J Dillon MBE JP, Alderman D Drysdale, Alderman a Grehan

29 July 2019

Chairman: Councillor J Craig

Vice Chairman: Councillor O Gawith

Aldermen: J Dillon MBE JP, Alderman D Drysdale, Alderman A Grehan

Councillors: M Gregg, U Mackin, J McCarthy, C McCready, John Palmer, A Swan

The Monthly Meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, on Monday 5 August 2019 at 12.30 pm, for the transaction of business on the undernoted Agenda.

Please note that lunch will be available in the Members Suite at 12.00 noon and there will be tea/coffee and shortbread at 3.00 pm.

You are requested to attend.

DAVID BURNS Chief Executive

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 1 July 2019

4. Report from the Director of Service Transformation

4.1 NILGA Changing Places – Planning, Place Shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland

5. Report from the Head of Planning and Capital Development

5.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined:

(1) Y/2009/0407/F – Proposed residential development of 109 dwellings (85 houses and 24 apartments), nursing home of 62 bedrooms, ancillary accommodation, associated site works and provision of a new signalised junction with Saintfield Road (amended landscaping and site level plans) on Land at and to the north of 360 Saintfield Road (including 350, 352 Saintfield Road) Castlereagh, Belfast.

(2) LA05/2018/1163/O – Site for two dwellings and two garages in compliance with CTY8 of PPS21 on Lands immediately adjacent to and south of no 57 Ballyregan Road, Dundonald – (previously deferred).

(3) LA05/2016/1121/F – Erection of 1 no 2 storey dwelling for residential use on a site beside 24 Beechdene Park, Lisburn – (previously deferred).

(4) LA05/2018/0960/F – new dwelling on a site adjacent to 44 Duncan’s Road, Lisburn – (previously deferred).

(5) LA05/2018/1094/F – Erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm on lands 100m east of 88 Steps Road, Donaghcloney – (previously deferred).

(6) LA05/2018/1007/O – Dwelling for non-agricultural business enterprises under policy CTY7 on site adjacent to 25 Station Road, Upper Ballinderry, Lisburn – (Called in).

(7) LA05/2019/0143/F – New dwelling and garage, in substitution of previous approval LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F on lands 100m north of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South, Carryduff (exceptions apply).

(8) LA05/2018/0846/F – Proposed erection of second agricultural shed to quarantine livestock on lands 340m west of 90 Glenavy Road, Lisburn – (called in).

(9) LA05/2018/0910/F – Proposed extension and rationalization of existing meat processing and packaging facility at 64a Lisnabreeney Road, Castlereagh, Belfast – (called in).

(10) LA05/2018/1089/O – proposed dwelling under PPS21 on lands 160metres north east of 22 Bottier Road, Moira – (called in).

(11) LA05/2018/0932/O – Dwelling and garage to rear of 12a Whinney Hill, Lisburn – (called in).

5.2. Submission of Pre-application Notices (PAN):

5.2.1 LA05/2019/0695/PAN – Construction of new 3G pitch,spectator stand, new ancillary block, car parking floodlighting, fencing, paths, street lighting and all other associated works.

5.2.2 LA05/2019/0695/PAN

5.3 Appeal Decision in respect of planning application LA05/2018/0630/O

5.4 Statutory Performance Indicators – June 2019

5.5 End of Year Planning Statistics 2018/19 – Report relative to LCCC

6. Confidential Report of the Director of Service Transformation

6.1 Planning Enforcement – Cases with Court Proceedings – August 2019

7. Any other business

To: Members of Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

PC 01.07 2019

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Offices, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn on Monday 1 July 2019 at 12.30 pm

PRESENT: Councillor JD Craig (Chairman)

Councillor O Gawith (Vice-Chairman)

Alderman D Drysdale Councillors M Gregg, J McCarthy, John Palmer and A Swan

OTHER MEMBERS:

IN ATTENDANCE: Director of Service Transformation Head of Planning and Capital Development Principal Planning Officer (RH) Senior Planning Officers (MCO’N and RT) Member Services Officer Attendance Clerk

Legal Advisor: B Martyn - Cleaver Fulton & Rankin

Department for Infrastructure Representatives Mr Lionel Walsh Mr Stephen Cash

Commencement of Meeting

The Chairman, Councillor JD Craig, welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Introductions were made by the Chairman and some housekeeping and evacuation announcements were made by the Director of Service Transformation who also highlighted to those in the public gallery that information on the procedures of the Committee was available at the rear of the Council Chamber.

1. Apologies

It was agreed that apologies be recorded on behalf of Alderman WJ Dillon, Alderman A Grehan, Councillor U Mackin and Councillor C McCready. It was noted that Alderman D Drysdale would be arriving late to the meeting.

PC 01.07 2019

Councillor J Palmer updated the Committee on Alderman Dillon’s progress and indicated that he was hoping to be discharged from hospital quite soon.

2. Declarations of Interest

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

During the course of the meeting, the following Declaration of Interest was received:

• Alderman D Drysdale declared an interest in Item 4.2.3 “LA05/2019/0643/PAN - For Industry and Commerce as zoned in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015, Approved for Use Classes B1(b) call centre, B1(c) research and development, B2 Light Industrial, B3 general industrial and B4 storage and distribution. Main entrance from Carrowreagh Road”, on the basis that he was Chairman of a competing business park.

Alderman Drysdale was advised by the Head of Planning and Capital Development in consultation with the Legal Advisor that, as this item was for noting only and the Committee would not be taking a decision on it at this stage, it was not necessary for him to leave the meeting.

3. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on Monday 17 June 2019.

It was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Councillor M Gregg, and agreed that the Minutes of the Committee Meeting held on Monday 17 June 2019 as circulated be confirmed and signed.

4. Report of the Head of Planning and Capital Development

4.1 Schedule of Applications:

The Chairman reminded Members that they needed to be present for the entire determination of an application. If absent for any part of the discussion they would render themselves unable to vote on the application.

The Legal Adviser highlighted paragraphs 46 - 48 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee which, he advised, needed to be borne in mind when determinations were being made.

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

The Chairman also advised that representatives of the Department for Infrastructure, Roads Service, were present at the meeting to assist with consideration of applications that had road safety or traffic management issues.

PC 01.07 2019

(1) LA05/2015/0466/F – Demolition of residential premises and the erection of 26 nr semi-detached dwellings and 1 nr detached dwelling (27 nr dwellings in total) site access works, development roads, associated siteworks and landscaping at 54 Saintfield Road, Lisburn and lands to the south and west of 54 Saintfield Road, Lisburn

(The Head of Planning and Capital Development left the meeting at 12.49 prior to consideration of this item.)

The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined in the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Keith Trimble who wished to speak in opposition to the application, highlighting the following:

• Mr Trimble indicated that he was speaking on behalf of local residents who had no objection in principle to housing development on the site but were concerned regarding road safety and management issues • He stated that there were so many aspect of the design that did not meet road safety requirements • He indicated that the only suggestion by the designers to deal with road safety issues had been the provision of a yellow box and this would have failed to address the problems • He referred to traffic problems in Plantation Road and neighbouring roads.

There being no questions for Mr Trimble, the Chair then invited questions for the Planning Officers.

In response to Members’ questions, the Principal Planning Officer provided further information regarding proposed measures to mitigate against noise nuisance. Comment provided included detail on the provision of acoustic fencing and additional planting along the motorway boundary and installation of acoustic glazing in properties backing on to that boundary.

Mr Lionel Walsh from the Department for Infrastructure, provided additional information regarding road safety and traffic management issues arising from the proximity of the development to the Saintfield Road roundabout and Plantation Road junction.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 6:0 with 0 abstentions to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.

(The Head of Planning and Capital Development returned to the meeting at 1.12 pm and Mr Lionel Walsh, Department for Infrastructure, left the meeting at 1.14 pm

(5) LA05/2017/0909/F – Residential development to include 1 no. replacement dwelling and 12 no. new dwellings and the realignment of Plantation Mews Road at Plantation Road, Lisburn

PC 01.07 2019

The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Keith Trimble who wished to speak in opposition to the application highlighting the following:

• Mr Trimble stated that he was a resident in the Mount Royal development off Plantation Road and was speaking on behalf of residents • He said there were no issues with the housing itself but a number of objections had been raised regarding parking, road safety and access issues. • He said that planning policy indicated that unsatisfactory piecemeal development would not be permitted • He expressed concerns about a house with a particularly large garden to the north of the site and about the provision of a 6 metre wide road with footpaths, indicating that these features could facilitate further intensive housing development on an adjoining site • He stated that, while the proposed site was not right on the Saintfield Road roundabout, even a small increase in traffic using that roundabout would exacerbate current traffic congestion. • Both BMAP and Lisburn Area Plan had indicated that new housing development should not have vehicular access via Plantation Road.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Trimble provided further clarification regarding BMAP and LAP guidelines. With regard to the issue of piecemeal development, he accepted that the development was a relatively small one but referred to the cumulative and adverse impact of ongoing housing development on residential amenity and road safety. He also provided clarification regarding bus and pedestrian access to the site from Hillhall Road.

The Committee received Mr Richard O’Toole who wished to speak in support of the application, highlighting the following:

• Mr O’Toole stated that the applicant already had consent for a small number of houses allowing access in the same place on Plantation Road via Plantation Mews. • There was no adverse road impact as a result of this application; the realignment of access with Princetown Road would improve access and the replacement of an old house would create a better entrance • The road impact issue had been considered at a previous appeal hearing in connection with this development and the number of houses on the site had been deemed to be acceptable • When this development has been completed, the developer might apply to develop an adjoining site with access from Hillhall Road and at that stage the issue of cumulative impact on local residential amenity could be considered

Officers then responded to Members’ questions as follows:

• The Legal Adviser stated that each planning application must be considered on its own merits and possible future development could not be taken into account.

PC 01.07 2019

• The Principal Planning Officer provided clarification in relation to separation distances for two sites which the report noted fell below standards set out in Creating Places. Using visuals from the presentation, Members were advised that separation distances had been considered to be acceptable on balance due to the difference in levels, nature and orientation of the houses within the respective sites and that windows in gables were en suite bathrooms with obscured glass. • Mr Stephen Cash, Department for Infrastructure, provided further clarification on access arrangements and the extent of the footpath provision into the site and how this was connected to Plantation Mews.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 5:1 with 0 abstentions to approve the application as outlined in the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions contained therein.

(Alderman D Drysdale arrived at the meeting at 1.51 pm; Mr Stephen Cash, Department for Infrastructure, left the meeting at 1.52 pm)

(2) LA05/2018/1094/F – Erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm at 88 Steps Road, Donaghcloney

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

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

• Mr Poots advised that the applicant was getting married next year and wished to build a family home on his farm • He advised that there was intensive farming on the site with 350 cows and 70,000 chickens • There was a difficulty in that the farm was land locked on 3 sides and a site was possible on only one side. • There were drainage issues on the site immediately next to the farm where a drainage pipe on occasion was unable to deal with water from the farm and from streams coming from higher land • The land started to rise steeply in the only site closer to the farm that was available and any dwelling on that site would be very prominent • The applicant and his father had replaced a dry storage shed on the farm with a milking parlour and it would be their intention to construct a new storage shed on the land immediately next to the farm • The proposed site for the new dwelling was only 30 metres away from the farm • He suggested that a site visit would be useful in clarifying the issues raised

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Poots confirmed that the proposed site for the dwelling was much less visible in the landscape than a site closer to the farm but on rising ground. He also provided clarification on regulations on separation distances between farm buildings and dwellings.

