lack of evidence as to the level of activity does not justify the scale of accommodation proposed and the occasional use involved could well be carried out within the existing building layout.

In relation to security issues it is noted that there was a break-in at the premises between 7th July 2013 and 9th July 2013 as referenced in correspondence issued by the PSNI to WOO and contained within the supporting information. This is in addition to the two break-ins recorded at the time of the previous appeal. No information has been provided as to whether or not there have been any further security issues since July 2013.

Supporting information accompanying the application indicates that during the break-in all aviaries were opened, ten owls were killed, a pet rabbit was killed and that thousands of pounds worth of damage was caused to WOO.

8 In its correspondence to WOO the PSNI acknowledges that security fencing, lighting and CCTV cameras have now been installed, but that the site remains vulnerable to a break-in and that a 24/7 presence would act as a deterrent. The PSNI go on to support the need for a physical presence on site. This issue of a 24/7 presence on site for security purposes is also supported by The International Centre for Birds of Prey, World Owl Trust (now defunct) and two separate letters of support from members of the York Bird of Prey Centre. In addition Dr Ian Finney (Vet) has submitted correspondence supporting a 24/7 presence as did Mr Terry Nutkins (now deceased) dating back to January 2012. The applicant asserts that a permanent physical presence on site is also supported by DARD but there is no correspondence to this effect.

The agent and applicant both indicate that it is a requirement of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency zoo regulation licence that all animals must be protected on a 24 hour basis. However, given that WOO has already secured a zoo licence it must be the case that NIEA considered that adequate security measures were already in place at the time the licence was granted.

While the applicant indicates that additional funding has been applied for to increase security measures there is no indication as to whether that funding has been secured, what the plans are to increase the security of the site or what the view of the PSNI is with regards to these increased security measures.

It is not possible to conclude that security problems are persistent on-going issues or that the maximum level of security prevention is provided for to satisfactorily demonstrate that a 24/7 physical human presence is required to secure the site. It is noted that there would be an occasional presence of staff members when rescued animals require care.

In this case it is considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the provision of further security measures would be unsuccessful in deterring would be vandals or that there is a significant on-going threat from vandals to warrant the grant of planning permission relevant to security issues alone.

The agent has indicated that since the time of the previous appeal the scale of the facility and number of conservation sensitive species has increased dramatically and that worldwide breeding projects rely closely on WOO to save remaining rare species WOO has in its possession. The position adopted by the agent however is directly contradicted by the applicant in his own statement when he indicates breeding projects using WOO are in doubt as conservation centres have advised of reservations that there is no 24/7 human presence at WOO which can ensure the safety of the rare animals.

It is evident that WOO has become more successful in the intervening time period since the previous appeal relevant to its core business of environmental/animal education and bird sanctuary despite not having a 24/7 physical human presence on site. Overall however it is not considered that a sufficiently compelling case based around security reasons in support of the development proposal has been provided to meet the policy requirement for a residential presence at the site.

9 Neighbour Amenity It is not considered that the provision of residential accommodation provided on the site of WOO would lead to an unsatisfactory relationship with the adjoining neighbour at No.30 Mount Shalgus Lane. The dwelling in question is some forty (40) metres away from the subject building and the common boundary is defined by mature vegetation. It is considered that there would not be any adverse impact on the residential amenity of No. 30 Mount Shalgus Lane.

Other Matters With regard to the specific matters raised in objection it is considered for the reasons set out in the report that there is no demonstrable need for a permanent residence on the site, however, the type of accommodation required is not a dwelling house as perceived by objectors rather a form of residential accommodation.

While there is no empirical evidence supporting the numbers of visitors to the site it is considered that the claimed increase in numbers has the effect of demonstrating that WOO has grown in its success without a 24/7 physical human presence being present on the site.

It is noted that there are a number of supporting statements provided in information by the applicant contrary to the views expressed in one objection.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  WOO has grown in its success as an environmental/animal education centre and bird sanctuary despite not having a 24/7 physical human presence on site;  No information has been provided to demonstrate that the emergency care of animals takes place on anything more than an ad-hoc basis and is incidental to the main use as an education facility and bird sanctuary; and  Security issues are not considered to be an on-going significant threat to the viability of the operation of WOO.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

REASON FOR REFUSAL

1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies CTY1 and CTY7 of Planning Policy Statement 21 in that a site specific need has not been demonstrated that makes it essential for one, or more of the firm’s employees to live at the site nor are there any overriding reasons why this development is essential and could not be located within a settlement.

10 11 ITEM 3.2

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2015/0564/F DEA: BALLYCLARE

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Proposed conversion and reuse of existing out offices/barn into a single dwelling in accordance with PPS 21- CTY4 and to include extension and alteration.

SITE/LOCATION: Approx. 35m north west of 194 Hillhead Road, Ballyclare.

APPLICANT: Mr William Mairs

AGENT: Raymond J Mairs Chartered Architects

LAST SITE VISIT: 22nd March 2016

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

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located on land approximately 35m northwest of 194 Hillhead Road, Ballyclare. This is a rural location immediately west of and abutting the settlement limit of the southern node of the small settlement of Hillhead identified in the adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP). There is a watercourse adjacent to the site’s northern boundary known as Ballylinney Burn and the mature copse of trees lining it are designated as an LLPA in BMAP.

The subject building is set to the rear and northwest of No.194 Hillhead Road on low lying land immediately adjacent to the Ballylinney Burn. The building is effectively in three parts.

The first part sits to the east and is described in submitted drawings as being used as a preparation room and larder at ground floor and staff room at first floor. The eastern elevation has large vehicular access doors at ground floor level with a window on either side and a further window at first floor level. The building has a broadly square shaped footprint and is of block construction with some facades smooth rendered. The roof profile is a very shallow mono-pitch.

12 The second part of the existing building is narrow and elongated in its footprint and projects from the western gable of the first part described above. It is used as stables at ground floor with loft space above.

The third part lies to the extreme west of the building footprint and comprises an open sided car port. A single storey lean to greenhouse abuts the southern boundary of the main part of the building.

There are only limited views of the building and it can only really be seen when in close proximity and looking southwest through the yard of 190 Hillhead Road in between gaps in the trees at Ballylinney Burn.

PROPOSAL The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion and reuse of the existing building on the site which is described as out offices/barn with alterations and extensions to provide a single dwelling.

The extensions and alterations include the addition of a pitched roof to the first part of the building, the addition of a curved Dutch style barn roof to the remaining part and the enlargement of this section of the buildings footprint to accommodate this structure, together with the alteration of the solid to void ratio on the northern, eastern and southern elevations of the structure.

It is identifiable that on the southern elevation of part 1 of the building a two storey projecting bay type window is proposed with a curved roof form. The southern elevation of part 2 of the building is to be curtain wall glazing from floor to ceiling with a Juliette balcony set to the western side at first floor level.

Materials proposed are roughcast render, zinc barn roof with aluminium frame either side, Bangor blue slates to the pitched roof element, brick dental course to eaves and brick reveals to window frames and hardwood window frames.

Vehicular access is to be achieved using the access to No.194 Hillhead Road.

The agent has submitted a supporting statement, details are set out below.

The building is a locally important outbuilding suitable for conversion to a dwelling under policy because;

 It displays traditional layout; simple two storey rectangular block of animal housing at the lower level with feed and pigeon lofts above  The outbuilding has become locally/regionally and nationally important due to the success of the farm owner creating a focal point for excellence in multi- breed pedigree cattle farming and pigeon racing  This success has been sustained over several decades, locally, regionally within Northern Ireland and nationally –UK and Ireland  The core business and showing of stock to visiting buyers remained within this building despite the addition of more modern buildings constructed to house expanding cattle breeding business  The pigeon loft has been successful in competition at local and regional level

13  The premises are a focal point for excellence in pigeon racing and an important base for teaching breeding skills and stock selection  Classes were held in the barn and ran for a number of years, attended by people from all over the island of Ireland  The successful cattle breeding and pigeon loft has featured frequently on TV and radio, detailed articles in trade magazines and national papers (UK and Ireland) – evidence to this effect has been provided.

The agent concludes, on the basis of the above information, that it is reasonable to consider the building as a traditional outbuilding which is locally important and as a consequence suitable for conversion.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY The subject building has no previous planning history associated with it.

Within the confines of the existing curtilage of No.194 Hillhead Road an additional dwelling has been granted. Details are;

U/2010/0345/F - Proposed two storey dwelling and detached garage on site adjacent to 194 Hillhead Road, Ballyclare, BT39 9LP. Approval 03.02.2012

LA03/2015/0042/F - Erection of 2 storey dwelling and detached garage (Remove condition 3 and vary condition 2 of previous application U/2010/0345/F) on land adjacent to 194 Hillhead Road, Ballyclare. Approval 05.08.2015

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

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.

Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan: The Plan offers no specific guidance on this proposal.

14 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.

CONSULTATION Transport NI - No objections subject to conditions.

Rivers Agency - Identifies that the site partially lies within the 1:100 year fluvial flood plain. Rivers Agency indicates it considers the proposal is contrary to Policy FLD 1 of PPS15 and has recorded its objection on this basis unless the Council determine the proposal is an exception to policy or of overriding regional importance.

Northern Ireland Environment Agency - No objections.

NI Water - No objections, standard response with informatives

Council Environmental Health Section - No objections

REPRESENTATION Four (4) neighbouring properties notified. One letter of support has been received from Paul Girvan MLA. 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 is provided below:  Confirms the accuracy of the activities undertaken in the building to be converted; and  Indicates that he considers the building to be converted is a locally, regionally and nationally important building.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Flood Risk

Principle of Development The application site is located in the countryside and there is no specific policy in the local development plan, the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, material to the proposal. Whilst the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) is a material consideration for all decisions on planning applications, Planning Policy Statement 21 ‘Sustainable Development in the Countryside’ (PPS 21) is a retained policy document under the SPPS and taken together these provide the appropriate policy context.

The application site is located adjacent to the settlement limit for the southern node of the small settlement of Hillhead. Policy CTY15 of PPS21 and paragraph 6.71 of the Regional Strategic Policy for Development in the Countryside of the SPPS both identify that development must not mar the distinction between a settlement and the surrounding countryside or otherwise result in urban sprawl.

15 The proposal relates to the conversion of an existing ancillary building associated with the dwelling at No.194 Hillhead Road which lies within the curtilage of that residential property. While the settlement limit in BMAP divides the curtilage of No.194 in half it is considered in this particular instance that the mature tree belt at the foot of the site will provide adequate visual containment for the proposed development. Accordingly it is concluded that the distinction between the urban and rural area will be marred by the development proposed.

Both the SPPS and Policy CTY4 of PPS 21 make provision for the sympathetic conversion and re-use of existing buildings for residential use.

The test of the SPPS set out at paragraph 6.73 is that provision should be made for the sympathetic conversion and re-use, with adaptation if necessary, of a locally important building (such as a former school house, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings), as a single dwelling where this would secure its upkeep and retention.

The test set out in the SPPS refers to a ‘locally important building’ whereas Policy CTY4 of PPS21 refers to a ‘suitable building.’ A difference therefore exists between the SPPS and Policy CTY4 with respect to the type of building deemed appropriate for conversion.

Paragraph 1.12 of the SPPS provides that where there is any conflict between the SPPS and any policy retained under the transitional arrangements this must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS. It goes on to state that where the SPPS introduces a change of policy direction and/or provides a policy clarification that would be in conflict with the retained policy the SPPS should be accorded greater weight in the assessment of individual planning applications.

In a supporting statement accompanying the planning application great emphasis is placed on the historical success of Mr DB Mairs, resident of No.194 Hillhead Road, in breeding prize cattle and pigeons. It is contended that this success was achieved from the subject building within the application site which became a focal point for excellence and which visiting buyers regularly attended.

A series of pieces of supporting information have also been provided. It appears this information relates to a time period between approximately 1989 and 2006. The only piece of evidence submitted relating to pigeons appears to date back to 1989. Several pieces of information relate to prize winning cattle dating up to 2006. There are several other pieces of information which are unspecific with regards dates, Mr Mairs’ involvement or relevance to the development proposal.

Notwithstanding Mr Mairs success in breeding prize cattle and pigeons it is not possible to conclude, on the basis of the information provided, that any of these activities occurred solely at the subject building. The evidence demonstrates no direct linkage with the subject building. In any case, even if the building was utilised in this manner and whilst acknowledging that it has clearly been personally important to Mr Mairs and to the operation of his agricultural enterprise, this is not considered sufficient in demonstrating the building as being “locally important” as referred to in planning policy terms. Locally important as a policy test is considered to relate to the

16 local historic significance of the building in question, close associations with well- known people or events or a building that reflects local building traditions.

With regards to the location of the building, it occupies a secluded location in the landscape set to the rear of No.194 Hillhead Road and screened by linear copses of trees along the watercourse. There are very limited public views attainable of the building. As such it makes no material contribution to the visual character of the area as a focal point or landmark. The building itself has no distinctive architectural merit, its roof form, an almost flat mono-pitch roof, is not considered to be a traditional architectural element of an agricultural barn or outbuilding.

For the above reasons it is not considered that the building to be converted comprises a locally important building and therefore the proposal finds no support within this element of the policy (SPPS) which as indicated above carries determining weight over Policy CTY4 on this matter.

Notwithstanding the conclusion that the proposal is unacceptable in principle it is also considered that the extent of the proposed works for the conversion, its extension and alteration as indicated in the submitted plans read as unsympathetic to the original building.

The effect of the proposal would be to completely alter the form, character, architectural features, design appearance and materials of the existing building. This is because of the provision of two additional roof forms to the existing building (pitched and curved roof), alterations to the solid to void ratio (curtain wall glazing, projecting bay type window, juliette balcony) and use of materials – zinc roof, charcoal colour aluminium frames, coursed random rubble wall, brick dental courses to eaves and window void detailing.

The overall nature of the proposed works would lead to the radical transformation of the subject building. This is contrary to the provisions of both the SPPS and Policy CTY4 of PPS21.

The applicant has not sought to argue that the proposed development fell into any other categories 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 considered unacceptable in principle in the countryside and is contrary to CTY1 of PPS21.

Flood Risk The application site lies partially within the 1:100 year fluvial flood plain. As a consequence the Rivers Agency considers the proposal contrary to Policy FLD 1 of PPS15 and has raised an objection unless the Council determines the proposal to constitute an exception to policy or of overriding regional importance.

In response to the DARD comments the agent has advised;  The proposal relates to an existing building with limited adjustment to its footprint;  The building was constructed over 40 years ago and there is no record of flood inundation associated with this building or of the Ballylinney Burn

17 breaking its banks in this location in the owners living memory – they have lived on the Hillhead Road for 60 years;  The owners confirm that recent record levels of rainfall for December 2015 and the high water levels have had no impact on the existing building or the associated yard/garden area; and  It is proposed to raise the floor level of the building by 0.6mm despite the view that flooding has not taken place over a 60 year period.

The response made by the agent does not contend that the development proposal meets with any of the exceptions to Policy FLD1 of PPS15 nor does it seek to argue that the proposal is of overriding regional or sub-regional importance. The points made by the agent are not therefore considered sufficient to address the policy position outlined in PPS15 which requires that a precautionary approach must be taken to flood risk. Accordingly it is concluded that the proposal would result in a development that would be at flood risk and may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The principle of conversion and extension of the building in question to residential use cannot be established as it is not considered to be a locally important building nor are the works proposed considered sympathetic.  The proposal involves development in a flood plain and no convincing evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that it should be considered as an exception to policy presumption against such development.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement relating to the conversion and re-use of existing buildings in the countryside for residential use in that the building to be converted is not considered to be a locally important building and the extensions and alterations proposed are not sympathetic to the building to be converted.

2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement and it fails to the provisions of Policy CTY4 as the proposed scheme of conversion and alteration is not sympathetic to the building to be converted.

3. The proposal is contrary to Policy FLD 1 of PPS15 'Planning and Flood Risk' in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal should be considered as an exception to policy nor is the proposal of overriding regional or sub-regional importance.

18 19 ITEM 3.3 (WITHDRAWN FROM MAY COMMITTEE)

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2015/0537/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: LEVEL OF OBJECTION

PROPOSAL: 2 Storey Dwelling House and Detached Garage

SITE/LOCATION: 20m West of 2 Whinney Hill Road, Randalstown. BT41 2NU

APPLICANT: Vegas Urbutis

AGENT: 2020 Architects

LAST SITE VISIT: 12th November 2015

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

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located 20m west of No. 2 Whinney Hill, Randalstown. It is accessed via an existing driveway off Whinney Hill which has recently been excavated and regraded before the land drops sharply to the rear of the existing dwellings along the road. Land falls in an east to west direction towards the River Maine which flows approximately 60m west of the site. There is a pond just beyond the western boundary of the site adjacent to the river. The application site is currently overgrown grass with a post and wire fence running along the side boundaries. The application site contains a number of mature and maturing trees close to the western boundary, which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Towards the western boundary there is an increase in more dense overgrown scrub with a height of 1-2m. The adjacent properties to the north and south have mature trees within their back gardens reaching a maximum of 15m in height approximately.

The site is located within the settlement limits of Randalstown along a private road which is accessed off the main Magheralane Road. The existing properties at Whinney Hill are two storey semi-detached dwellings.

PROPOSAL

20 The application is seeking full planning permission for a two storey dwelling house and detached garage. Amended drawings incorporating design changes were received during the processing of the application.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2003/0114/O - Site for dwelling on land adjacent to 2 Whinney Hill, Randalstown. Granted Approval 09.06.2003

T/2006/0435/O - Renewal of previously approved outline planning application (T/2003/0114/O) for 1No. dwelling and garage on land to the rear of 2 Whinney Hill, Randalstown. Granted Approval 07.12.2006

T/2007/0066/RM - New dwelling house with integral garage on land to rear of No.2 Whinney Hill, Randalstown. Granted Approval 09.08.2007

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 application site is on unzoned land located within the development limits for Randalstown.

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.

21 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 Transport NI - No objections to the proposal subject to conditions and informatives

Rivers Agency - No objections to the proposal as the dwelling is set a sufficient height above flood plain levels

NIEA Water Management Unit - No objection to the proposal

REPRESENTATION Three (3) neighbouring properties were notified. Two (2) letters of objection have been received, both from Colin McAuley Planning, making representations on behalf of the residents of eight (8) neighbouring properties, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Whinney Hill and 40 Magheralane Road. 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:  Inaccurate drawings and forms.  The proposal is not in keeping with planning policy  Potential loss of TPO trees  Neighbour amenity issues  Access issues onto the Magheralane Road

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  Flood Risk  Access  Planning History

Principle of Development The application site comprises unzoned land located to the rear of No. 2 Whinney Hill which is one of a number of residential properties at this location within the settlement limits of Randalstown. The Antrim Area Plan acknowledges that there may be areas within the settlement that have not been zoned for a particular use and advises that development will be permitted on such land provided the uses are satisfactory for the location proposed and provided no physical or other problems are involved.

Regional policy set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (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.

22 This is complemented by Policy QD1 of PPS7 which indicates 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.

Given the location of the site within the settlement limits of Randalstown, it is considered that the principle of development for residential use is acceptable subject to the proposal meeting detailed criteria which are addressed in the paragraphs below.

Design and Appearance The proposal entails a new detached dwelling to the rear of (west of) 2 Whinney Hill. The site on which the dwelling is to be placed is steeply sloping with a strong fall in an east to west direction. The proposed dwelling will be two storey in nature on split level, although given the topography of the site it will appear as single storey when viewed directly along the laneway from Whinney Hill. The dwelling will be cut into the upper part of the slope and supported by external beams to the underside to give a “floating” impression over the lower ground. The proposed dwelling is to be finished in natural timber cladding with the curved aspects of the structure completed with corrugated sheet metal coloured green/brown. The roof proposed will be flat in design and also finished in corrugated sheet metal, whilst the windows will be PVC items coloured dark grey.

The scale of the dwelling in terms of height and floorspace is largely in keeping with surrounding dwellings along Whinney Hill, although it is acknowledged most of the existing properties are semi-detached in nature. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 5.5m above finished ground level which would be lower than dwellings along Whinney Hill, whilst at the uppermost part of the site where the dwelling will be viewed as single storey from the entrance to the site, the dwelling will sit 3m exposed above existing ground level.

A detached garage is proposed 13m west of the dwelling on lower ground and will be accessed via a driveway leading down the northern side of the dwelling. The garage is considered an average size for its domestic purpose and is finished in white render.

Under Policy QD 1 of PPS 7 the proposed design and appearance of the dwelling is considered acceptable. Although it is not strictly in keeping with the other properties located on Whinney Hill it is considered to be a smaller and superior project to that approved on the site under reference no. T/2007/0066/RM.

It is noted in an objection letter that the “Sylvan landscape character” of the area may be eroded, particularly given the Tree Preservation Order which is in place within the rear garden areas of Whinney Hill which also includes the application site. However, it is considered that the proposed works would have no detrimental impact upon the trees designated at this location and that their welfare would not be at risk. It is also considered that there is suitable clearance proposed between the works and the trees.

23 Private amenity space is catered for in line with the Creating Places guidance document with in excess of 120sqm provided for which is significantly over the suggested allowance. This will not detrimentally impact upon the private amenity space of the surrounding gardens which will retain more than the minimum standard.

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 is no adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

There were two letters of objection received which represented the views of 8 properties within the Whinney Hill area close to the site. The main areas of concern which related to neighbour amenity were regarding overlooking from the proposed dwelling upon surrounding dwellings particularly those adjacent to the site (Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Whinney Hill).