PC 01.07 2019

Following consideration of the information provided in the report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representation, it was proposed by the Vice- Chair, Councillor O Gawith, seconded by Alderman D Drysdale, and agreed by a majority of 4:3 that determination of this application be deferred for a site visit.

(4) LA05/2017/0868/O – 2 No. dwellings beside 42 Halfpenny Gate Road, Broomhedge, Moira

The Senior Planning Officer (MCON) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Andrew McCready who wished to speak in support of the application, highlighting the following:

• The site was located to the north of the road and formed a gap in a substantial stretch of road frontage development • The issues were whether the site was an infill opportunity and did it impact on the distance between countryside and the existing settlement • A gospel hall had recently been constructed at the edge of the existing settlement and this changed the settlement limit. • The proposed site was located between the gospel hall and the line of built up frontage and therefore should be considered to meet the criteria for an infill site. • He referred to examples in Hillhall and Rathvarnet villages where planning permission had been granted for sites outside the settlement limits

In response to queries by Members, Mr McCready confirmed that it was the applicant’s contention that the existence of the gospel hall meant that the site could be considered to meet the criteria for an infill gap.

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

• PPS21 sought to prevent scattered or random development within the countryside • The Planning Officers placed great emphasis on the fact that there was a separation between Broomhedge and Halfpenny but driving along the road you saw a continuous row of built up frontage. • Broomhedge was one settlement and was made up of Lower and Upper Broomhedge; • Sustaining the gap at the proposed site did not do anything in terms of conservation of the countryside

In response to a query by Members, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that PPS21 CTY8 applied to infill gaps in a rural context outside settlement limits; in this instance the built up frontage in Halfpenny was part of an existing settlement and could not be taken into account when considering an infill site.

The Head of Planning and Capital Development advised that the gospel hall had been granted planning permission in 2016 on the basis that it was a community facility and that it was located within the countryside. 6

PC 01.07 2019

He further clarified that the gospel hall was the only building with a rural context and explained in two other cases in the Council area how the Planning Appeals Commission had interpreted the planning policy and how this informed the advice in terms of which buildings should be taken into account when assessing these types of application.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 6:1 with 0 abstentions to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.

Adjournment of meeting

The Chairman, Councillor JD Craig, declared the meeting adjourned at 2.45 pm

Resumption of meeting

The Chairman, Councillor JD Craig, declared the meeting resumed at 3.17 pm

(3) LA05/2018/0914/F – Extension to garage (in matching materials) to accommodate vintage car and forklift at 80 Moneyreagh Road, Moneyreagh

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Ewart Davis and Mr John Spratt who wished to speak in support of the application highlighting the following:

• the site lay within a cluster of housing; the site was half an acre and had mature hedging • There had been no objections from neighbours or from statutory consultees • The site was located 55 metres from the road entrance • Only the front up and over door of the garage could be seen and the proposed extension extended further back in the site • The house and gardens were well maintained and screened with flowers, hedging and fencing • The applicant had two jobs and had a works van and his own van; he also had a fork lift truck and a vintage car • The proposal did not impact on amenity space, parking space or manoeuvring space within the site • The planners had measured the garage space as being 280 sq. metres but it was in fact 220 sq. metres • The issue about the scale of the garage space had not been raised previously by the planners and the applicant had not been given the opportunity to mitigate against this • The proposal would not affect the amenity of surrounding properties

In response to a Member’s query as to whether a meeting had taken place with planners to discuss the scale of the garage provision, Mr Davies indicated that it

PC 01.07 2019

had not and that he would have expected the planners to raise this issue with the applicant in writing.

In response to queries by Members, the Senior Planning Officer clarified the amendment to a previous planning approval for a garage and why the location within the site could be distinguished from an earlier refusal of permission.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 7:0 with 0 abstentions to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.

(6) LA05/2018/0254/F – Replacement dwelling and retention and change of use of existing dwelling to crèche at 17a Upper Mealough Road, Carryduff

The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Gary Thompson who wished to speak in support of the application, highlighting the following:

• The proposal was for a much needed child care facility in the rural community • The planning system was set up to regulate planning in the public interest • NI Executive had identified a need for several thousand child care places in Northern Ireland, 2,000 of which were needed in rural areas • A 2010 NI Childcare survey pointed to the need for more child minding places. • In relation to the proposal for a replacement dwelling, the site was located off the main road and behind existing outbuildings and mature hedging • The crèche building was ideal for children with opportunities for nature walks and an equestrian centre in the vicinity • The Rivers Agency flood map did not indicate that the area was a flood area • Existing drainage on the site was more than adequate • The proposal did not involve the removal of any existing buildings so a bat survey was not relevant • DCAM 13 stated that detached dwellings were more suitable for child minding facilities which was the case in this instance • The proposal would be an employment opportunity within the countryside • 3 dwellings had been constructed at the end of the lane and there had been improvements to the road which would satisfy Transport NI requirements

In response to Members’ queries, Mr Thompson responded as follows:

• He provided information on the existence of other creches within the locality. • The applicant did not have personal experience of running a crèche but had plans for the development of the business. • The applicant had provided responses on two occasions to issues raised by Roads Service. • A pre-application meeting had been requested but had been refused by planning officers.

PC 01.07 2019

• The bio-diversity survey included a check list that could be completed and submitted but a full risk assessment would be very costly and was not considered necessary since the site did not lie within a flood plain. • The laneway was wide and included cycling facilities in both directions and was therefore more than adequate for the development • The applicant’s businesses on the site were an equestrian centre and a farm

In response to a Member’s question, the Head of Planning and Capital Development advised as follows:

• The request for a pre-application meeting had been turned down because the scale of development proposed did not justify a meeting. Written planning advice was offered instead and a letter issued. • The PAD request related to the change of use to a crèche and not for the replacement dwelling. This was a different proposal. • There would have to be demonstrable reasons why a replacement dwelling must be located off-site. That said, if Members were not minded to accept the advice of the officers, normally planning conditions or a legal agreement would be put in place to ensure that a new dwelling was not occupied until the crèche business was fully operational.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 7:0 with 0 abstentions to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.

(7) LA05/2018/1017/F – Change of use from dwelling to office accommodation at 34b Plantation Avenue, Lisburn

The Senior Planning Officer (MCON) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Committee received Mr Keith Trimble who wished to speak in opposition to the application, highlighting the following:

• Residents would support the planning recommendation to refuse the application • The location of an office within a residential area was not necessary or appropriate • The office was linked to other developments but a portakabin facility at those development wold be more suitable

In response to Members’ queries, Mr Trimble advised that the office was continuing to operate and had been there for some time.

The Committee received Mr Brendan Starkey who wished to speak in support of the application, highlighting the following:

• The building was formerly a dwelling and was converted to a site and sales office for the Mount Royal development; the office remained to co-ordinate other developments within the area 9

PC 01.07 2019

• The applicant wished to retain the office for a temporary period of up to 5 years • The office was no longer used as a sales office; it was used by 3 members of staff and was not visited by members of the public • Under planning policy, an office in an out of centre location would be acceptable when it was demonstrated that no other suitable site was available • There were no designated centres in close proximity to the development location • There was no prospect of the office being relocated to the city centre and instead the developer would place temporary site offices in other developments • The office caused no harm to the character of the area or residential amenity • The office had no impact on the viability and vitality of the town centre • There were no objections from statutory consultees • The administrative hub was a more sustainable operation than providing new temporary offices at other sites as allowed under permitted development

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Starkey advised as follows:

• The offices were functioning well and, as a matter of practicality and prudence, the applicant did not wish to relocate the office functions to temporary structures on other sites • The office conversion had been completed several years ago in association with the Mount Royal Gate development which had been completed 12 months ago. • The building was used originally as sales and administration; sales and marketing had ceased on the site and it now functioned as an administrative hub to coordinate other developments • Mr Starkey was unable to provide information on the developer’s business address or whether they had other office accommodation

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

• The planning reasons for refusal included impact on the viability and vitality of the city centre but the office has had no impact on this over the past 5 years and would have no impact in the future. It was not a town centre type of office • The developer was making a substantial contribution to the economy of the area; there were a considerable number of people whose jobs were supported by this company • The office was central to the surrounding residential land use and had no impact on the character of the area • Planners could issue an approval but apply conditions in respect of its continued use • It made practical sense to continue to use it as an office and it would revert to a dwelling when that use had finished.

PC 01.07 2019

In response to Members’ questions and queries, Mr Poots stated that, although the Mount Royal development was completed, there were other developments in the immediate vicinity. In response to a comment that approval could create a precedent, he stated that portakabin provision on other sites would have a more detrimental effect on a building site.

In response to a Member’s question, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the office had originally been allowed under permitted development while the Mount Royal development was being constructed.

The Head of Planning and Capital Development read an extract from the legislation setting out the parameters for permitted development and the actions that should follow when the development was complete. The context was changed and the site was now surrounding by housing.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those making representations, agreed by a majority of 6:0 with 1 abstention to refuse the application as outlined in the Officer’s report.

(8) LA05/2019/0500/F – Conversion and single storey extension to existing garage to provide ancillary accommodation and front porch alteration at 6 Rivergate Lane, Blaris, Lisburn

The Principal Planning Officer (RH) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ queries providing clarification on planning policy regarding housing annexes to meet the particular domestic circumstances of a family.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Principal Planning Officer, agreed by a majority of 7:0 with 0 abstention to approve the application as outlined in the Officer’s report and subject to the conditions contained therein.

4.2 Submission of Pre-Application Notices (PAN)

4.2.1 LA05/2019/0582/PAN - Residential Development on Lands at numbers 43, 47 and 49 Lurgan Road and lands to west of 33 Lurgan Road, Moira

The Committee was provided with copy and it was proposed by Councillor A Swan, seconded by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, and agreed to note the information provided in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.

4.2.2 LA05/2019/0589/PAN - Construction of new build 14 classroom, 2,300 square metres, 400 pupil primary school on existing school site with additional land and associated works to the proposed school site at 18 Clarehill Road, Moira, Craigavon

PC 01.07 2019

The Committee was provided with copy and it was proposed by Councillor M Gregg, seconded by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, and agreed to note the information provided in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.

4.2.3 LA05/2019/0643/PAN - For Industry and Commerce as zoned in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015, Approved for Use Classes B1(b) call centre, B1(c) research and development, B2 Light Industrial, B3 general industrial and B4 storage and distribution. Main entrance from Carrowreagh Road

Alderman Drysdale indicated that he wished to make a Declaration of Interest in respect of this item on the basis that he was Chairman of a competing business park. He was advised by the Head of Planning and Capital Development in consultation with the Legal Advisor that, as this item was for noting only and the Committee would not be taking a decision on it at this stage, it was not necessary for him to leave the meeting.

The Committee was provided with copy and it was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Councillor J Palmer, and agreed to note the information provided in relation to the above Pre-Application Notice.