Having considered the objections raised, the agent has amended the drawings to minimise the amount of potential overlooking occurring on the site. One large window on the northern side facing No.3 Whinney Hill will serve a bathroom and will be completed using obscure glazing. There is one window on this elevation at first floor level that will not have obscure glazing to serve a bedroom. The window will be 900mm in width which equates to approximately 30% of the width of the bedroom wall and is located at one end of the room. Views from this window will look towards the sloping garden of No.3 but not towards the immediate private amenity space at the rear of the dwelling, which is on a flat level of garden adjacent to the entrance driveway to this site. On the southern elevation there will be one window non- obscured that will run between ground and first floor level however this will serve a void area and therefore should not be used for overlooking purposes.

To aid with any potential overlooking impact at ground floor level the applicant has indicated a 1.8m close boarded timber fence is to be erected around the site’s perimeter in place of the existing 1m fence. Planting will also be placed on the inside of this to soften the visual impact of the proposal. It is considered that this boundary treatment will suffice and prevent any conflict of views.

Upon re-neighbour notification of the amendments no further letters of objection have been received. Ultimately it is considered that the amended drawings submitted adequately address the points of concern raised in the objection letters; accordingly determining weight is not being afforded to the concerns raised.

Flood Risk The River Maine, which is designated under the terms of the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 as a main watercourse at this location, flows in a southerly direction approximately 75m to the west of the site. The site does not fall within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain but does come close to this on the western boundary. Rivers Agency has raised no objection on the basis that the area to be developed is situated outside the floodplain and the proposed floor level is well above its recommended level.

Access

24 Originally the access point on the location plan was located on Whinney Hill, however having become aware that Whinney Hill is a private road, the application site red line was extended by the applicant to meet the Magheralane Road. Following consultation with Transport NI and the submission of amended access plans Transport NI has indicated no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and informatives.

Planning History The planning history of the site is an important material consideration, two outline planning permissions have previously been granted for a dwelling on this site and a reserved matters application was subsequently approved by DOE Planning under reference T/2007/0066/RM. Whilst permission for development of the site lapsed on 9 August 2009 this planning history is a matter that weighs in favour of the current proposal.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The site is set within the settlement limits of Randalstown, is located in a residential area and it is considered that the principle of residential use is acceptable;  The design and appearance of the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable particularly having regard to what was previously approved on the site;  The character of the surrounding area will not be altered by the development and TPO trees will be unaffected;  Amendments have been provided which significantly reduce any potential impact upon any neighbouring properties and the privacy that they enjoy;  Rivers Agency is satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact in relation to the nearby flood plain; and  Transport NI has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions and informatives.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

2. The existing natural screenings of this site shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation shall be given to the Council in writing.

Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the surroundings and to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

3. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within 5 years from the date of completion of the development it shall be replaced within the next planting season by another tree or trees in the same location of a species and size as specified by the Council.

25 Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees.

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

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

5. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 06/A bearing the date stamp 21st March 2016, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

6. The access gradient to the dwelling hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway.

Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

26 27 ITEM 3.4

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2015/0563/F DEA: ANTRIM

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Erection of 4 no. semi-detached dwellings together with 7 no. communal car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

SITE/LOCATION: Junction of Greystone Road and Ash Green 50m north of 25 Greystone Road Antrim.

APPLICANT: Damien Heffron

AGENT: J E McKernan & Son

LAST SITE VISIT: 28-04-2016

CASE OFFICER: Simon Russell Tel: 028 90340427 Email [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is a square-shaped portion of undeveloped land located on the southern side of the junction of Greystone Road and Ash Green, located within the settlement limits of Antrim. The topography of the site is generally flat and sits below the adjoining road levels. The application site also contains a number of mature and maturing trees along the perimeter boundaries, a number of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The northern boundary is defined by a 1.3m high wooden fence which is heavily overgrown with vegetation. A 1.5m high stone wall covered in ivy runs along the embankment which is located immediately south of the northern boundary. The western boundary is defined by hedgerow (approximately 2.0m in height) and a 1.25m high post and wire fence, a row of large mature trees are located just inside this boundary. A post and wire fence (approximately 0.8m high) and a 1.5m high hedgerow defines the eastern roadside boundary which fronts onto Ash Green. A large 3 storey detached Grade 1 listed building (No.25 Greystone Road, known as Ashville House) and its coach house are located immediately to the south of the site. The surrounding area is characterised by a number of residential properties. To the east there is Ash Green which consists of single storey / chalet bungalows, and to the

28 west Ashville Park consisting of a mix of one, one and a half and two storey detached dwellings separated from the application site by a mature belt of trees. Alder Park lies to the north which consists of two-storey semi-detached properties which sit below road level of the Greystone Road.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 1. T/2007/0302/O – Site of 6 No. apartments with 9 No. car parking spaces & associated landscaping. Outline permission granted 09 March 2009. (Expired); 2. T/2004/0101/F - Residential development comprising 2 no dwelling units incorporating attached granny flat annex to house type B. Full permission granted 04 January 2005. (Expired); and 3. T/2001/0938/O – Site of residential development. Outline permission approved 13 December 2002. (Expired).

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

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. Until a Plan Strategy for the whole of the Council Area has been adopted planning applications will be assessed against existing policy (other than PPS 1, 5 & 9) together with the SPPS. Antrim Area Plan 1984 – 2001: indicates a general presumption in favour of development within the settlement limit of Antrim.

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

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.

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.

Development Control Advice Note 8: Housing in Existing Urban Areas: sets out planning guidance to help ensure that urban and environmental quality is

29 maintained, amenity preserved and privacy is respected when assessing proposals for new housing in existing urban areas.

CONSULTATION Council Environmental Health Section - No objections

Transport NI – Further information required

NIEA Historic Buildings Unit – No objections

NIEA Water Management Unit – No objections

NI Water – No objections

REPRESENTATION Seven (7) neighbouring properties were notified and five (5) letters of objection have been received from three (3) neighbouring addresses.

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:

 Over development of the site;  Positioning and orientation of the proposed dwellings are out of character with the surrounding area;  Impact of the development on TPO trees;  Impact on road safety – access and increase of traffic directly onto Ash Green, inappropriate site lines and lack of footway along this stretch of the site;  The fence to be removed along the eastern boundary of the site to facilitate the visibility splays lies within land not in control of the applicant;  Impact of the proposed development on a listed building and its setting; and  Overlooking, overshadowing and loss of light to No. 2 Ash Green.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development;  Density, Siting and Impact on TPO trees;  Design and Appearance and Impact on the Character of the Area;  Impact on Neighbour Amenity;  Impact on the Setting of the Listed Building (Ashville House); and  Access, Parking and Road Safety.

Principle of Development The application site is located within the development limits of Antrim as defined by the Antrim Area Plan 1984-2001. The planning history of the site (T/2007/0302/O and T/2004/0101/F) permitted 6 No. apartments with 9 no. car parking spaces and 2 No. dwelling units on the site. Although both permissions have since expired it is considered that the principle of development for residential use is acceptable

30 subject to the proposal meeting the detailed policy criteria addressed in the paragraphs below.

Density, Siting and Impact on TPO trees Policy LC 1: Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity of the second addendum to PPS7 deals with the issue of density within residential areas. It states that the proposed density of new development should not be significantly greater than that found in the established residential area. As indicated above, the planning history of the site (T/2007/0302/O and T/2004/0101/F) permitted 6 No. apartments and 2 No. dwellings on the site. The proposed development seeks planning permission for the erection of 4 No. semi-detached dwellings together with 7 No. communal car parking spaces on a different footprint than the previous approvals.

The site is home to a stand of mature trees, a number of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. It is considered that these trees make a significant contribution to the setting of Ashville House and the overall character and appearance of the entrance to Ash Green as well as adding an amenity value at this location.

Creating Places emphasises that the quality of a residential environment will be enhanced by well-considered landscape design. The retention of existing vegetation and new planting can contribute to people’s health, wellbeing and quality of life both of potential residents and existing residents in the immediate area. It will also increase biodiversity and help raise awareness of, and appreciation for, the environment. Good, well-considered landscape design is fundamental to the creation of high quality and attractive surroundings that will be satisfying places in which to live.

Paragraph 4.11 of Development Control Advice Note (DCAN) 8 advises that new development should respect the architectural, streetscape and landscape character of the area, and follow the established character in terms of the landscape structure and the presence of trees.

Paragraph 6.192 of the SPPS states that planning permission should only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on natural heritage features worthy of protection which includes trees and woodland. Paragraph 6.193 of the SPPS provides an exception to this policy where a development proposal which is likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to, habitats, species or natural heritage features listed above may only be permitted where the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the value of the habitat, species or feature.

Concerns were raised with the agent regarding the initial proposal as it was considered to be over-development of the site and would result in the loss of TPO trees. A revised scheme was submitted in March 2016 along with a Tree Survey which saw no reduction in the footprint of the original dwellings. Instead the applicant has re-orientated the dwellings on the site to accommodate the addition of 3 No. side extensions (integral garages) and a rear extension onto Unit 4 (including its driveway) which has increased the footprint of the development and brings it closer to the treed site boundaries.

31 According to the submitted plans and Tree Survey accompanying the application the siting of the dwellings will involve the direct removal of eight (8) trees, seven (7) of which are protected. Of the seven trees, two could potentially be removed without consent as the findings of the Tree Survey concluded that they may be deemed dangerous. The applicant also proposes the removal of Tree No.4 to provide access into the site which is considered acceptable given that this was previously approved under T/2007/0302/O albeit this has since expired.

According to Drawing No.02/1 (date stamped received 14 March 2016) the revised scheme proposes the removal of Tree Nos.13-16 along the western boundary. These trees provide a degree of amenity value when travelling from the east on Greystone Road. No replacement planting has been put forward with the application to compensate for the loss of these mature trees and no evidence has been presented that would suggest that these trees are anything other than healthy. Furthermore, it is considered that there is insufficient space available in proximity to the trees which are to be replaced to accommodate new planting without impacting on the proposed dwellings in the future.

DOE Planning guidance states as a rule of thumb, the amenity distance from trees should be a minimum of 6m to the front and rear elevations and 3m to the side gables, with consideration also given to future growth and larger tree species. It is recommended that for larger and more heavily shading trees, such as beech, this should be increased to 10m. According to Drawing No.02/1, proposed Unit 4 is sited well within the 10m buffer zone of the beech tree - Tree No.12. In addition to this it is considered that scaffolding and ground preparation works associated with the construction phase would also affect the trees along the western and south-eastern boundaries. It is considered that the proposed scheme has failed to adequately address these issues and provide appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard the protection of the existing trees within the site. Instead the applicant has sought the removal of these specific trees solely to accommodate their preferred development.