4.3 Statutory Performance Indicators May 2019

The Committee was provided with copy and it was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Councillor M Gregg, and agreed to note a draft monthly performance indicator from the Department of Infrastructure.

4.4 Annual Statistical Bulletin – 2018/2019 Business Year

It was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Councillor A Swan, and agreed to note the issue by the Department for Infrastructure on 21 March 2019 of the DfI Northern Ireland Planning Statistics 2018/19 Third Quarterly Statistical Bulletin

5. Any Other Business

5.1 Use of IPads for Viewing Planning Applications – Councillor M Gregg

In response to a comment by Councillor M Gregg that the iPads were not fit for purpose when it came to viewing planning applications, the Head of Planning and Capital Development advised there was an issue with regard to compatibility of Apple technology with the planning portal and the Director of Service Transformation was discussing this with the Council’s IT section. He advised that a report would be brought back to Committee on this matter.

5.2 Emails to Members from Residents – Councillor A Swan

In response to a query by Councillor A Swan, the Head of Planning and Capital Development advised that Members should forward emails received regarding planning applications to the Planning In-box rather than to individual officers. He

PC 01.07 2019

advised however that there could be a GDPR issue arising and he would provide Members with an update on this.

‘In Committee’

It was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Councillor A Swan, and agreed to go ‘In Committee’ in order to receive an update on a legal matters.

5.3 Update on Legal Matter – Head of Planning and Capital Development

Members noted an update report on a legal matter from the Head of Planning and Capital Development

Resumption of Normal Business

It was proposed by the Deputy Mayor, Councillor J McCarthy, seconded by Alderman D Drysdale, and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 5.23 pm.

______CHAIRMAN / MAYOR

Planning Committee 5 August 2019

Report from:

Director of Service Transformation

Item for Decision

TITLE: 4.1 - NILGA – Changing Places: Planning, Place Shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland

Background and Key Issues:

Background

The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) is the Council led representative body for Local Authorities in Northern Ireland. The Association is supported by political parties and independent members in Councils, and works in partnership with other key regional bodies and stakeholders.NILGA members are drawn from each of the 11 Councils.

The Association supports and represents NI Local Government’s interests on regional bodies, within the Local Government Group of Associations in the UK, ROI and in Europe.

Key Issues

NILGA has provided notification to the Council about an event entitled Changing Places: Planning, Place Shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland. Details of topics and speakers are set out in the attached Draft agenda document.

The event is scheduled to take place on 8 October 2019 at the Killyhevlin Hotel, Enniskillen from 9.30 am – 4.30pm

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Chairman and/or Vice Chairman, or their nominees, be nominated to attend this conference.

Finance and Resource Implications:

The event is Free for NI Elected Members and Officers.

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: Not Applicable

If Yes, “This is a decision of this Committee only. Members of the Planning Committee are not bound by the decision of this Committee. Members of the Planning Committee shall consider any related planning application in accordance with the applicable legislation and with an open mind, taking into account all relevant matters and leaving out irrelevant consideration”.

APPENDICES: Appendix 1DST - NILGA – Changing Places: Planning, Place Shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland – draft Agenda

Planning Committee 5 August 2019

Report from:

Head of Planning and Capital Development

Item for Decision

TITLE: 5.1 - Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined

Background and Key Issues:

Background

The following applications have been made to the Council as the Local Planning Authority for determination.

In arriving at a decision (for each application) the committee should have regard to the guiding principle in the SPPS (paragraph 3.8) that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

Members are also reminded about Part 9 of the Northern Ireland Local Government Code of Conduct and the advice contained therein in respect of the development management process with particular reference to conflicts of interest, lobbying and expressing views for or against proposals in advance of the meeting.

Key Issues

The applications are presented in accordance with the current scheme of delegation. One is a major application. Nine in total have been called-in by Members for determination by the Planning Committee. Four of which have been previously deferred. Exceptions apply in relation to one application as a legal agreement is required.

The applications will be decided having regard to paragraphs 42 to 53 of the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee.

1. Y/2009/0407/F Proposed residential development of 109 dwellings (85 houses and 24 apartments), nursing home of 62 bedrooms, ancillary accommodation, associated site works and provision of a new signalised junction with Saintfield Road (amended landscaping and site level plans) on Land at and to the north of 360 Saintfield Road (including 350, 352 Saintfield Road) Castlereagh, Belfast Recommendation: Refusal 2. LA05/2018/1163/O – Site for two dwellings and two garages in compliance with CTY8 of PPS21 on Lands immediately adjacent to and south of no 57 Ballyregan Road, Dundonald – (Previously deferred) Recommendation: Approval 3. LA05/2016/1121/F – Erection of 1 no 2 storey dwelling for residential use on a site beside 24 Beechdene Park, Lisburn – (Previously deferred) Recommendation: Approval 4. LA05/2018/0960/F – New dwelling on a site adjacent to 44 Duncan’s Road, Lisburn – (Previously Deferred) Recommendation: Approval 5. LA05/2018/1094/F – Erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm on lands 100m East of 88 Steps Road, Donaghcloney – (Previously Deferred Recommendation: Refusal 6. LA05/2018/1007/O - Dwelling for non-agricultural business enterprises under policy CTY7 on a site adjacent to 25 Station Road, Upper Ballinderry, Lisburn – (Called in) Recommendation: Refusal 7. LA05/2019/0143/F – New dwelling and garage, in substitution for previous approval LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F on lands 100m north of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South, Carryduff – (Exceptions apply) Recommendation: Approval 8. LA05/2018/0846/F – Proposed erection of 2nd Agricultural shed to quarantine livestock on lands 340m west of 90 Glenavy Road, Lisburn – (Called in) Recommendation: Refusal 9. LA05/2018/0910/F – Proposed extension and rationalization of existing meat processing and packaging facility at 64a Lisnabreeney Road, Castlereagh, Belfast - (Called in) Recommendation: Approval 10. LA05/2018/1089/O – Proposed dwelling under PPS21 on lands 160 metres north east of 22 Bottier Road, Moira - (Called in) Recommendation: Refusal 11. LA05/2018/0932/O – Dwelling and garage to rear of 12a Whinney Hill, Lisburn – (Called in) Recommendation: Approval

Recommendation: For each application the Members are asked to make a decision having considered the detail of the Planning Officer’s report, listen to any third party representations, ask questions of the officers, take legal advice (if required) and engage in a debate of the issues.

Finance and Resource Implications:

Decisions may be subject to 1. Planning Appeal (where the recommendation is to refuse) 2. Judicial Review

Applicants have the right to appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission. Where the Council has been deemed to have acted unreasonably the applicant may apply for an award of costs against the Council. This must be made at the time of the appeal. The Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee provides options for how appeals should be resourced.

In all decisions there is the right for applicants and third parties to seek leave for Judicial Review. The Council will review on an on-going basis the financial and resource implications of processing applications.

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: As per Schedule

APPENDICES: Appendix 1(a)HOS - Planning Report – Y/2009/0407/F

Appendix 1(b)HOS - Planning Report – Y/2009/0407/F (5 Feb 2018)

Appendix 2(a)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/1163/O

Appendix 2(b)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/1163/O (17 June 2019)

Appendix 3(a)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2016/1121/F

Appendix 3(b)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2016/1121/F (17 June 2019)

Appendix 4(a)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/0960/F

Appendix 4(b)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/0960/F (17 June 2019)

Appendix 5(a)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/1094/F

Appendix 5(b)HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/1094/F (1 July 2019)

Appendix 6HOS – Planning Report – LA05/2018/1007/O

Appendix 7HOS – Planning Report – LA05/2019/0143/F

Appendix 8HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/0846/F

Appendix 9HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/0910/F

Appendix 10HOS - Planning Report - LA05/2018/1089/O

Appendix 11HOS – Planning Report – LA05/2018/0932/O

Planning Committee 5 August 2019

Report from:

Head of Planning and Capital Development

Item for Noting

TITLE: 5.2 - Submission of Pre-application Notices (PAN)

Background and Key Issues:

Background

Section 27 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that a prospective applicant, prior to submitting a major application, must give notice to the appropriate Council that an application for planning permission for the development is to be submitted.

Key Issues

Section 27 (4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 stipulates what information a PAN must contain. The attached reports set out how the requirement of the legislation and associated guidance has been considered.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Members note the information on the content of the Pre-application Notice attached in the appendices.

Finance and Resource Implications: None

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: Not Applicable

APPENDICES Appendix 12(a)HOS - Report in relation to LA05/2019/0695/PAN - Construction of new 3G Pitch, spectator stand, new ancillary block, car parking, floodlighting, fencing, paths, street lighting & all other associated works.

Appendix 12(b)HOS – LA05/2019/0695/PAN - Form, Site Location Plan

Planning Committee 5 August 2019

Report from:

Head of Planning and Capital Development

Item for Noting

TITLE: 5.3 - Appeal Decision in respect of planning application LA05/2018/0630/O

Background and Key Issues:

Background

Planning Permission in respect of planning application LA05/2018/0630/O was refused in October 2018. The application was for a proposed infill site to provide 2 dwellings on land between 31 & 35 Clogher Road, Lisburn.

An appeal was lodged with the Planning Appeals Commission against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. An informal appeal hearing took place on 21 May 2019.

Key Issues

The decision issued by the PAC on 24 June 2019 confirmed that the appeal was allowed with outline planning permission granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Committee notes the information in respect of the Commission’s consideration of this matter.

Finance and Resource Implications:

No application for costs was submitted by the appellant or the Council.

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: Not Applicable

APPENDICES: Appendix 13HOS – Appeal Decision – LA05/2018/0630/O

Planning Committee 5 August 2019 Report from:

Head of Planning and Capital Development

Item for Noting

TITLE: 5.4 - Statutory Performance Indicators – June 2019

Background and Key Issues:

Background

The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 sets out the legislative framework for development management in NI and provides that, from 1 April 2015, Councils now largely have responsibility for this planning functions.

The Department continues to have responsibility for the provision and publication of official statistics relating to the overall development management function, including enforcement. The quarterly and annual reports provide the NI headline results split by district council. This data provides councils with information on their own performance in order to meet their own reporting obligations under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

The Annual Report in respect of the 2018/19 business year was published on 20 June 2019.

Key Issues

The Department for Infrastructure has provided the Council with monthly monitoring information against the three statutory indicators. They have also provided a sheet summarising the monthly position for each indicator for the month of June 2019.

This data is unvalidated management information. The data has been provided for internal monitoring purposes only – they are not Official Statistics and should not be publically quoted as such. The Quarterly 1 (April – June) Statistical Bulletin is due to be published around the 20 September 2019.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Committee notes the information.

Finance and Resource Implications:

None

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: Not Applicable

APPENDICES: Appendix 14HOS – Statutory Performance Indicators - June 2019

Planning Committee 5 August 2019

Report from:

Head of Planning and Capital Development

Item for Noting

TITLE: 5.5 - End of Year Planning Statistics 2018/19 – Report relative to LCCC

Background and Key Issues:

Background

The Annual Statistical Bulletin in respect of the 2018/19 business year was published by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) on 20 June 2019.

The Bulletin provides an overview of planning activity across Northern Ireland and detail of Council performance in respect of the statutory targets for major and local development applications as laid out in the Local Government (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015.