Overall it is considered that the proposal is an over-development of the site and would if permitted, detrimentally impact upon the existing trees on the site which are protected by a TPO. It is considered that the proposed development is not of significant importance or value to meet this exception test.

Design and appearance and impact on the character of the area Regional policy set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (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. This is complemented by Policy QD1 of PPS7 which indicates 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 application site is located within an established residential area characterised by residential properties set in a cul-de-sac layout with Ashville House (25 Greystone Road) set on a northern orientation at the rear of the site and accessed via a private

32 laneway from the Greystone Road. These properties provide the local context and established character upon which the proposal is considered.

A planning history search revealed that planning permission had previously been granted for two detached properties set on a northerly orientation fronting onto the Greystone Road. The larger T-shaped dwelling (referred to as House Type B) was positioned in the western section of the site away from the existing trees which lined this boundary. In 2009 planning permission was granted for 6 number apartments located in the middle of the site so as to avoid any impact on the existing trees located around the boundaries of the site.

The current proposal involves the erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses set on a north-easterly orientation which are to be located along the southern boundary of the site. The footprint of the proposed dwellings (approximately 452 m2) is more than 1.4 times the footprint of the original dwellings (314m2) which were approved under T/2004/0101/F. It is considered that the positioning and orientation of the dwellings do not lend themselves to an appropriate design solution which works well within the constraints of the site and would be at odds with neighbouring properties. The proposal is considered contrary to Policy QD1 in that the layout of the proposed residential development does not draw upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The dwellings have an acceptable design and are proposed to be finished with an acceptable use of materials ranging from dash/smooth render, black upvc double glazed windows with blue/black natural slate tiles. The chimneys are to be expressed off the ridge line and set in from the gable which is considered acceptable. There is also an acceptable solid-to-void ratio on the dwellings with a mixture windows.

The heights of the dwellings are considered acceptable in principle as they are of a similar height to that approved under T/2004/0101/F. The plans indicate that the dwellings will have a finished floor level of 48.40m which is approximately 0.8m higher than what was previously approved under the 2004 approval. Single storey sunrooms measuring 3.0m x 3.4m with a pitched ridge height of 4.1m are proposed to the rear of Units 2, 3 and 4. It is considered that the sunroom for Unit 4 will detrimentally impact upon the TPO tree nos.15 and 16 due to its proximity to these trees. Although the heights of the dwellings are acceptable, as stated earlier in the report it is considered that the siting of the proposed development is unacceptable on this restricted site as it will have a detrimental impact on the protected trees which are located in close proximity to the build.

The proposed dwellings are shown to have a total floor area which meets with the minimum house size requirements set out in Annex A of the Addendum to PPS 7; Safeguarding the character of established residential areas, which recommends that three bedroom dwellings should have a total floor area of at least 80-85 m2.

Policy guidance ‘Creating Places’ makes provision for private amenity space for this type of development ranging from 70m2 for any 3+ bedroom property and 40m2 for 1 or 2 bedroom dwellings. According to Drawing No.02/1 the proposal will achieve on average 95m2 per dwelling (albeit the private amenity space for Unit 2 is marginally below the recommended standard of 70m2). An acceptable level of on-site open space is also provided for within the north eastern section of the site.

33 Impact on Neighbouring Amenity Policy QD1 of PPS 7 also makes provision for the protection of neighbouring properties in relation to overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbances. Concerns have been raised by an objector regarding overlooking and loss of light on No.2 Ash Green and the resultant impact on their privacy. The proposal involves the removal of two mature trees (Nos.2 and 3) along the south-eastern corner of the site to accommodate the build. Although this would open up views into the site from No.2 Ash Green, it is considered that the proposed development will have no undue impact on the amenity of this property in terms of overshadowing and overlooking given the appropriate separation distance (in excess of 20m) between the subject building and No.2 Ash Green. The plans indicate that a single window (serving an ensuite) on the gable wall will face onto Ash Green which is considered acceptable.

It is considered that residential properties on the northern, western and southern sides of the application site have a sufficient separation distance to ensure that there will not be a significant impact on their residential amenity by way of noise, nuisance and disturbance.

Impact on the Setting of the Listed Building (Ashville House) NIEA Historic Buildings were consulted about the potential for the proposed development to impact on the listed Ashville House and gates located to the south of the site. NIEA has offered no objections given the principle of development already approved on the site and the appropriate separation distance (including intervening vegetation) from the application site. As such it is not anticipated that the development will have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building.

Access, Parking and Road Safety The proposal seeks to utilise a new access onto Ash Green which was previously approved under T/2007/0302/F. The plans indicate that a new hedge is to be planted along the eastern boundary behind the visibility splays (2 x 33 metres) onto Ash Green. As previously mentioned in the report, the Tree Survey has indicated that the beech and horse chestnut trees (Tree Nos. 2 and 3) are in a poor condition and are recommended to be felled to accommodate the new access. No objections have been raised by Transport NI with this arrangement.

Transport NI, however, has indicated that the proposal is unacceptable in that a pedestrian footpath along the site frontage (onto Ash Green) has not been provided. Objections have been received from a neighbouring resident about the lack of pedestrian footway along Ash Green to accommodate residents who wish to walk to the bus stop which is located on Greystone Road immediate to the north-west of the site and concerns have been raised about the heavy volume of traffic using Ash Green. As a consequence it is considered that the proposal as currently configured is contrary to Policy AMP 1 of PPS 3 and does not adequately accommodate safe pedestrian movement associated with the development of the site.

Other Matters Concerns were raised by a neighbouring resident about a fence erected along part of the eastern boundary of the site which the objector contends is on their land.

34 The certificate C on the P1 application form has been signed to indicate that the applicant is not in sole ownership of the lands as denoted by the red line of the application site. The certificate indicates that those parties affected by the proposed right hand visibility splay have been notified. The objector was advised that should they wish to challenge the certificate of ownership put forward on the P1 form they should write to the Council and submit evidence of their claim. At the time of writing this report no evidence had been received from the objector to challenge the certificate.

In any case it should be noted that land ownership disputes are a matter to be resolved between the parties involved and that where planning permission is granted the applicant must ultimately be in control of all the land necessary to undertake the development proposed. As such no determining weight is being afforded to this matter.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The proposed development, if permitted will result in the loss of a group of visually significant trees that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order;  The proposed development is considered over-development of this restricted site;  The proposed development is considered contrary to policy AMP 1 of PPS 3 in that it does not adequately accommodate safe pedestrian movement associated with the development of the site.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposed development is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and Policies QD1 and QD2 of Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Quality Residential Environments’ and Policy LC 1 of the addendum to PPS 7 ‘Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas’ and the associated guidance ‘Creating Places’, in that, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development can achieve a quality and sustainable residential environment in keeping with the character and pattern of development in the locality and that incorporates a design and layout which draws upon the positive aspects of the surrounding area. In addition the design and layout of the proposed dwellings on this restricted site will have a detrimental impact on the protected trees in the vicinity of the site.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy AMP 1 of the Department's Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking, and associated guidance, in that the layout proposed does not adequately accommodate safe pedestrian movement associated with the development of the site.

35 36 ITEM 3.5

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0122/F DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Proposed removal of existing mast and replacement with a 20m mast carrying, 6 No. antennae, 2 No. radio dishes and associated works.

SITE/LOCATION: Existing mobile phone mast c. 13m west of No. 6 The Mews, Crumlin

APPLICANT: Telefonica UK Limited

AGENT: Taylor Patterson

LAST SITE VISIT: 8th April 2016

CASE OFFICER: Ashleigh Wilson Tel: 028 903 Ext 40429 Email [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located within the compound of the existing Telephone Exchange, Crumlin. An existing mast is located on the site which is a total of 14.6 metres to the top of the existing antennae which has 3 No. dual band antennae. Also within the site is an existing radio equipment cabin, existing meter cabinet and a 1.8m high palisade fence bounds the compound.

The existing BT Exchange is located to the south of the application site and to the east of the site is a terraced row of residential properties within The Mews development. To the north of the site is Crumlin United Football Club and to the west is another residential property, No. 5 Cidercourt Road. An existing 3.6 metre high chainlink fence bounds the site of the telephone exchange.

PROPOSAL The proposal seeks full planning permission for the removal of the existing mast and replacement with a 20m mast carrying, 6 No. antennae, 2 No. radio dishes and associated works.

37 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2001/0235/PA - Erection of telecommunications apparatus. Permission granted 01.05.2001

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

PPS 10: Telecommunications: sets out planning policies for telecommunications development.

CONSULTATION

Council Environmental Health Section No objection

NI Water No objection

Transport NI No objection

Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Historic Monuments Unit No objection

38 REPRESENTATION Six (6) neighbouring properties were notified and two (2) letters of objection have been received from one (1) property. 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:  Health and safety  Visual impact  Devaluation of property and financial implications  Noise impact  Invasion of privacy  Loss of sunlight

Principle of Development Approval has previously been granted for a telecommunications mast on this site along with associated cabinets under planning application reference T/2001/0235/PA. The principle of a telecommunications mast has therefore been established at this location and the matters to be considered include the potential impact from the relocation of the existing mast some 4.7metres from the original position and also the 5.4metre increase in overall mast height.

Design and Appearance The Strategic Planning Policy Statement seeks to facilitate the development of telecommunications infrastructure in an efficient and effective manner whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS 10) sets out the planning policy on telecommunications development. Policy TEL 1 states that such development will be permitted where it will not result in unacceptable damage to visual amenity or harm to environmentally sensitive features or locations. Development Control Advice Note 14 – Siting and Design of Radio Telecommunications Equipment (DCAN 14), sits below PPS 10 in the hierarchy of relevant documents; it provides complementary advice and advocates minimising the visual and environmental impact of equipment.

The proposal includes the removal of the existing 14.6 metre mast and erection of new mast at an overall height of 20 metres which is a height increase of 5.4 metres from the existing mast. The mast will also be relocated approximately 4.7 metres west of the existing mast (which is to be removed) and will also involve the extension of the existing compound to accommodate this move. The proposal includes 6 No. TEF antennae within the shroud of the mast and two radio dishes are also to be added. New radio equipment will be set inside the existing radio cabin and the existing meter cabinet is to remain. A new 1.8m high palisade fence and gate is proposed around the compound which will be painted green to match the existing.

39 The majority of the existing mast is set in front of a backdrop of trees when viewed from the closest public road, ‘The Mews’. The proposed relocation and increase in height of the mast will have a greater visual impact from this road given that from this viewpoint a larger section of the mast will now sit above the mature trees to the rear creating a dominant feature in the skyline. A similar visual impact will be created from Cidercourt Road where it abuts The Mews. Again the existing mast is viewed with the trees providing a backdrop, whereas the proposed mast will be substantially increased beyond the height of the existing trees thereby creating a more dominant feature. Further east along Cidercourt Road, where it abuts Camlin Gardens, the view of the existing mast is well screened behind the existing dwellings and the height is similar to the chimney height of the proposed dwellings from this viewpoint. However, the increase in height of the proposed mast will create a greater visual impact which will skyline.

The proposed mast would be conspicuous by virtue of its height and would have an unacceptably dominant visual impact on the streetscene and therefore fails the test set out in the first paragraph of PPS 10 policy TEL 1.

Neighbour Amenity The proposal is located at the end of a row of terraced dwellings running east to west and the site is adjacent to the gable end and rear garden of No. 6 The Mews. Objections have been raised with regards to the potential impact on the occupants of No.6 The Mews in terms of loss of sunlight and invasion of privacy. The existing mast is located at a distance of approximately 3.5 metres from the boundary of this property however the proposed mast will be located further away at a distance of 9.2 metres from the boundary of this property. The proposed mast however will be twenty (20) metres in height which is considered significant given the proximity to the dwelling and associated rear garden. The scale of the proposed mast will appear dominant adjacent to this residential property and will tower above the dwelling. The separation distance of 9.2metres from the boundary is not considered to be sufficient to negate the impact a structure of this size would have on the residential amenity of the occupants of this property.

In addition, a dwelling and its associated rear garden area (No. 5 Cidercourt Road) are located to the west of the application site and the proposed structure will be 4.7 metres closer to the boundary with this property and will also be 5.4 metres higher. It is clear that the scale and massing of the proposed replacement mast will also have a greater impact on this property.

The agent was made aware of the concerns regarding the scale of the proposed mast and the impact this would have on adjacent residential properties. Further information was provided relating to the need for the extension due to the tree clutter located at the football grounds at the back of the exchange. The agent also submitted elevated plans which show the blockage at current antennae level at both 13.5metres in height and also at 16metres in height. It is the case for the applicant that the height of the trees to the north of the site limit the coverage and should permission be refused the only other option would be to build an additional site to cover the north area of Crumlin. While the development of a further telecommunications mast has been considered it does not form part of the current

40 application. It is considered that the increase in mast height at this location would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity, contrary to Policy TEL 1.

Impact on Features of Archaeological Importance With regards to the built heritage interests of the site, the application site is in close proximity to a nearby monument (SM 11/1ANT 59:175) which is protected by Planning Policy Statement 6, Policy BH 2 ‘The protection of archaeological remains and their settings’. NIEA Historic Monuments Unit (HMU) was consulted on the proposal and has indicated that it is content that the proposal will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

Other Matters Information on health issues relating to telecommunications development is set out in paragraphs 2.16 to 2.20 of PPS10. The Government asked an independent expert group on mobile phones chaired by Sir William Stewart to report on the health effects of the use of mobile phones and from telecommunications development. Their report recommended a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures on the use of mobile phone technologies which was adopted by the Government. One of the recommended measures was that emissions from mobile phone base stations should meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for public exposure to electromagnetic fields. Policy TEL1 of PPS10 requires that applications relating to the development of a mobile telecommunications base station include a statement declaring that the base station when operational will meet the ICNIRP guidelines. The role of the planning system regarding health considerations is set out in the justification & amplification of the policy at paragraphs 6.28 to 6.34 which states that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It is for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. The following paragraph notes the view of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that if a proposed telecommunications development meets the ICNIRP guidelines in all respects it should not be necessary to consider this aspect further.

A declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP guidelines was submitted with the application which relates to the proposal itself and the cumulative effects of the proposal together with existing masts. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of Policy TEL1 in relation to health risks. The policy does not preclude mobile telecommunications base stations in residential areas or areas close to where children play. Ay perceived concern regarding public safety is a material consideration, however, the weight to be given to such concern must be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the case. In the light of the clearly expressed policy direction in PPS10, little weight can be given to the objectors’ concerns about public health.

There was no evidence submitted to demonstrate that telecommunications development results in the devaluation of residential properties. It should be noted that the impact of a development on the value of property is not generally considered to be a material planning consideration.

41 Objections were also raised regarding the noise impact of the proposal. Environmental Health Section has been consulted and has raised no issues with regards to potential noise.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  It is considered that the height and scale of the development will result in a detrimental impact upon residential amenity of No. 6 The Mews and No. 5 Cidercourt Road.  It is considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable visual impact.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL

1. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and Policy TEL 1 of Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Telecommunications’ in that the development would, if permitted, have an unacceptable visual impact.

2. The proposal is contrary to the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and Policy TEL 1 of Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Telecommunications’ in that the development would, if permitted, have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of dwellings in the locality.

42 43 ITEM 3.6

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2015/0678/O DEA: AIRPORT

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: 2 No. dwelling houses (1.5 storey). Ground floor not exceeding 2000sq ft.

SITE/LOCATION: Lands immediately west of 61 Long Rig Road, Crumlin, BT29 4YX

APPLICANT: Peter Sefton

AGENT: Neil Mathews Architects

LAST SITE VISIT: 16th March 2016

CASE OFFICER: Ashleigh Wilson Tel: 028 903 40429 Email [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in a rural location lying outwith any established settlement limits established in the adopted Antrim Area Plan 2001. The site has an irregular shape and comprises agricultural land set down an existing laneway which serves the applicants dwelling, No. 61 Long Rig Road. The boundaries of the site to the southwest are undefined while trees and hedging define the eastern boundary of the most northern field. An existing post and wire fence defines the northeastern boundary of the southern field.

A number of dwellings are located within close proximity to the application site, the closest being no. 3 Grovelea which backs onto the existing laneway leading to the application site.

PROPOSAL The proposal seeks outline planning permission for 2 No. dwelling houses (1.5 storey). Ground floor not exceeding 2000sq ft.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history

44 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 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage: sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.

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 objection

NI Water No objection

Transport NI No objection subject to conditions

45 Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Archaeology and Built Heritage No objection

Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Drainage and Water No objection

DARD - Rivers Agency No objection

Belfast International Airport No objection

REPRESENTATION One (1) neighbouring property was 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  Flood Risk  Other Matters

Principle of Development Paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS and policy CTY2a of PPS21 deals with “New dwellings in existing clusters”; the policies state; that provision should be made for a dwelling within an existing cluster of development which lies outside a farm provided it appears as a visual entity in the landscape; is associated with a focal point; the development can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation; is bounded on at least two sides by other development and the development will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside.

The land is low lying and views from the Long Rig Road are limited due to the existing development, intervening vegetation and topography of the land. From Grovelea access road, views of the proposed application site are limited due to the positioning of existing dwellings set in front of the application site. There are views of the site from higher ground within the Belfast Hills however, these are extremely distant views and these views are not considered to be from the ‘local landscape’ as the policy requires. The main view of the site is from the access laneway which only serves one existing dwelling which is the applicants dwelling, No. 61 Long Rig Road. It is considered that the sites are well integrated however the inability to read the proposed development with other development forming the “cluster” creates policy issues.

The applicant argues that his dwelling ( No. 61), is the centre of a cluster of development which comprises the other dwellings along Grovelea. The dwellings along Grovelea consist of six dwellings including Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Grovelea. These dwellings are not accessed from the same lane as the application site and the applicants suggested ‘cluster’ of existing buildings extends over a distance of approximately 350 metres from the edge of the proposed site to the farthest point at

46 the curtilage of No. 7 Grovelea. There is a gap of more than 50metres between the applicants dwelling, No. 61, and the proposed dwellings. The ordinary meaning of ‘cluster’ is a bunch or close grouping of something. This elongated and interrupted form of development accessed from two separate points does not register as a cluster or a visual entity in the local landscape. It is not considered that the existing development constitutes a cluster as it does not appear as a visual entity in the local landscape given the visual separation and partial screening of a number of the dwellings from local viewpoints and it is not associated with a focal point or located at a crossroads.

In addition the policy requires that the cluster should be associated with a focal point and suggests examples such as a shop, church hall or cross roads. The applicant contends that their dwelling (No.61) constitutes a focal point however there is no rationale to support this view and it is not considered that a dwelling can comprise a focal point. The rural area is typified by individual dwellings and it is clear that these do not constitute focal points for the purposes of the policy.

The fourth criterion of policy CTY2a requires that the site is bounded on at least two sides with other existing development in the cluster. In this case the proposed dwellings would be bounded only on the eastern side by No. 61. Although the curtilage of No. 3 Grovelea abuts the laneway accessing the site it is not considered that this comprises the actual application site. In the absence of any other development bounding the site the applicant cannot rely on the proposed development of two houses constituting part of the existing cluster. The policy refers to; “…other development in the cluster” and it is considered that this does not include proposed development.

Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area; Whilst the natural screenings of the site, the setback from the road and the topography of the rising land to the rear of the application site would assist in integrating a dwelling, it is considered that the lack of existing vegetation along the boundaries of the site would not provide a suitable degree of enclosure for two dwellings.

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 dwellings 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. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the fifth criterion under Policy CTY2a and is contrary to Policy CTY 14 of PPS 21.

Access, Parking and Road Safety Transport NI was consulted on the application and offered no objections to the principle of the scheme. It is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy AMP 2 of PPS 3.

Flood Risk The application site is bounded to the south by a watercourse which is designated under the terms of the Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 and known to Rivers Agency as the ‘Dundesert River’. The flood hazard records indicate that the site does

47 not lie within the 1 in 100 year fluvial floodplain. Policy FLD 2 seeks to protect flood defence and drainage infrastructure and in accordance with PPS 15, FLD 2 (point 6.32), it is strongly advised that a working strip of appropriate width is retained to enable riparian landowners to fulfil their statutory obligations/responsibilities.

The site is shown to be affected by portions of predicted pluvial flooding and although a Drainage Assessment is not required, should permission be granted, the developer should be advised through an informative to carry out their own assessment of flood risk and construct the development in an appropriate manner that minimises flood risk to the proposed development and elsewhere.

Other Matters As this application seeks outline planning permission no details have been submitted in relation to the detailed siting and design of the proposed dwelling or access arrangements, to enable an assessment of the impact on neighbouring amenities as required under the sixth policy criterion of CTY2a of PPS21. However, given the appropriate separation distances from neighbouring dwellings these matters could properly be addressed at Reserved Matters Stage.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation: • Due to the configuration of the existing development pattern it is considered this does not constitute a cluster of development; and • The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the rural area and would visually intrude into the open countryside.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained within the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies CTY1 and CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that development of the site would not constitute rounding off and consolidation of an existing cluster.

2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies and CTY2a CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building would, if permitted, contribute to a build-up of development when viewed with existing buildings and would further erode the character of this rural area.