An update on year end planning statistics relative to Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Key Issues

The statutory targets for Development Management are as follows

. Major development applications will be processed within an average of 30 weeks . Local development applications will be processed within an average of 15 weeks

Average processing times for major applications in LCCC during the 2018/19 business year end was 78 weeks and was an improvement of 16.4 weeks compared with last year. The report acknowledged that LCCC had processed the largest proportion of major legacy applications during this period (38.1%).

Average processing times for local applications in LCCC during the 2018/19 business year end was 17.7 weeks, an improvement of 3.9 weeks compared with the processing time captured last year. LCCC was recognised in the Annual bulletin report as having the greatest improvement in terms of average processing times.

It is recognised that while continued improvement is noted there are also learning points from the bulletin. LCCC did have a 7.9% increase in the proportion of live cases in the system more than one year.

By increasing the overall timeliness of decision making for new applications entering the system this should not be to the detriment of other customers with applications in the system longer.

Work has commenced to unpick the detail of the increase in the number applications in the system more than a year and make sure that the oldest applications are being brought forward in sufficient numbers so as to not create a backlog of historical LCCC applications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Committee notes the detail set out in the attached report relative to Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council and the associated summary information.

Finance and Resource Implications:

None

Screening: Equality and Not Environmental Not Rural Not Good Relations Impact Impact Applicable Assessment Applicable Assessment Applicable

SUBJECT TO PLANNING APPROVAL: Not Applicable

APPENDICES: Appendix 15(a)HOS – End of Year Planning Statistics 2018/19 report relative to LCCC

Appendix 15(b)HOS – Summary Information

Appendix 1 DST

DRAFT AGENDA Changing Places: Planning, Place-shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland

8th October 2019 Killyhevlin Hotel Enniskillen Draft Agenda Changing Places: Planning, Place-shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland 8th October 2019, Killyhevlin Hotel, Enniskillen

Time Topic Speaker

9.30 – 10.00 Registration, tea and coffee 10.00 – 10.05 Welcome to Enniskillen Fermanagh & Omagh District Council 10.05 – 10.10 Welcome from NILGA and outline of the day Cllr Steven Corr, Chairperson - NILGA Place-shaping and Infrastructure Network 10.10 – 10.40 Keynote Address Katrina Godfrey Shaping NI: The role of the Department of Permanent Secretary DfI Infrastructure in delivering well-being through regional place-shaping activity (planning policy, roads infrastructure, flood mitigation) 10.40 – 11.10 Keynote address Robin Hambleton, Planning, Place shaping, Place making University of the West of England, and New Civic Leadership: The power of place and the Urban Answers co-creation of public innovation 11.10 – 11.20 A place for questions…. 11.20 – 11.45 Tea, coffee and networking Growing Places 11.45 – 12.00 A place to live – The future of housing in Northern Paddy Gray, Emeritus Professor of Ireland Housing - Ulster University 12.00 – 12.15 Thriving places – Local job creation and sustainability Noelle McAloon Enniskillen BID Manager 12.15 – 12.30 Growing places? Addressing the infrastructure deficit NI Water – Invited 12.30 – 12.45 A place for questions…. 12.45 – 1.30 Lunch and networking Green Places 1.30 – 1.45 Enjoyable Places – Building social capital/community Adam Turkington use of public space Seedhead Arts 1.45 – 2.00 Beautiful places – Caring for our environment Ian Humphrey Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful 2.00 – 2.15 Adaptable places – Building local resilience in a David Lindsay climate emergency Ards and North Down Borough Council 2.15 – 2.35 Greening Places – Derry City Council Green Infra- Dr Christine Doherty structure Plan (video) Derry City and Strabane District Council 2.35 – 2.45 A place for questions… 2.45– 3.00 Tea, coffee and networking Going Places 3.00 – 3.15 Connecting places - Transport planning Peter Morrow Aecom 3.15 – 3.30 Connecting business – The digital infrastructure to BT - Invited deliver economic success 3.30 – 3.45 Smart places – Smart cities and Innovation Deborah Colville

3.45 – 4.00 Places to remember – Developing sustainable tourism David Jackson infrastructure Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council 4.00 - 4.15 A place for questions… 4.15 – 4.30 Conference round up and close Derek McCallan NILGA CEO

This event is FREE for NI Elected Members and Officers but numbers are limited to 6 per council. We would ask all councils to confirm in advance the names of those attending. NILGA will try to accommodate all enquiries. Completed booking forms should be returned to [email protected] by the 24th September 2019. NILGA Changing Places: Planning, Place-shaping and Place-making in Northern Ireland

8th October 2019 Killyhevlin Hotel Enniskillen

BOOKING FORM PLEASE NOTE: Places at this event are limited so early booking is recommended.

Contact name of person responsible for bookings ______Council: ______Email: ______Contact telephone number: ______Council nominations

Full Name Position Dietary / Special requirements

Completed booking forms should be returned to [email protected] by the 24th September 2019.

Northern Ireland Local Government Association Bradford Court, Upper Galwally, Castlereagh, BT8 6RB tel: 028 9079 8972 web: www.nilga.org twitter: @NI_LGA

Disclaimer: The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) endeavours to ensure that the information contained within our Website, Policies and other communications is up to date and correct. We do not, however, make any representation that the information will be accurate, current, complete, uninterrupted or error free or that any information or other material accessible from or related to NILGA is free of viruses or other harmful components. NILGA accepts no responsibility for any erroneous information placed by or on behalf of any user or any loss by any person or user resulting from such information. Appendix 1(a)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Major Application – Addendum

Application Reference Y/2009/0407/F

Date of Application 03 November 2009

District Electoral Area Castlereagh South Proposed residential development of 109 dwellings Proposal Description (85 houses and 24 apartments), nursing home of 62 bedrooms, ancillary accommodation, associated site works and provision of a new signalised junction with Saintfield Road (revised proposal)

Location Land at and to the north of 360 Saintfield Road (including 350, 352 Saintfield Road) Castlereagh, Belfast. Representations Three (Additional)

Case Officer Maire-Claire O’Neill

Recommendation Refusal

Background

1. This application is categorised as a major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the area of the site exceeds 1 hectare.

2. The application was previously presented to the Planning Committee on 5 February 2018 (see appendix 1(b)HoS) with a recommendation to approve planning permission subject to conditions as it was considered that the detailed layout and design of the proposed development would create a quality residential environment and will not impact adversely on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

3. DfI Roads had advised at the time of presenting the case to the committee that the PSD drawings were acceptable with the exception of some presentational issues that were to be discussed and resolved between the applicant and their agents with DfI Roads.

4. Despite protracted efforts to bring closure to the application process over the last sixteen months to get a full set of all the necessary drawings required to satisfy the ongoing concerns expressed by DfI Roads, the application is presented back to Committee with a revised recommendation to refuse.

5. It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate a safe means of access onto the Saintfield Road that can be achieved in accordance with the Department for Infrastructures road standards.

Further Detail

6. On 15 February 2018, after the Planning Committee, the Principal Planning Officer made contact with the applicant’s transport consultant about the outstanding information needed for the PSD to be signed-off.

7. Reference was made to a meeting with DfI Roads the week before and assurances were given that the information would be provided no later than 23 February 2018.

8. Amended information was received on 26 February 2018. This information comprised the following plans:

. Proposed Private Streets Determination drawings (JPC016 rev A) . Proposed Road Longitudinal Section Plans (11-15-109/002) . Proposed Road Longitudinal Sections Plan (11-15-09/003 rev A)

9. The application was discussed with representatives from DfI Roads in April 2018. DfI Roads explained that an issue had been raised in relation to the alignment of Saintfield Road and that the applicant had been asked to address this matter – the same issue had been raised with the applicant’s roads consultant back in March 2018.

10. The case officer in DfI Roads explained at that time that they had discussed the requirement at length and that they were awaiting further amendments.

11. Concern was expressed by the Planning Unit at that time that the outstanding information did not seem to be minor in nature and that DfI Roads should revisit its position. The need for any further amendments to be submitted through Planning was emphasised to DfI Roads. In the absence of the information being provided by 23 April 2018, refusal reasons should be provided.

12. In May 2018, the Principal Planning Officer spoke with DfI Roads. The case officer confirmed that they had been in touch with the applicant’s roads consultant earlier in the week and that it was their understanding that the amendments requested had been made.

13. A conversation also took place with the applicant’s roads consultant who advised that amendments were being finalised and that they would be submitted by 3 May 2018.

14. The roads consultant was made aware that if the amendments did not allow for DfI Roads sign off, the application would be presented back to Committee with a revised recommendation.

15. On 14 May 2018, the Planning Unit made contact with DfI Roads in order to ascertain if amendments had been submitted by the applicant’s roads consultant. DfI Roads confirmed that a meeting was to take place with the applicant’s roads consultant the next day.

16. In an email from DfI Roads dated 16 May 2018, they advised that the applicants roads engineer had been provided with a comprehensive list of design details and procedures that needed to be completed to achieve and acceptable PSD layout.

17. The Planning Unit contacted the applicant’s roads consultant on 23 May 2018. Reference was made to their submission of 3 May 2018 and that DfI Roads had again found the detail in relation to signalisation and right turning works for access from the Saintfield Road to be unacceptable.

18. On 14 June 2018, and despite requests for amendments to be submitted through the Planning Unit, the Agent enclosed a copy of correspondence from their roads consultant to DfI Roads. This letter dated 13 June 2018 advised that the Saintfield Road right-turning lane and access to this proposed development had been completely redesigned in accordance with recent discussions. The following revised plans were attached in support of the submission

. Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC020 rev B); . Proposed Saint . field Road Access & Site Layout Plan with topographical survey overlay (JPC020 rev B); . Proposed Saintfield Road Drainage Plan (JPC022)

19. The letter noted that road section plans, safety Audit report and RRRP Assessment in accordance with the revised layout would be completed by 18 June 2018. It also mentioned that three section plans and reports would be submitted by email to allow review by DfI Consultancy staff.

20. The Planning Unit received a letter from the applicants roads consultant received on 2 July 2018 that makes reference to a further meeting with DfI Roads case officer and internal roads consultants at the end of May 2018. The same letter was received from the Agent on 5 July 2018. The following plans were submitted:

. Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC020 rev B); . Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC021 rev B); . Proposed Saintfield Road Drainage Plan (JPC022) . Proposed Saintfield Road longitudinal sections plan (JPC023) . Proposed Saintfield Road cross section plan (JPC024)

21. Reference is made to the RRRP Assessment and Road Safety Audit requested by DfI Roads having been sent to the case officer directly for approval in principle prior to formal submission the following week.

22. Formal consultation issued to DfI Roads via the Planning Portal on 5 July 2018. The consultation outlined the amended drawings that required further consideration. An email was also issued which advised that no amended PSD drawings had yet been received.

23. A consultation response received from DfI Roads on 1 August 2018 sought yet further amendments. Comments from DfI Roads were shared with the applicant’s roads consultant on 3 August 2018 with amendments sought in full by 17 August 2018.

24. Correspondence from the Agent on 10 August enclosed a further letter from the applicant’s roads consultant. The following plan with further amendments was submitted:

. Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC021 rev C);

25. The letter advised that the RRRP Assessment, Road Safety Audit, Drainage Plan and other Engineering Plans to reflect this latest layout change would be ready for submission before 17 August 2018.

26. Further correspondence from the Agent on 28 August 2018 enclosed a copy of email correspondence from their roads consultant regarding IT difficulties encountered and the impact this had on them making the amendments required for submission.

27. Further correspondence from the Agent on 20 September 2018 enclosed a letter from their roads consultant dated 14 September 2018 which made reference to the following amended plans:

. Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC020 rev C); . Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC021 rev C); . Proposed Saintfield Road Drainage Plan (JPC022 rev A) . Proposed Saintfield Road longitudinal sections plan (JPC023 rev A) . Proposed Saintfield Road cross section plan (JPC024)

28. Formal consultation issued to DfI Roads via the Planning Portal on 15 October 2018. DfI Roads was asked to review the detail provided and in the event that they still failed to address concerns they were asked to provide for our consideration, refusal reasons.

29. Despite efforts to conclude the process, further correspondence from the Agent on 30 October 2018 enclosed a further letter from their roads consultant dated 24 October 2018 which enclosed the following plans:

. Proposed Saintfield Road cross section plan (JPC024 rev A) . Proposed Saintfield Road Access Auto-tracking plan (JPC025)

30. On 13 November 2018, DfI Roads advised that the latest roads drawings for the Saintfield Road signalisation junction and right turning lane facility have been amended and updated to a level which is generally acceptable subject to a number of issues which are resolvable. It advised that their in-house consultancy had completed a comprehensive design check and that a design check comments list had been produced.

31. Reference was also made to another meeting which have taken place with the Agent on 6 November 2018 whereby amendments required were discussed. It advised that the amendments were to be submitted through the Planning Office in due course.

32. Further correspondence from the Agent received on 14 November 2018 made reference to difficulties encountered carrying out a drone inspection as parts of the area had become very overgrown with brambles and gorse.

33. The Agent explained that it was not their intention to carry out any site re- profiling works or any cutting back of the boundary hedgerow planting nor was it intended to remove or cut back any tree indicated for retention on the layout plan. It explained that vegetation would be cut back for housekeeping purposes only.

34. On 2 January 2019, the Head of Service for Planning and Capital Development contacted the Agent by email. The email acknowledged that amendments had been submitted but that to date, issues remained outstanding. It explained that the Planning Unit could not continue to let the process to run on indefinitely given that a recommendation had been brought to the committee in February 2018 on the understanding that the final detail of the road design would be resolved quickly.

35. The email explained that late representations had been received in respect of the principle of development and that these would be taken into account prior to any decision being issued. It also advised that in the absence of a final set of drawings addressing DfI Roads concerns in full being submitted by 18 January 2019, the application would be taken back to Committee.

36. The Principal Planning Officer spoke with the Agent on the 16 January 2019 and was assured that the applicant’s roads consultant was working to the deadline stipulated in the earlier email. The Agent expressed the view that DfI Roads was asking for information that was outside the remit of the planning application.

37. Further correspondence from the applicant’s roads consultant on 18 January 2019. It made reference to the following amended plans:

. Proposed Traffic signal Stage Diagrams (JPC005) . Proposed Private Streets Determination Plan (JPC016 rev B) . Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC020 rev D); . Proposed Saintfield Road Access and Site Layout Plan (JPC021 rev D);

. Proposed Saintfield Road Drainage Plan (JPC022 rev B) . Proposed Saintfield Road Access Auto-tracking plan (JPC025 rev A) . Proposed Saintfield Road Geometry Plan Extract (JPC026) . Proposed Saintfield Road Cross Section plan (JPC028) . Proposed Saintfield Road Cross Section plan (JPC029) . Proposed Saintfield Road Cross Section plan (JPC030) . Road Vertical Sections (RD006) . Road Vertical Sections (RD007) . Road Vertical Sections (RD008) . Inwin Carr Consulting Noise Impact Assessments . Roads Safety Audit (rev A) . Envirokerb drainage information plan

38. Further correspondence from the Agent received on 29 January 2019 enclosed the following drawings as requested by DfI Roads in recent discussions

. British Telecom – Existing Openreach Plan . British Telecom – Existing Openreach Works (Underground) . British Telecom – Existing Openreach Works (Overhead) . Virgin Media – Site Layout

39. Further correspondence from the Agent received on 8 February 2019 enclosed copies of the following drawing indicating the Saintfield Road Drainage Plan.

. JPC 022 Rev A

40. On 11 February 2019, arrangements were made for a further consultation to issue to DfI Roads.

41. Further correspondence from the Agent received on 16 April 2019 acknowledged that information submitted by the applicants roads consultant provided an acceptable solution to issues raised by DfI Roads and their internal consultancy team. The Agent welcomed the opportunity to meet to discuss any outstanding issues and potential roads planning conditions if necessary. This letter was shared with DfI Roads.

42. A response received from DfI roads dated 17 April 2019 advised that they had received directly a set of design drawings for the Saintfield Road from the agent and some comments from the internal consultancy team were outlined.

43. On checking the latest drawings listed on the Portal, DfI Roads advised that not all of the drawings received by them had been submitted through the Planning Office.

44. On the 3 May 2019, comments from DfI Roads were shared with the Agent and they were provided with an opportunity to submit 4 copies of the complete set of amended drawings within 7 days.

45. An email from the Agent dated 7 May 2019 indicated that their roads consultant required some further clarification from DfI Roads in relation to the response provided. An extension of time to the 17 May 2019 was requested.

46. Further correspondence from the Agent received on 17 May 2019 enclosed copies of the following drawings

. RI 001 – RI 003 . RD 002 – RD 009

47. On 29 May 2019, an email issued to DfI Roads to advise that information submitted by the Agent had been shared via the Planning Portal for comment on 23 May 2019.

48. DfI Roads was asked to consider the information and to provide final comment on the latest submission. In the event that the drawings as submitted failed to address earlier concerns in full, they were asked to provide reasons for refusal.

49. In a response received from DfI Roads on 17 June 2019, a number of points still needing to be addressed were provided and the following refusal reason was offered:

. Insufficient information has been provided in order to establish the acceptability of the proposed development; in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a safe access to the public road network, is achievable in accordance with the Departments standards.

50. Correspondence from the Agent received by email on 21 June 2019 made reference to correspondence from the applicants road consultant dated 20 June 2019. It expressed the view that matters which had been addressed were appearing in the latest correspondence from DfI Roads.

51. Concern was expressed in relation to the communication of technical information between Planning, DfI Roads and their ‘in-house’ consultancy. Reference was made to a further meeting arranged with DfI Roads on 26 June 2019 in an attempt to resolve all outstanding issues.

Consideration of Additional Representations

52. Three additional representations have been received since the application was presented to Committee in February 2018 with a number of follow up exchanges received from two over the last number of months. Consideration of the issues raised are set out below:

The application is contrary to the local development plan

53. Within draft BMAP this site has been defined as a housing zone (MCH03/10), this is a material consideration to this proposal. This zoning was subject to Key Site Requirements (KSR’s), however at a subsequent public local inquiry into objections to dBMAP the DoE considered that due to planning permissions already granted on the site and associated conditions, these are sufficient to allow a satisfactory form of development and therefore the KSR’s were no

longer necessary. The Planning Appeals Commission’s (PAC) report on the public inquiry recommended removal of the KSR’s.

54. Relevant planning permissions, as noted above are also material considerations in assessing this proposal. As can be seen from the history table associated with the initial DM Officer report, permissions have been granted by DoE for several residential schemes and a further approval was granted at appeal by the PAC.

55. In light of the status of the LDP, emerging policies of dBMAP and planning history associated with this site, it is considered that the development as proposed would be in accordance with the up to date LDP.

Requirement of 3rd Party land for shared access

56. A letter submitted by WSP on behalf of Conway Estates Ltd who own adjacent land states that that they have offered a portion of land to the current owners of the applications site free of charge so as to facilitate a joint access arrangement.

57. Whilst the offer is noted, it is not the proposal that is currently in front of the Council for consideration and therefore cannot be considered as part of the current proposal.

Proliferation of access on Saintfield Road

58. Representations expressed concern in relation to the proliferation of signalised junctions within one kilometre of the site.

59. This representation has been shared with DfI Roads. In a response dated 26 June 2018 they indicated that DfI Roads would try to ensure that the operation of traffic that lights along the part of the road mentioned would be synchronised so as to ensure a minimum disruption to the flow of traffic.

Departures from Standards (DfI) for the junction works

60. Representation raises concern in relation to departures from standards and that the applicant has applied to DfI Roads in relation to the junction upgrades.

61. The chronology set out above, demonstrates that the agent has met with Dfi Roads on numerous occasions. Furthermore, amended drawings have been reviewed and commented by DfI Roads several times. Despite the extensive engagement which has taken place post February 2018, insufficient information has been submitted to fully and properly address the concerns expressed by DfI Roads.

62. In light of this a refusal reason based on insufficient information and failure to demonstrate that a safe access to Saintfield Road was achievable has been offered by DfI Roads.

Impact of the proposal on the Knockbraken Road junction improvements

63. An issue was raised in relation to the potential for the proposed development to impact on the Knockbracken Road junction upgrade which was agreed as part of the Mealough applications.

64. DfI Roads were consulted as part of this current application process and they have raised no issues in relation to any such impacts.

Conclusion

65. At the Planning Committee meeting, it was accepted that the detailed layout and design of the proposed development would create a quality residential environment and that it would not impact adversely on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

66. DfI Roads had indicated at that time, that the PSD drawings were acceptable with the exception of some presentational details which were to be discussed and resolved with applicants roads consultant prior to the decision being issued.

67. On this basis and on the understanding that only minor amendments were required to the PSD drawings to allow DfI signoff, the application was presented to the Planning Committee for determination.

68. Despite protracted efforts over the last 16 months to get a full set of all the necessary amendments required to satisfy the ongoing concerns expressed by DfI Roads, the application is presented back to Committee with a revised recommendation to refuse as it is considered that insufficient information has been provided in order to establish the acceptability of the proposed development; in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a safe access to the public road network, is achievable in accordance with the DfI roads standards.

Recommendation

69. The application is presented with a recommendation to refuse.

Refusal Reason

70. The following refusal reason is recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy AMP 2 - Access to Public Roads of Planning Policy Statement 3 as insufficient information has been provided in order to establish the acceptability of the proposed development; in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a safe

9 access to the public road network, is achievable in accordance with the Departments standards.

Site Location Plan – Y/2009/0407/F

APPENDIX 1(b)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 February 2018 Meeting

Committee Interest Major

Application Reference Y/2009/0407/F

Date of Application 03 November 2009

Location Land at and to the north of 360 Saintfield Road (including 350, 352 Saintfield Road) Castlereagh, Belfast. Applicant/Agent Carncastle Properties Ltd/MacRae Hanlon Spence Architects Representations 9

Case Officer Adam Smyth

Recommendation Approval

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the area of the site exceeds 1 hectare.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The site covers lands of approximately 5 hectares that are located adjacent and east of Saintfield Road and adjacent and south of Ballylenaghan Park and Ballylenaghan Avenue, Belfast.