48 49 ITEM 3.7

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0025/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: REFUSAL RECOMMENDED

PROPOSAL: Proposed Dwelling

SITE/LOCATION: Garden of 42 Loughbeg Road, Drumraymond , Toomebridge, Antrim BT41 6TN

APPLICANT: Mr Michael Magee

AGENT: CMI Planners

SITE VISIT: 4th April 2015

CASE OFFICER: John Davison Tel: 028 903 40405 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the rural countryside beyond any settlement limit as defined in the Antrim Area Plan. The site is roughly “L” shaped and approximately one third of a hectare in area and comprises part of the side garden of No. 42 Loughbeg Road and part of an agricultural field currently set out in grass. The side garden area has a frontage to the Loughbeg Road and is defined by hedgerows on three sides and the dwelling on the remaining (northern) side. The rear of the site comprises part of the agricultural field is substantially larger and there is an obvious visual separation from the garden area established by a mature hedgerow/ field boundary. The site as a whole is at road level and generally flat and featureless apart from the hedgerow vegetation mentioned above.

The Loughbeg Road is essentially rural in character in the vicinity of the site although there is a loose ribbon of dwellings apparent on its southwestern side when approaching No. 42 from the south.

PROPOSAL The proposal seeks full planning permission for a single storey dwelling in the side garden between 42 Loughbeg Road and 40B Loughbeg Road. A new access is proposed to the public road.

50 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No relevant planning history at or adjoining the site during last 30 years.

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

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

CONSULTATION Transport NI : While additional details have been requested consultation has identified the required access standards necessary to provide a safe access.

Rivers Agency: While the Flood Map (NI) indicates that the site for the dwelling lies outside the fluvial floodplain the developer should assess the potential for flood risk at and adjacent to the proposed development.

NI Water: No objections

REPRESENTATION Four (4) neighbours were notified of the application. No representations have been received on foot of advertisement and the notification process.

51 ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Detailed Considerations

Principle of Development Policy CTY1 of PPS21 advises that the development of a small gap site within an otherwise substantially and continuously built up frontage will be permitted where the proposal accords with policy CTY 8 of PPS21.

Policy CTY 8 advises that permission will be refused where a ribbon of development would be created or added to, but advises that an exception to this policy will be the development of a small gap site sufficient to accommodate a maximum of two houses where the proposal respects the existing development pattern along the road frontage. The site is considered to lie within a substantial and continuously built up frontage comprising 4 dwellings, Nos. 40, 40a, 40b, and 42 and it is considered that the gap between buildings could not accommodate more than two houses, however the proposal fails to meet the attendant policy requirement to respect the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of plot size and width.

As indicated above, this part of Loughbeg Road is essentially rural in character and the dwellings which comprise the built up frontage on this section of the road are set in generous plots with frontages which vary between 40 metres and 65 metres. It is considered that the key defining physical characteristic of this group of dwellings is the loose grain (or pattern of development) which has developed along the Loughbeg Road frontage which is reinforced by the large mature gardens and the pattern of dwellings set in generous plots which is also noticeable in the immediate area beyond the existing ribbon referred to above.

In contrast to the large plot widths enjoyed by dwellings along the Loughbeg Road, the application site is limited in width to only 20 metres across the frontage and intends a more modest size of dwelling. The restricted plot width is significantly at odds with the established plot widths evident for the existing buildings along the Loughbeg Road which is contrary to policy.

In addition the application seeks permission for a significantly smaller residential curtilage which suggests that the development will not respect the pattern of existing development which surrounds it.

It is considered that the proposal, if permitted, would intensify the existing group of buildings which would facilitate a more suburban style of development which would adversely impact upon rural character in the immediate locality of the site, contrary to policy CTY14.

Detailed Considerations The proposed dwelling is of a simple plan-form with traditional fenestration and finishes which would not be out of keeping with the rural area.

The Transport NI consultation response indicates that visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 90 metres are required and achievable. Bearing in mind that the principle of development is considered unacceptable it is considered that a request for further access drawings

52 would put the applicant to additional expense to produce nugatory work. Since the provision of a suitable access could otherwise be achieved it is not considered that an access reason for refusal is sustainable.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of planning policy CTY 8 in that it does not respect the existing development pattern along the frontage of this part of Loughbeg Road

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION

REASON FOR REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies CTY 1, CTY 8 and 14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that, the dwelling would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing buildings, that would not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in this area and would, if permitted, consolidate a ribbon of development which would further erode and adversely impact upon the rural character of the countryside.

53 54 ITEM 3.8

APPLICATION NO: T/2014/0399/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: MAJOR DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSAL: Proposed Housing Development of 137 Units

SITE/LOCATION: Opposite No.34 Magheralane Road and NW of Nos. 30 -47 The Brambles Randalstown

APPLICANT: Marald Prime Developments

AGENT: Doherty Architectural Services

LAST SITE VISIT: 30th March 2016

CASE OFFICER: John Davison Tel: 028 903 40405 Email: [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located on the eastern side of the Magheralane Road in Randalstown and comprises a large, roughly rectangular shaped agricultural field of around 5¼ hectares. The land is within the current settlement limit of Randalstown and zoned for residential use in the Antrim Area Plan. The northern boundary of the site is defined by a native species thorn hedgerow while the southern boundary is defined by the Brambles housing development and the graveyard behind St Mac Nissi’s church. The application site rises from north to south. The Magheralane Road which defines the larger part of the western boundary of the site is currently accessed via an agricultural field gate just beyond the 30 mph speed restriction.

The area to the north and east of the site and beyond the settlement limit is open countryside in agricultural use while to the west of Magheralane Road there are a number of houses and small commercial/industrial uses extending northwards.

PROPOSAL The proposal seeks full planning permission for 137 houses; there are nine house types including semi-detached and detached dwellings dwellings, areas of communal open space and a single vehicular access is proposed from the north west corner of the application site onto the Magheralane Road.

55 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY A full planning permission for a residential development of 130 dwellings and access from the Magheralane Road was granted on the application site on 27th March 2008.

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 Department of the Environment’s Development Plans and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) which contain the main operational planning polices for the consideration of development proposals.

Antrim Area Plan 2001: The development plan identifies that the land is zoned for primarily residential development.

SPPS – Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland : advises 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

Until a Plan Strategy for the whole of the Council Area has been adopted planning applications will be assessed against existing policy together with the SPPS ( PPS 1; PPS5 and PPS9 are now replaced by the SPPS)

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.

PPS8: Open Space, Sport and Recreation: sets out planning policy for the protection of open space, the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development and the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation.

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

PPS6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage: sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.

CONSULTATION Transport NI: Consultation with TNI has indicated that the proposed road layout is acceptable. (Conditions are provided).

Rivers Agency: No objections. (Informatives provided).

NI Water: No objections.

56 Historic Buildings Unit: No objections.

Environmental Health: Advises that the textile recyclers nearby may be a source of noise.

NIEA: No objections. (Informatives provided).

Antrim Borough Council: The planning application was presented to Antrim Council in February 2015 with an opinion to refuse which was subsequently deferred for an office meeting. Subsequent amendments to the scheme have been submitted and this determination is based upon those amendments.

REPRESENTATION Twenty three (23) neighbours were notified of the planning application. No representations were received on foot of advertisement and the notification process.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Layout and Quality of Development  Public Amenity Open space  Other Matters

Principle of Development The application site is zoned as primarily residential development land in the Antrim Area Plan and a previous planning approval for 130 houses was granted on the site in 2008 therefore the principle of development is considered acceptable.

Layout and Quality of Development Notwithstanding that current policy direction is to make more efficient use of urban land, the RDS emphasises that overdeveloped and unsympathetic schemes will not be acceptable in established residential areas and that schemes should be sensitive in design terms to people living in the existing neighbourhood and to local character. Although imaginative and innovative forms of housing are encouraged, this is qualified in existing residential areas with the need for harmony and sensitivity to avoid significant erosion of environmental quality, amenity and privacy. PPS7 reiterates the need for sensitivity and in Policy QD1 the test is expressed as ‘unacceptable damage to local character, environmental quality or residential amenity.’

It is considered that this proposal will create a residential development which meets the quality criteria required by Policy QD1 of PPS7. The amended layout is quite different from that previously approved in 2008 and while there are an additional seven (7) dwelling units, a more visually coherent road layout takes up less space and facilitates the creation of a significantly greater proportion of public amenity space within the development. The internal road system adopts a traditional layout approach with dwellings presenting to the internal roads to form a linear residential street pattern which is broadly similar to the adjacent Brambles development. A minor departure from this approach is accommodated in the proposed creation of a small housing court in the centre of the site which is considered acceptable in terms of the overall layout.

57 The front and rear garden spaces proposed fall within the appropriate standard of provision set out in Creating Places and the length of rear gardens along the developed boundaries address privacy /overlooking issues satisfactorily. Landscaping of the site boundaries includes the re-enforcement of the northern boundary with native species trees and the erection of a local stone wall along the Magheralane Road boundary of the site. This, combined with the planting proposed at focal points within the development, is considered to provide an acceptable standard of visual amenity within the development. The proposed position, orientation and design of the dwellings at the site entrance is considered to establish a clear sense of arrival at the development which is reinforced by the proposed boundary walling. Views within the proposed development are framed along the proposed estate road by appropriately positioned dwellings which is considered to contribute to the overall quality of the scheme.

In accordance with the requirements of PPS7, QD1 the development is considered to promote an acceptable standard of pedestrian and vehicular movement through the site. The design, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings is typical of the locality while the use of materials such as local stone and render finish are typical design features in the area.

The siting of the communal open space area is considered to improve the quality of the scheme while the layout and orientation of dwellings also incorporates the principle of passive surveillance of this amenity space which helps underpin a sense of security and observance.

Public Amenity Open space Policy OS2 of PPS8 requires the provision of 10% of the site area be devoted to amenity open space and that a children’s equipped play area be provided given the number of housing units proposed (137 units). The proposal seeks to provide two discreet areas of amenity open space; one area which includes a formal equipped children’s play area situated within the northeastern half of the application site; and another informal area of open space located along the south western boundary of the application adjacent to Magheralane Road. In total the amenity open space provision is consistent with the requirements of policy OS 2 of PPS8 and the details of the equipped play area are considered acceptable. Both areas of open space are readily accessible and are considered to benefit from a good standard of passive surveillance.

Other Matters A drainage assessment was submitted by the applicant which has been accepted as an appropriate response to any potential storm drainage problems (Rivers Agency has no objections to the development proposal). It is considered that the servicing of the development can be adequately accommodated and that the car parking requirements set out in Creating Places can be achieved.

Consultation with the Environmental Health Section on the original proposal raised a concern with potential noise issues from the adjacent textile recycling business. However, subsequent discussion with the Environmental Health Section has uncovered that there is no history of noise issues arising from the recycling operation and it is considered that no grounds exist that would have supported a request for a noise survey to be carried out at this location.

58 CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation;  The principle of residential development has previously been established and the site is zoned for residential development.  The layout demonstrates a high quality and sustainable residential environment meeting with the requirements of planning policy.  No unacceptable adverse residential amenity impacts will arise in granting planning permission as the relationships between existing and proposed residents is considered acceptable.  There are no objections from consultees.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirement of Section 61 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

2. A Children’s Play Area which shall have the apparatus shown on, and be constructed in accordance with the specification illustrated by drawing number 33 bearing the date stamp 08 February 2016 shall be provided at the location specified in the approved landscape plan drawing number 22/2 bearing the date stamp 22 March 2016 . The Play Area shall be installed prior to the occupation of the (40th) fortieth dwelling approved herein.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate level of children’s play facilities is provided for this housing development.

3. The landscape scheme set out in the Landscape Plan, drawing number 22/2 bearing the date stamp 22 March 2016 shall be carried out during the first planting season following commencement of the development.

Trees or shrubs dying, removed or becoming seriously damaged within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Council gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

4. The construction of the dwellings approved herein shall not commence until a landscape and open space management and maintenance plan has been submitted to and approved by the Council. The plan shall set out the period of the plan, long term objectives, management responsibilities, performance measures and maintenance schedules for all areas of landscaping and open space, including the equipped children’s play area. The landscape and open space management plan shall be carried out as approved.

59 Reason: To ensure successful establishment and ongoing management and maintenance (in perpetuity) of the open space and amenity areas in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

5. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the boundary wall shown coloured yellow on the landscape plan drawing no. 22/2 bearing the date stamp 22 March 2016 shall be constructed using locally sourced basalt or such other stone as may be agreed in writing by the Council. A sample of the stone to be used shall be submitted to the Council for its approval prior to the commencement of construction works on site.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the rural area.

6. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

The Council hereby determines that the width, position and arrangement of the streets, and the land to be regarded as being comprised in the streets, shall be as indicated on Drawings No. PSD/1 bearing the date stamp 06 JUNE JAN 2016.

Reason: To ensure there is a safe and convenient road system within the development and to comply with the provisions of the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.

7. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

No other development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works necessary for the improvement of a public road have been completed in accordance with the details outlined blue on Drawing Numbers PSD/1 bearing the date stamp 06 JUNE 2016. The Council hereby attaches to the determination a requirement under Article 3(4A) of the above Order that such works shall be carried out in accordance with an agreement under Article 3 (4C).

Reason: To ensure there is a safe and convenient road system within the development and to comply with the provisions of the Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.

8. No dwellings shall be occupied until that part of the service road which provides access to it has been constructed to base course; the final wearing course shall be applied on the completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the site and the road works necessary to provide satisfactory access to each dwelling.

60 61 ITEM 3.9

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0226/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: PREVIOUS COMMITTEE DECISION

PROPOSAL: Solar farm (vary condition 9 re: finishes of supporting structures for solar panels approved under T/2015/0094/F)

SITE/LOCATION: Lands 90m west of and lands to the south of 72 Milltown Road (known as Millar farm) Antrim

APPLICANT: Lightsource SPV 168 Ltd

AGENT: Lightsource Renewable Energy Holdings

LAST SITE VISIT: 13 May 2016

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

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located within the rural countryside approximately 650m from Milltown Village to the south-west, 2.5km north-west of Antrim Town and 4km east of Randalstown. Lough Neagh SPA/RAMSAR/ASSI is approximately 1.75km to the south and Belfast International Airport is approximately 10km to the southeast of the site.

A residential property, No.68 Milltown Road, lies to the east of the application site and is in close proximity to this irregularly shaped site. The site is approximately 90m south, 150m to the west and 170m north-west of this dwelling. Other existing dwellings (Nos. 65, 67, 69, 80 & 82 Milltown Road) lie approximately 500m to the east of the site.

A dwelling, No.88 Milltown Road is approximately 470m from the site and is located immediately south of the Dunsilly Roundabout and a further dwelling house exists on Farranflugh Lane which is 580m to the north of the site. This dwelling rests atop a localised hill set to the north of the Dunsilly roundabout and has open and uninterrupted views towards the site.

The application site is approximately 18 hectares and comprises eight (8) agricultural fields with the northern edge of the site abutting the M22 motorway. The railway line

62 cuts through the site running northwest to southeast, this causes two (2) fields to become fragmented from the remainder of the site. The access is taken from the existing laneway onto the Milltown Road which serves Millar’s Farm.

The eight fields which comprise the application site consist of rough grassland and vary in shape and size. The topography of the application site rises from Milltown Road to the west and north but undulations are evident while the two fields to the south of the railway line are generally flat. Individual field boundaries are defined by hedgerows and stands of mature deciduous trees which provide for a mature landscape setting for the proposal and largely offer good screening potential. Some of the application site boundaries are poorly defined and views can be achieved from the M22 Motorway along the northern boundary.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the variation of condition 9 of previous planning permission reference T/2015/0094/F relating to the finishes of the support structures for the solar panels.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2015/0094/F - Installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure for the life of the solar farm. Full planning permission granted by the Planning Committee and decision issued 22 July 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.

PPS 2: Natural Heritage: sets out planning policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.

63 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 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage: sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage.

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

PPS 18: Renewable Energy: sets out planning policy for development that generates energy from renewable resources.

PPS21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside: sets out planning policies for development in the countryside.

CONSULTATION No consultations were required for this proposal.

REPRESENTATION Seven (7) neighbouring properties were 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; and  Amended Condition

Principle of Development Section 54 of the 2011 Act applies to applications for planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. On receipt of such an application, the Council may only consider the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted and it cannot revisit the principle of the development granted previously. The Council can grant such permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or it can refuse the application if it decides the original condition(s) should continue. The original planning permission will continue to exist whatever the outcome of the Section 54 application.

In this case the principle of development for a solar farm has been established through the extant planning permission T/2015/0094/F which was granted by the Planning Committee at its meeting in July 2015.

In granting full planning permission the Planning Committee attached an additional planning condition to those recommended by Officers requiring that the supporting structures for the solar panels on an area of land adjacent to and visible from the M22 motorway were to be finished in powder coated black or green paint with a matt finish. A similar finish was also required to be applied to the rear of the solar panels at the same location. The reason for this condition was to minimise the visual impact of the proposal from the M22 motorway.

64 Amended Condition The applicant has made an application to vary the wording of condition 9 of the approved solar farm to read “The supporting structures for the solar panels as highlighted in orange on stamped approved drawing No.2, date stamped received 3rd March 2015, shall be finished in a powder coated black or green paint and will have a matt finish.”

The same reason for the condition would apply i.e. to minimise the visual impact of the proposal from the M22 motorway.

In his covering letter the applicant advises that following the grant of planning permission technical advice was sought on the condition introduced by the Planning Committee and that it has now become apparent that the painting of the solar panels would nullify the manufacturer’s warranty.

The applicant also states that in attempting to address the visual impact from the M22 other options have been considered. This includes the provision of a two (2) metre high fence, however, whilst this would restrict the view from the motorway the resulting fence would be a visual intrusion far in excess of the panels themselves. An additional option considered was that mounding take place along the application site boundary where it abuts the M22. However it has been indicated that this option is not feasible as NI Electricity require access to maintain telegraph poles along this boundary and additionally a three (3) metre buffer is required from the boundary to allow agricultural vehicles to clear ditches and trim hedgerows.

In further support of his argument the applicant has submitted photomontages from various viewpoints in order to demonstrate the visual impact of the solar farm with the supporting structures coloured as per the requirements of condition 9. Due to health and safety reasons the montages do not relate to viewpoints from the M22 motorway.

In light of the information submitted it is considered that the principle of varying the condition as proposed is acceptable as the applicant is unable to comply with the requirements of the condition as originally imposed. A landscaping scheme was approved as part of the original permission. Part of these works relate to provision of supplementary planting at each of the exposed parts of the boundary adjacent to the M22. Condition 4 of the original permission requires this landscaping to take place during the first planting season following commencement of the development of the core permission. Accordingly it is considered that the visual impact of the solar panels viewed along the M22 will be softened in time by the landscaping proposed.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The variation of the condition is considered acceptable on its merits given the technical difficulties with implementing the original requirements and by virtue of the landscaping due to be undertaken; and  No objections have been raised to the proposed variation of the condition

65 RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Time limit

2. Except as otherwise agreed in the written scheme of works, no site works of any nature or development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work, has been implemented, in accordance with a written scheme and programme prepared by a qualified archaeologist, submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Council. The programme should provide for the identification and evaluation of archaeological remains within the site, for mitigation of the impacts of development, through excavation recording or by preservation of remains, and for preparation of an archaeological report.

Reason: To ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified and protected or appropriately recorded.

3. Access shall be afforded to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Council to observe the operations and to monitor the implementation of archaeological requirements.

Reason: To monitor programmed works in order to ensure that identification, evaluation and appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work required by condition, or agreement is satisfactorily completed

4. All hard and soft landscape works shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape proposal plan, Drawing No:13, date stamped received 13th May 2015. The works shall be carried out during the first available planting season after the commencement of operations of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

Trees or shrubs dying, removed or becoming seriously damaged within five years of being planted shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

5. The existing natural screenings of the site, as indicated on approved Drawing No:13, date stamped received 13th May 2015, shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation along with a scheme for compensatory planting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

66 Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, in the interests of visual amenity.

6. No equipment, machinery or materials are to be brought on to the site for the purpose of the development including demolition and site clearance until all trees to be retained have been protected by fences or other suitable means of enclosure.

Reason: To ensure that the tree(s) to be retained are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by building operations.

7. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed or have its roots damaged within the crown spread. No arboricultural work or tree surgery shall take place on any retained tree other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written consent of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within 5 years from the date of completion of the development it shall be replaced within the next planting season by another tree or trees in the same location by a species and size as specified by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council

Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees.

8. The development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition within 30 years of the date of this permission or within six months of the cessation of use of the solar farm for the generation of electricity whichever is the sooner in accordance with a restoration plan submitted to and agreed in writing with Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. The restoration plan shall include details of all the works necessary to revert the site to solely agricultural use and will include the removal of all structures, materials and any associated goods and chattels from the site. The restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan and timetable.

Reason: In the interests of landscape character and visual amenity.

9. The supporting structures for the solar panels as highlighted in orange on stamped approved drawing No. 02, date stamped received 3rd March 2015, shall be finished in powder coated black or green paint and will have a matt finish.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the proposal from the M22 Motorway.

10. The programme of maintenance for the land within the application site submitted 24 February 2016 shall be implemented once the solar farm hereby approved becomes operational and shall continue to be implemented for the lifespan of the solar farm.

Reason: To ensure the long term viability of the agricultural land and protection of the countryside.

67 11. The sound pressure level shall not exceed 35 dB(A) when measured at the site boundary.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding area.

68 69 ITEM 3.10

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0299/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: PREVIOUS COMMITTEE DECISION

PROPOSAL: Underground electrical cable running between two halves of the solar farm as approved under T/2015/0094/F, to connect the cable infrastructure in the southern field with the point of connection in the northern field.