4. The site is flat where it lies adjacent to the Saintfield Road before rising approximately 12 metres to its highest point in the north east corner, where the site abuts Ballylenaghan Avenue.

5. A concrete and tarmac lane rises up along the north boundary from Saintfield Road to this high point where there is some limited evidence of a former building, possible a dwelling house. The lane continues beyond this point, following dropping ground levels towards the south, to a former tennis court which is constructed of bitmac that lies in the south east corner of the site.

6. An existing entrance from Saintfield Road is apparent at the southern end of the site, where the ground levels are flat and extend east. At this point hardstandings extend east into the site and are evidence of a former garden centre use at this point.

7. The site is heavily overgrown in grass with a mix of mature and semi mature trees scattered throughout. Established trees are located along a watercourse on the southern boundary, along the north boundary adjacent to existing residential units, to the north west boundary adjacent to the existing access lane and to the west side along the Saintfield Road. Mature conifers also define the boundaries of the tennis court. The boundary trees are a mixture of deciduous and evergreen and generally to heights of approximately 8 to 10 metres. The north-west boundary is largely comprised of a natural species hedge of varying heights between 2.5 and 3.5 metres.

8. The site lies adjacent and south east of residential development in Ballylenaghan Park. Adjacent to Saintfield Road the site and Ballylenaghan Park are at a comparable level. Ballylenaghan Park, like the site rises towards the east, however over this rise a level difference between the two becomes apparent, the site is approximately 2 to 3 metres higher than those dwellings to the east side of Ballylenaghan Park.

9. Adjacent to the highest point of the site dwellings on Ballylenaghan Avenue appear to be at a similar ground level. Beyond this ground levels drop east towards dwellings in Brooke Hall Close by approximately 6 metres.

10. To the west side of Saintfield Road ground levels rise to a comparable height, this area is defined by the grounds of Purdysburn Hospital.

11. Further north is Cairnshill Park and Ride and the junction of Saintfield Road and Cairnshill Road.

Proposed Development

12. This is a full planning application for the provision of 109 residential units, a 62 bedroom nursing home and a signalised junction with Saintfield Road.

Relevant Planning History

13. Relevant planning history is detailed in the table below.

Application Description of Proposal/Address Decision Reference Y/2005/0135/RM Provision of access to site at and north of 360 Saintfield Road (inc 352 Saintfield Granted Road) Castlereagh. Incorporating visibility splays and right turning pocket in 14 December accord with Outline Planning Permission 2005 reference Y/2001/0038/O and PAC reference 2002/A007.

Y/2003/0274/F Erection of 21 duplex apartments with associated car parking/landscaping. Granted (Amended Plans) 20 April 2005 350 Saintfield Road, Ballylenaghan, Castlereagh. BT08 7SJ

Y/2001/0038/O Residential development and ancillary works Appeal Allowed Land at and north of 360 Saintfield Road (including 352 Saintfield Road), 30 August Castlereagh 2002

Y/2000/0392/F Erection of 3 Detached Houses & Garages (existing house to be Granted demolished) with access onto Saintfield Road. 21 March 2001 350 Saintfield Road, Ballylenaghan, Belfast

Y/1999/0352 Site for 12 apartments with access from Ballylenaghan Avenue, Castlereagh Granted 22 March 350 Saintfield Road and 43 2001 Ballylenaghan Avenue, Castlereagh

Planning Policy Context

14. The relevant planning policy and policy guidance which relates to the application is as follows:

. Belfast Urban Area Plan (BUAP) 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (dBmap) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS2) – Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) – Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) – Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage. . Planning Policy Statement 7 – Quality Residential Environments . Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS15) – Planning and Flood Risk . Development Control Advice Note 9 – Residential and Nursing Homes

Consultations

15. The following consultations have been carried out:

Consultee Response BMAP Plan Team Objection – contrary to housing zone of the site Transport NI NI Water No objections Environmental Health No objections Rivers Agency NIEA Natural Heritage No objections

Consideration and Assessment

16. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Development Plan Context . Principle of Development . Quality Residential Environments . Residential Care Facility . Public Open Space provision . Access, Movement and Parking . Flood Risk . Archaeological Heritage Interests . Natural Heritage Interests

Development Plan Context

17. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

18. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted. As a consequence of this decision, the Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 (BUAP) is now the statutory development plan for the area with draft BMAP remaining a material consideration.

19. BUAP 2001 identifies the application site as being beyond the defined settlement development limit but within the inner edge of the greenbelt. Such lands are provided for within the LDP as a long term reserve of development land for Belfast. This site lies adjacent and south of lands zoned within the BUAP 2001 as first phase housing lands in accordance with Policy H1 of the LDP. These lands have now been developed for residential use. The use of this application site for residential purposes is considered acceptable in light of the policies contained in the LDP.

20. Within draft BMAP this site has been defined as a housing zone (MCH03/10), this is a material consideration to this proposal. This zoning was subject to Key Site Requirements (KSR’s), however at a subsequent public local inquiry into objections to dBMAP the DoE considered that due to planning permissions already granted on the site and associated conditions, these are sufficient to allow a satisfactory form of development and therefore the KSR’s were no longer necessary. The Planning Appeals Commission’s report on the public inquiry recommended removal of the KSR’s.

21. Relevant planning permissions, as noted above are also material considerations in assessing this proposal. As can be seen from the history table permissions have been granted by DoE for several residential schemes and a further approval was granted at appeal by the PAC.

22. It is contended in light of the status of the LDP, emerging policies of dBMAP and histories associated with this site, that the development as proposed would be in accordance with the up to date LDP.

Principle of Development

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

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

25. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Quality Residential Environments

26. Planning Policy Statement 7 – Quality Residential Environments, sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments. Policy QD2 of PPS7 requires a residential application such as this to be accompanied by a design concept statement to support the proposal. In this case the submitted design concept statement included details of the existing site characteristics, proposed concept plans and a written description. To enhance the quality of the development the concept statement seeks to retain and augment existing trees and landscaping; offer a variety of house types to meet differing needs and the provision of private and public open space as safe play areas for children. The application as submitted included the provision of a hotel, this however was removed from the scheme in 2014.

27. The most up to date plans propose a new signalised access, approximately mid-point along the Saintfield Road frontage of the site and from which a new roadway rises up to the top of the site at its northern boundary. From this main roadway further access roads service various detached and semi-detached properties to the east and west sides of the site. In the southern corner it is proposed to place two blocks of apartments, these are adjacent to Saintfield Road, one fronts to that road, the other is gable end to it. Behind the apartments the layout of roads provides access to a number of semi-detached dwellings that back on to the southern boundary. To the front of these dwellings is a ‘village green’ area with equipped playground. To the west of the access point and fronting to Saintfield Road is proposed a 62 bedroom nursing home.

28. Policy QD1 of PPS7 is the key policy test and states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. Policy directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

29. Policy QD1 contains a list of criteria to which all residential developments are expected to conform. Regarding the policy criteria this proposal is considered to respect the surrounding context, primarily the existing residential units adjacent and to the north-west. The layout and design respects the character and topography of the site. Those larger apartment and nursing home

buildings are situated on the lower part of the site adjacent to the Saintfield Road, behind these the majority of dwellings are two storey. The exception being the dwellings on Site 27-28 and 54-55 which are single storey to protect the existing house types that exist beyond the north boundary of the site.

30. Policy QD1 requires the identification and protection of landscape features to allow the proposal to integrate. This site is well defined by mature landscaping, as has been described in Paragraph 5 above. This criteria of Policy QD1 is particularly important where the site boundary abuts existing dwellings to the north. The submitted plans show that where the proposal abuts the Ballylenaghan developments to the north–west, mature hedge and trees on the site boundaries are to be retained. This will enhance the proposal and aid integration with the adjacent land use.

31. Each of the proposed dwellings is provided with a suitable level of private amenity space and an area of public open space, with playground, is proposed at the southern part of the site.

32. The proposal includes a mix of designs. The proposed dwellings are to be constructed with a mix of brick and/or render finishes, and pitched roofs. The nursing home and apartment blocks will also have a mixed pallet of material finishes with hipped roofs. These designs are very similar to those on the existing residential buildings within the vicinity of the site.

33. In addition to the retained boundary vegetation where the site abuts existing dwellings, the design and layout of the proposal is such that it does not conflict or cause unacceptable adverse effects due to overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing or noise and other disturbance. Where proposed dwellings abut existing developments they are sufficiently set back from the mature hedge and tree boundaries to avoid adverse impacts.

34. It is noted that there is a level difference of approximately plus 4 metres where the site abuts dwellings in Ballylenaghan Park, this is particularly evident with the positioning of Sites 26 and 27. However whilst Site 26 is two storey it only has one bathroom window at first floor level within the gable facing towards Ballylenaghan Park and it is contended there would be no adverse overlooking, particularly with the retention of trees and hedges. Site 27 is proposed to be single storey with only a door on the side elevation facing Ballylenaghan Park, it also benefits from existing mature trees and hedges to avoid overlooking.

35. In terms of overshadowing and loss of light Site 26 is due east of the nearest existing dwelling, 24 Ballylenaghan Park and separated from it by 13 metres, as such over shadowing and loss of light will be avoided, with the exception of very early mornings. It is also noted that the proposed dwelling will sit gable to gable with 24 Ballylenaghan Park, further reducing impacts to that existing dwelling. Site 27 is located to the north east of 24 Ballylenaghan Park, its proposed single storey form combined with the height of existing trees and hedges will ensure there is no loss of light or overshadowing into the existing property. All other proposed dwellings abutting site boundaries with existing

dwellings are set at lower ground levels and benefit from existing vegetation, both within and out of the site, to ensure their layouts do not cause adverse overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light issues.

Residential Care Facility

36. The Planning (Use Classes) Order (NI) 2015 indicates that the proposed nursing home falls within Part C of that Order, this is the same use class as the proposed dwellings and as such the requirements of Policy QD1 of PPS7 are also applicable in the consideration of this element of the proposal. PPS7 also replicates the requirements of Development Control Advice Note 9 (DCAN 9).

37. In terms of the position and layout of the nursing home, at the lower part of the site, this ensures there is no adverse impact to proposed dwellings at its rear. This is further aided by the gable ends of those dwellings facing on to the rear of the nursing home. The layout and arrangement of rooms within the nursing home further limits the number of windows facing into the site and ensures overlooking is not a significant issue. The side elevation of the nursing home facing towards existing dwellings in Ballylenaghan Park does not pose an overlooking issue given the existing hedge and trees on the boundary; the separation from the existing dwellings; the gable end arrangement of those dwellings in relation to the nursing home and the nature of windows in that gable. As such there is not considered to be unacceptable impacts from this element of the proposal.

Access, Movement and Parking

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

39. In addition to the internal layout and parking provisions to be provided, this proposal involves development of a new signalised junction with the Saintfield Road and the provision of a right turning lane for traffic entering the site from the Carryduff side. DfI Roads is the competent authority on the design and layout of the road infrastructure associated with the proposal which has been developed to their satisfaction.

40. Policy AMP2 of PPS3 – Access to Public Roads is applicable and will allow planning permission for direct access where it is demonstrated that the proposal will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic. The provision of a signalised junction to the proposal has been scrutinised by DfI Roads who find it will not impact upon road safety or the flow of traffic at this point on the Saintfield Road.

41. Policy AMP3 of PPS3 – Access to Protected Routes applies as the Saintfield Road is one such route. Planning permission can be granted to this route when it is demonstrated to DfI Roads that the access arrangement will assist in the

creation of a quality environment without compromising road safety standards. As with Policy AMP2, DfI Roads are content with the information supplied that the access is appropriate.

42. Policy AMP7 of PPS3 – Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements applies with regard to the internal road layout and parking provision to the dwellings and nursing home. DfI Roads has considered the proposed layout and find it complies with published standards and will not prejudice road safety or inconvenience traffic flow.

43. It is contended these aspects of the proposal have been satisfied.

Flood Risk

44. Planning Policy Statement 15, Planning and Flood Risk is the relevant document to deal with matters of flood risk as a result of this proposal. In accordance with Policy FLD3 of PPS15 the application was accompanied by a Drainage Assessment and the applicant has applied to and been granted by Rivers Agency a Schedule 6 Consent under the Drainage (NI) Order 1973.

45. The applicant proposes to alter the following existing drainage conditions on this site. A culvert enters the site at its northern boundary adjacent to Brooke Hall Close. This culvert is silted up and causes discharge water to flow across the site by way of an open ditch. The open ditch runs diagonally across the site to it south east boundary where it discharges to another culvert which extends west across the site to the Saintfield Road.

46. It is proposed to replace these existing culverts and deal with the open ditch, and on other open ditch on the north east boundary through the provision of a new culver that will follow the line of the access road into this residential development. The new culvert will terminate at a discharge point that connects it to an existing culvert on the Saintfield Road. The Schedule 6 Consent application indicates that run-off from this development site will be retained at the greenfield run-off rate.

47. Policy FLD4 of PPS15 will only allow artificial modification of a watercourse if it is necessary for access to a development site or it is demonstrated that a specific section of watercourse needs to be culverted for engineering reasons and there are no reasonable or practical alternative courses of action. As has been indicated in the previous paragraphs, the applicant considers it necessary to provide a new culvert to replace that which is silted up and to prevent overland flow through ditches that have occurred, as a result of the silted culvert. The Planning Unit considers that the redevelopment of these lands are an opportunity to address the current drainage issues through the provision of a replacement culvert and therefore Policy FLD4 is not applicable in this case.

48. Rivers Agency in its latest consultation response, following granting of Schedule 6 Consent, offers no objection to the proposed works subject to the provision of a working strip to ensure access to the new culvert. The drainage

plan submitted as part of the application indicates no build over of the culvert and as it follows the line of the proposed access road it is contended that suitable working strips are available to gain access if necessary to the culvert.

49. It is contended that the proposed drainage works are not such that the proposal would run contrary to the planning policy requirements of PPS15.

50. NI Water has also been consulted and whilst there is no available surface water sewers available within their network, they raise no issue with regard to available capacity at waste water treatment works should one be provided. However, as previously noted the existing culverts discharge to a Rivers Agency culvert on the Saintfield Road and as the Drainage Assessment proposes to retain discharge to greenfield run off rates a further surface water sewer may not be necessary. This however would be a matter between the applicant and NI Water.

Natural Heritage Issues

51. In its consultation response of the 22nd June 2016, and in response to objections raised by third parties, NIEA Natural Heritage requested an extended Phase One habitat and species survey to confirm, or otherwise the presence of protected and priority species and mitigation measures were such to be found. The survey data was submitted in August 2016 and following a request for additional information NIEA responded in December 2016 to confirm it had no objection to the proposal as there was unlikely to be a significant impact on roosting bats. This was primarily based on the fact that the existing boundary vegetation was shown for retention. NIEA recommended the imposition of conditions should the application be recommended for approval.

52. Planning Policy Statement 2 – Natural Heritage deals with matters relating to nature conservation. The consultation response from NIEA Natural Heritage Division indicates the proposal does not conflict with the policies contained in that PPS. Policy NH2 – Species Protected by Law – has been satisfied with the suggested conditions of NIEA and Planning Unit therefore contend this proposal will not be likely to harm European or Nationally protected species and Policy NH2 of PPS2 is satisfied.

Consideration of Representations

53. There have been 9 letters of representation to this proposal and raise the following matters;

. The level of the site in relation to existing dwellings in Ballylenaghan Park and Ballylenaghan Avenue and the resultant overshadowing, overlooking and loss of light. The objections relate to the site layout and the context with existing dwellings, specifically because of ground level differences. Paragraphs 34 and 35 above have dealt with this matter, however the applicant was asked to provide a site layout plan to

indicate levels of both existing and proposed development for consideration. Disparity in levels exist between Sites 22, 23, 26 and 27 and dwellings in Ballylenaghan Park. These differences range from 1 metre at Site 22 to 4 metres at Site 27, however the position of proposed dwellings, their orientation, proposed overall heights and existing landscaping avoid the matters raised regarding overshadowing, overlooking and loss of light. The levels of Sites 28-33 are between 2 and 3½ metres lower than those dwellings in Ballylenaghan Avenue and benefit from boundary landscaping, both within and outside of the site to integrate them with existing dwellings. It is important to note that within the overall Ballylenaghan development this disparity of levels already exist with consecutive steps in land levels as the development rises up from the Saintfield Road.

. The proposal is contrary to Policy QD1 as it will not create a quality and sustainable residential environment due to its proximity to existing dwellings. It is contended that the proposal in relation to Policy QD1 has been fully considered in the above assessment and that it will not impact upon the residential environment of existing dwellings.

. Concern about increased traffic and the provision of the signalised traffic junction adding to traffic issues. DfI Roads has considered the implementation of a signalised access from Saintfield Road and does not considered it will significantly inconvenience traffic movements as a result.

. Objection to the loss of trees and the impact on natural heritage species. Clarification on the amount of tree and landscaped boundary retention was sought from the applicant. The most recent landscaping proposals show the retention of hedging and trees along the north and north west boundaries, with the exception of two trees, No’s 15 and 17. These are described in the tree survey report sheet as being Ash, between 10 and 12 metres in height and in poor condition. Loss of these trees will not impact upon natural heritage. A small number of other trees within and around the site boundaries are proposed for removal to facilitate development, again this will not significantly impact on natural heritage. The applicant has submitted an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Bat Survey Report. As indicated in Paragraph 51, NIEA Natural Heritage Division has considered there would be insignificant impacts to protected species and it is therefore contended, with the conditions suggested that this objection point has been overcome.

. Concern regarding the number of delivery lorries and visiting cars to the proposed hotel and nursing home. This application has evolved and the hotel no longer forms part of the proposal. Vehicle movements to and from the nursing home have been considered by DfI Roads and no issues of concern are now raised by them.

. Impact on drainage and sewerage. The applicant submitted a drainage assessment, this is to the satisfaction of Rivers Agency. NI Water confirm there is available capacity for this proposal and offer no objections.

Conclusion

54. Having considered all submitted information, consultation responses and representations received, it is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated an acceptable proposal that complies with Planning Policy. On this basis the following is recommended.

Recommendation

55. That permission is approved, subject to the following conditions;

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

. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site, to serve the development permitted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by NI Water.

. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out to the satisfaction of NI Water.

. Deliveries by commercial vehicles shall only be made to the nursing home hereby approved, between 0800 and 2000, Monday to Saturday and 0900 and 1800 hours on Sunday.

. Existing trees to be retained, as indicated on Drawing No. 13/B date stamped 11 October 2017 shall be retained in accordance with the details contained in the Tree Survey Report Sheet, date stamped 11 October 2017.

. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed or have its roots damaged nor shall arboriculture work or tree surgery take place on any retained tree other than in accordance with the Tree Survey Report Sheet, date stamped 11 October 2017, without the written consent of the Council.

. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within 5 years from the date of occupation of the last dwelling 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.

. The existing hedge, indicated in Yellow on Drawing No. 13/B date stamped 11th October 2017 shall be retained at a minimum height of xxx metres.

. The existing hedge, indicated in Green on Drawing No. 13/B date stamped 11th October 2017 shall be retained at a minimum height of xxx metres.

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with Drawing No. 13/B date stamped 11 October 2017 and the approved details, and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried out no later than the 1st available planting season after occupation of the last dwelling hereby approved.

. 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.

. The soft landscaping works shall be maintained and managed by the Developers management company, in accordance with the Maintenance and Management Plan, date stamped 15 December 2015, over the specified period and thereafter by a suitably constituted management company.

. The Children’s Play Area, as indicated on Drawing No. 02/B, date stamped 11 October 2017 03, and Drawing No’s 78 and 79, date stamped 23 May 2017, shall be constructed upon occupation of the (number to be specified in final condition prior to issuing decision) dwelling hereby approved or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The play area shall be maintained by the developer or their appointed management company, or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

. All lighting shall be directed away from the northern, southern and eastern boundaries as identified in the Bat Activity Survey report, date stamped 24 November 2016.

. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with (Reference to submitted drawing to be submitted), 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.

. The access gradients to the dwellings 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.

. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, visibility splays or access shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicant’s expense.

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

The Department hereby determines that the width, position and arrangement of the streets, and the land to be regarded as being comprised in the streets, shall be as indicated (Reference to submitted drawing to be submitted)

. 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 commenced, until the road improvements have been completed in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Department (Reference to submitted drawing to be submitted). The Department may attach to any determination a requirement under Article 3(4A) of the above Order that such works shall be carried out in accordance with an agreement under article 3 (4C).

No dwelling 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.

. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning (General Development) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, no buildings, walls or fences shall be erected, nor hedges, nor formal rows of trees grown in verges determined for adoption.

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with (Reference to submitted drawing to be submitted), to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.

Site Location Plan – Y/2009/0407/F

APPENDIX 2(a)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) – Addendum Report

Application Reference LA05/2018/1163/O

Date of Application 14 November 2018

District Electoral Area Castlereagh East

Proposal Description Site for two dwellings and two garages

Location Lands immediately adjacent to and south of 57 Ballyregan Road, Dundonald

Representations Eleven

Case Officer Grainne Rice

Recommendation APPROVAL

Background

1. This application was presented with a recommendation to approve planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 17 June 2019 (see appendix 2(b)HoS).

2. The Development Management Report sets out the officer’s assessment of this application as presented to the Committee on 17 June 2019. The report advised that the site represented a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and that the proposed development of the land for two dwellings was in keeping with the established pattern of settlement and that it would not result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside at this location.

3. Following the presentation of the application and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit. This took place on Monday 8 July 2019.

Site Visit Consideration

4. At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer outlined the extent of the proposed development and the site boundaries with the aid of the site location plan.

5. Members viewed the site context, surroundings, its topography and the proposed access point from a safe point on the opposite side of the road.

6. Both the Head of Service for Planning and Capital Development and the Principal Planning Officer provided clarification in relation to proposed access arrangements and the extent of the proposed visibility splays.

7. Advice provided by DfI Roads in relation to the extent of the visibility splays was detailed. It was also advised that a 1:500 plan showing splays of 2 metres x 60 metres should be conditioned as being required as part of any reserved matters application.