SITE/LOCATION: Lands 55m to the southwest of 68 Milltown Road, Antrim, BT41 2JJ

APPLICANT: Lightsource SPV 168 Ltd

AGENT: Lightsource Renewable Energy Holdings

TARGET DATE: 19 July 2016

LAST SITE VISIT: 13 May 2016

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

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site lies in the rural area and is approximately 55m to the southwest of 68 Milltown Road. It incorporates a very narrow strip of land which runs south- eastwards abutting the northern bank of the Antrim – Ballymena railway line before turning south and connecting with the portion of the proposed solar farm approved at Millar Farm which lies to the south of the railway line. The cable connecting the two portions of the approved solar farm site seeks to utilise an existing underpass to traverse the railway line.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for an underground electrical cable running between two halves of the solar farm as approved under T/2015/0094/F, to connect the cable infrastructure in the southern field with the point of connection in the northern field.

70 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY T/2015/0094/F - Installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure for the life of the solar farm. Full planning permission granted by the Planning Committee and decision issued 22 July 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.

PPS 2: Natural Heritage: sets out planning policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.

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

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

PPS 18: Renewable Energy: sets out planning policy for development that generates energy from renewable resources.

PPS21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside: sets out planning policies for development in the countryside.

71 CONSULTATION NI Transport Holdings – No objection

REPRESENTATION One (1) neighbouring property was notified. No letters of representation have been received.

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The sole issue to address in this application is the acceptability of the proposed alternative location for a previously approved electricity cable connecting the northern and southern portions of the solar farm which was granted planning permission by the Planning Committee at its meeting in July 2015 (reference T/2015/0094/F).

The revised cable location will traverse the existing Antrim – Ballymena railway line in an alternative location to that previously approved. The applicant has advised that the need for this change has arisen because the original planned route for the electricity cable is no longer feasible. It is now proposed that the electricity cable will make use of an existing underpass in the railway line. NI Transport Holdings has no objection to the proposal.

It is considered that the proposal constitutes a relatively minor change to the original approval. It will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding natural, built or historic environment and it will facilitate the provision of clean renewable energy into the local energy network.

The proposal is in accordance with policy and is considered to be acceptable.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  This is a relatively minor change to the approved solar farm scheme that will not cause harm to any interest of acknowledged importance.  No objections have been received to the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

72 73 ITEM 3.11

APPLICATION NO: LA03/2016/0088/F DEA: DUNSILLY

COMMITTEE INTEREST: COUNCIL EMPLOYEE

PROPOSAL: New dwelling with carport and garage (change of house type and increase in site curtilage from previous approval T/2008/0274/F).

SITE/LOCATION: Approx. 300m north west of 94 Hollybank Road, Parkgate Templepatrick.

APPLICANT: Paul and Lara Townsend

AGENT: Arca Design

LAST SITE VISIT: 08-03-2016

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

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is located in the rural countryside approximately 2 miles north of Parkgate, it comprises a 0.5 hectare area of land which is the south-western corner of an agricultural field which is set back approximately 200m from the Hollybank Road. The northern and eastern boundaries are defined by post and wire fencing while the southern and western boundaries are defined by post and wire fencing with a number of mature trees spaced along them. A small watercourse abuts the western and southern boundaries of the site. A 1 metre high earth bank is located just inside the eastern boundary.

The topography of the land rises gently from the road and then rises approximately 2 metres in a north-westerly direction within the site.

At time of inspection the site had been subject to a small degree of site preparation works. The access and laneway into the site had been created, it was also noted that the foundations for the garage had been dug on the approximate footprint approved under the previous planning permission (T/2008/274/F).

74 A stand of mature trees is located immediately to the north-west of the site which provides a visual backdrop to the site. The surrounding area comprises agricultural land with the group of farm buildings located to the north-east and a bungalow (94 Hollybank Road) and its associated outbuildings located to the south.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for a new dwelling with carport and garage (change of house type and increase in the site curtilage from previous approval T/2008/0274/F).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 1. T/2008/0274/F – Detached dwelling and garage(Approved 25-07-2008); 2. T/2014/0495/LDP – Certificate of Lawful Development granted by DOE Planning on 06 January 2015 confirming that the development of a house and garage granted under planning permission T/2008/0274/F was lawfully commenced in accordance with Article 83B of the Planning (NI) Order 1991.

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

75 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 NIEA Historic Monument’s Unit – No objections.

NIEA Water Management Unit – No objections.

Natural Environment Division (NED) – No objections

Council’s Environmental Health Section - No objections

NI Water - No objections

Transport NI - No objections subject to conditions.

REPRESENTATION No neighbours were notified of the application as no occupied properties abut the site. 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;  Impact upon the Archaeological Assets;  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 previously been established through the approval of a previous planning permission T/2008/0274/F by DoE Planning on 25 July 2008. A minor amendment was also approved by DoE Planning on 08 January 2009 which included the addition of a utility room off the kitchen, alterations to a window and door on the side elevation to accommodate the new utility room, a reduction to a kitchen window and a correction to the approved first floor plan to include a fire escape which was shown on the approved elevations.

DoE Planning previously determined through a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLUD )that the 2008 permission was lawfully commenced in accordance with Article 83B of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 (As amended). The case officer report accompanying the CLUD indicates that this decision was based on the construction of the access and laneway into the site.

The current proposal seeks planning permission for a new dwelling and garage in substitution of the dwelling approved under T/2008/0274/F. The red line as denoted on the site location plan (Drawing No.01/3 date stamped received 08 June 2016) is similar to that of the red line associated with the extant permission. Although site works have been undertaken to implement the 2008 permission, it is considered that

76 the current application, if approved, would still only allow for the construction of one dwelling and garage on the site. Nevertheless it is recommended that a planning condition be attached to any decision notice restricting the development to only one dwelling.

Additional considerations are design, siting, orientation and the impact of these arrangements upon residential amenity and the character of the immediate area.

Design, integration and impact on the character and appearance of the area Policy CTY 13 of PPS 21 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 further states 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 integrate into the countryside and must not have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

The extant planning permission approved the construction of a chalet bungalow with a detached garage which was commenced in accordance with the permission. The current application seeks planning permission for a one and a half storey dwelling with integrated car port on the northern gable and a single storey side annex on the southern gable. The dwelling measures approximately 12.5m x 11.5m with a pitched ridge height of 6.5m with single side annex and integrated car port resulting in an overall frontage of 23m. The current proposal is marginally higher (by 0.5m) than the dwelling approved under T/2008/0274/F and this is considered to be acceptable.

The siting of the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable as it will be sited on roughly the same footprint as the extant permission albeit with the double garage set to the rear of the dwelling which will aid integration.

It is proposed that the dwelling will be finished in an acceptable use of materials such as render walls broken up with natural basalt stone work. Other proposals include a single chimney proposed on the gable end of the sunroom, a single dormer window to the front elevation and a double garage to be sited to the rear of the car port and set on a northern orientation. The garage will measure 7.2m x 6.5m with a pitched ridge height of 4.0m and finished in similar materials to match the dwelling.

It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon the rural character and appearance of the immediate setting and wider landscape and is in general accord with the requirements of CTY 13 of PPS 21.

Impact on archaeological assets One archaeological monument lies to the south-east of the application site and therefore Policy BH2 of PPS6 is a relevant consideration. The Historic Monuments Unit of the Department for Communities was consulted on the application and has advised that they have no objections to the proposal.

Neighbouring Amenity

77 It is considered that the neighbouring property in closest proximity to the site (No.94 Hollybank 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.

Other Matters The development proposes to utilise the same access as approved under planning permission T/2008/0274/F. Transport NI was consulted on the application and has offered no objections to the development. It is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policy AMP 2 of PPS 3. According to Drawing No.01/3 supplementary planting is proposed along the roadside boundary as well as the four metre wide laneway to reduce the visual impact and aid integration.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  The design, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable and will not have a visual impact significantly greater that the dwelling approved under planning permission T/2008/0274/F;  It is not considered that the proposal will give rise to any unacceptable adverse impacts on residential amenity.  It is not considered that the proposal would adversely impact upon the residential character or appearance of the area.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

2. This permission is granted in substitution for planning permission T/2008/0274/F and only one dwelling and garage shall be constructed within the site outlined in red.

Reason: To ensure that only one dwelling is constructed on the site in accordance with the planning policies for the control of residential development in the countryside in Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

3. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and the forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 01/3 bearing the date stamp 08 June 2016, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and the forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

78 4. The access gradient(s) to the dwelling hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary.

Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

5. All proposed landscaping as indicated in green on Drawing No.01/3 bearing the date stamp 08 June 2016 shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard landscape.

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

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard landscape.

79 80 OTHER PLANNING MATTERS

ITEM 3.17

LA03/2015/0051/F PRE-DETERMINATION HEARING FOR MAJOR PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED PIG FARM ON LANDS AT REAHILL ROAD, NEWTOWNABBEY

Members will be aware that approval has been granted to hold a pre-determination hearing in relation to this application. It had been intended that this would be scheduled for May/June 2016, however due to revisions to the application and a further consultation period of 6 weeks, all the required documentation may not now be available until late summer.

In the interim, Officers and Members from the Planning Committee have visited a similar facility in Germany utilising the type of technology proposed in order to increase their knowledge and awareness of the proposal.

It is therefore proposed that the pre-determination should be held in September 2016 in line with this revised timeframe.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the pre-determination hearing should be held in September 2016

81 ITEM 3.18

P/PLAN/1 DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS AND APPEALS

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

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.

82 PART 2 FORWARD PLANNING MATTERS - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNING POLICY AND CONSERVATION

ITEM 3.19

FILE REF: P/FP/LDP/54 and P/FP/LDP/55 - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSULTATION

Two neighbouring Councils have written regarding their local development plans.

Mid Ulster District Council has written to the Chief Executive to announce the commencement of work on their Local Development Plan and the publication of their Timetable and Statement of Community Involvement (copy enclosed).

Mid Ulster has also written to the Council to identify cross boundary matters including ASSI, RAMSAR and SPA designations at Lough Neagh and Lough Beg. Other common issues identified include development at Toome and transport links.

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has also written to the Chief Executive to advise that it will soon be beginning work on their new Local Development Plan (copy enclosed) .

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

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted

83 ITEM 3.20

P/FP/LDP/1 NOMINTATIONS FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORKING GROUP

The Planning Committee agreed at the May meeting to seek nominations for party representations to sit on the Local Development Plan Working Group.

The following Members have been nominated to sit on the Working Group.

Alliance – Councillor Billy Web DUP – Councillor Thomas Hogg Sinn Fein – Councillor Ann Marie Logue SDLP – Councillor Roisin Lynch TUV – Councillor David Hollis Ulster Unionist Party – Alderman Mark Cosgrove Details of the first meeting of the working group will be circulated in due course.

RECOMMENDATION: that the report be noted.