8. Further comments provided by DfI Roads would be made available to Members when the application was presented back to the Committee.

9. Members observed the volume of traffic using the road at the time of the visit.

10. Members viewed the site context and surroundings from a safe point opposite the existing NI Water pumping station. The dwellings and other buildings forming part of the assessment of the substantial and continuously built up frontage were noted.

11. At the request of Members, the Head of Service for Planning and Capital Development provided clarification on the planning policy context associated with Policy CTY 8.

Recommendation

12. It is recommended that the clarification provided during the site visit be used to assist Members with the decision making process.

13. The content of this addendum report should be read in conjunction with the initial case officer’s report.

14. The officer’s recommendation to approve remains unchanged and no further update is required in respect of the detail of the original planning report.

Reasons

15. The following conditions are recommended:

the development, hereby permitted, shall be begun by whichever is the later of the following dates:-

(i) the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission; or (ii) the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: Time Limit

. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matter"), shall be obtained from the Council, in writing, before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Council to consider in detail the proposed development of the site.

. A plan at 1:500 scale (minimum) shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters application showing the access to be constructed in accordance with the attached form RS1. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, sight visibility splays or access shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicant’s expense. Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The ridge height of the dwellings shall not exceed 5.8 metres from their finished floor levels and under-building shall not exceed 0.35m at any point above the existing ground level within the footprint of the building. Any application for approval of reserved matters shall incorporate plans and sections indicating existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels, all in relation to a known datum point. Reason: To ensure the development is not prominent in the landscape.

. 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 within 7 days. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until all new boundaries have been defined by a timber post and wire fence with a native species hedgerow/trees and shrubs of mixed woodland species planted on the inside. Reason: To ensure the proposal is in keeping with the character of the rural area.

. During the first available planting season after the occupation of the dwellings, a hawthorn/natural species hedge shall be planted in a double

staggered row 200mm apart, at 450 mm spacing, 500 mm to the rear of the sight splays along the front boundary of the site. Reason: To ensure the amenity afforded by existing hedges is maintained.

. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in writing. The scheme of planting as finally approved shall be carried out during the first planting season after the dwelling is occupied. 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 the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/1163/O

APPENDIX 2(b)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 17 June 2019 Meeting Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/1163/O

Date of Application 14 November 2018

District Electoral Area Castlereagh East Site for two dwellings and two garages in Proposal Description compliance with CTY8 of PPS21

Location Lands immediately adjacent to and south of No 57 Ballyregan Road, Dundonald

Representations Eleven

Case Officer Grainne Rice

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local application. The application is presented to the Planning Committee in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that it has been Called In.

2. It is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is contended that the site is a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and the proposed development of the land for two dwellings is in keeping with the established pattern of settlement and will not result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside at this location.

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The proposed site is located to the east of Ballyregan Road, Dundonald. The topography of the site slopes upwards in a northerly direction.

4. The proposed site is defined by a two metre high hedgerow and mature trees to the north, west and south. The boundary to the east if undefined.

5. To the north and adjoining the proposed site is 57 Ballyegan Road which is a two storey dwelling.

6. To the south and adjoining the proposed site is a NI Water pumping station and control building. To the south and adjoining the pumping station is 51 Ballyregan Road a single storey dwelling and associated double garage.

Proposed Development

7. The application is for a site for two dwellings and two garages in compliance with CTY8 of PPS21.

Relevant Planning History

8. There is no planning history associated with the application site.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 . Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

Consultations

10. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response Transport NI No objection, subject to conditions Environmental Health No objection Water Management Unit No objection NI Water No objection NIEA Natural Environment No objection Division

Representations

11. Eleven representations were received in opposition to the proposed development. The following issues were raised:

. prejudice the safety and convenience of road users . unduly prominent . does not fall within a substantial and built up frontage and would create a ribbon of development . erosion of the countryside . change the rural character of the area and is an important visual break . loss of privacy to neighbouring properties . land Ownership Challenge

Consideration and Assessment

12. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Ribbon Development - Integration and Design - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking

Local Development Plan

13. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

14. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan 2001 (LAP) is now the statutory development plan for the area with draft BMAP remaining a material consideration.

15. The site lies within the open countryside within the BUAP Belfast Urban Area Plan 2001 and draft BMAP 2015. The proposed site is located within an area of high scenic value within the Craigantlet Escarpment Area of High Scenic Value within draft BMAP.

Principle of Development

16. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the plan strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transition period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing and retained documents and guidance will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under 3

transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

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

18. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

19. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Traditions – A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside.

20. The application proposes two houses in the countryside and as there is no distinguishable difference between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

21. Policy CTY1 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of development types which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

22. The policy makes reference to a number of circumstances when planning permission will be granted for individual dwelling houses in the countryside. This application is for an infill dwelling and garage and falls to be assessed against the tests associated with policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development.

Ribbon Development

23. Paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS deals with infill/ribbon development. It states that provision should be made for the development of a small gap site in an otherwise substantial and continuous built up frontage. Planning Permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

24. Policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development states that Planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

25. An exception will be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements.

26. For the purposes of this policy the definition of a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

27. The proposed site comprises a rectangular plot cut out of the frontage of an agricultural field. To the north and adjoining the proposed site is No. 57 Ballyregan Road, a two storey dwelling. To the south and adjoining the proposed site is a NI Water pumping station and control building. To the south and adjoining the pumping station is No. 51 Ballyregan Road a single storey dwelling and associated garage.

28. It is considered that the line of existing buildings comprising the dwelling at 57 Ballyegan Road and beyond this the NI Water control building and beyond this the dwelling and garage at No. 51 Ballyregan Road constitutes a line of 3 or more buildings with a common road frontage.

29. Justification and amplification of policy CTY 8 advises at paragraph 5.33 that a ribbon does not necessarily have to be served by individual accesses nor have a continuous or uniform building line. It also states that buildings sited back, staggered at right angles and with gaps between them can still represent ribbon development, if they have a common frontage or they are visually linked.

30. Within this context, it is accepted that the proposed site represents a suitable gap within the existing roadside development along Ballyregan Road sufficient to accommodate up to a maximum of two dwellings within a substantially and continuously built up and common frontage.

31. The proposed site has a frontage of approximately 125 metres. The frontage associated with 57 Ballyregan Road measures 70 metres and 51 Ballyregan Road has a frontage of 60 metres. While not a domestic residential plot he NI Water building(s) have a frontage of 60 metres.

32. The two dwellings proposed will respect the existing pattern of development with an average frontage of 62 metres. The depth of the plots are equivalent in depth and the size, scale and siting of existing buildings found in the immediate context of the size. The established pattern of settlement is followed.

33. It is contended that the proposed development meets the policy tests associated with Policy CTY 8 and as such, represents an exception within the context of Policy CTY 1.

Integration and Design

34. Policy CTY 13 – Integration and Design of Buildings states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where is can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape.

35. Due to the existing build-up of development either side of the site, it is considered that two dwellings on this site would not appear unduly prominent within the landscape when travelling in both directions along the road frontage.

36. This is an outline application and no details of the design have been provided. Due to the sloping nature of the site it is recommended that a condition is applied to any to ensure that the reserved matters application includes plans and sections to indicate existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels. The drawings must also indicate the location, height and materials of any proposed retaining walls.

37. The inclusion of appropriate landscaping conditions are also recommended to ensure that the existing natural screenings of the site to be retained and a scheme of compensatory planting to ensure the proposal is in keeping with the character of the rural area.

38. All new boundaries are to be defined by a timber post and wire fence with a native species hedgerow/trees and shrubs of mixed woodland species planted on the inside. This will ensure the proposal is in keeping with the character of the rural area.

Rural Character

39. Policy CTY14 – Rural Character states planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause detrimental change to or further erode the rural character of an area.

40. The site is open and there are critical views of the site. There is one number 2 storey dwelling directly north of the site and the dwellings on opposite side of road including 51 Ballyregan Road are modest single storey bungalows. Given this context, it is considered that two storey dwellings would not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

41. A ridge height restriction not exceeding 5.8 metres in height will ensure that the proposed development would not be unduly prominent in the landscape nor will it have an unacceptable adverse impact on the rural character of this area.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage

42. Policy CTY 16 - Development relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

43. The P1 form indicates that foul sewage will be disposed via a septic tank. As the application is for outline permission, no details are provided with regards to the positioning of a proposed septic tank(s) and soakaway. However both Water Management Unit and Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections in principle.

44. Environmental Health have requested a detailed site plan which includes the location of the proposed dwellings, the septic tank/bio-disc and the area of subsoil irrigation for the disposal of effluent. They advise that the drawing should also include the position of the septic tank and soakaway for any other relevant adjacent dwelling.

Access, Movement and Parking

45. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out polices to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.

46. DfI Roads has considered the detail associated with the application and has offered no objection on the grounds of road safety or traffic impact.

Consideration of Representations

47. Consideration of the issues raised by way of third party representation are set out below:

Prejudice the safety and convenience of road users

48. In consideration to the specific comments made regarding road safety. DfI Roads have been consulted and do not raise any objection in principle subject to appropriate conditions and informatives. The proposal is compliant with Policy AMP 1 and AMP 2 of PPS 3 Access Movement and Parking.

Unduly prominent

49. In relation to the concerns raised about prominence, this is an outline planning application and appropriate conditions can be used to mitigate any adverse impact on the rural character of this location by reason of undue prominence.

Does not fall within a substantial and built up frontage and would create a ribbon of development

50. Whilst representations express the view that the proposed site does not lie within a built up frontage, it is considered that the proposed site represents a suitable gap within the existing roadside development along Ballyregan Road for the reasons set out in the assessment of policy.

Erosion of the countryside/Change to rural Character

51. The view was expressed that the proposal would change the rural character of the area and the site represents an important visual break.

52. As explained above, due to the existing build-up of development either side of the site, it is considered that two dwellings on this site would not appear unduly prominent within the landscape when travelling in both directions along the road frontage.

53. The buildings will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the rural character at this location for the reasons set out in the assessment of policy.

Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties

54. The general layout and arrangement are subject to further consideration at the Reserved Matters stage of the process. In broad terms however the plot size for each dwelling is large enough to mitigate any impact on the neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or dominance.

Land Ownership Challenge

55. A challenge was made to the ownership of the land. An amended P1 was submitted signed certificate C in respect of land which is owned by NI Water. This amended certificate was re advertised and the third party objectors notified.

56. It is not necessary for an applicant for planning permission to own or control the application site or all parts of it. The grant of planning permission does not give confer title over the land and it is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to ensure that he controls all the lands necessary to discharge any conditions and implement the planning permission.

Conclusions

57. Based on careful consideration of all the relevant material planning considerations, it is considered that the site is a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and the proposed development of the land for two dwellings is in keeping with the established pattern of settlement and will not result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside at this location.

Recommendation

58. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Reasons

59. The following conditions are recommended:

. As required by Section 62 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 , application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Council within 3 years of the date on which this permission is granted and the development, hereby permitted, shall be begun by whichever is the later of the following dates:- (i) the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission; or (ii) the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: Time Limit

. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site 8

(hereinafter called "the reserved matter"), shall be obtained from the Council, in writing, before any development is commenced. Reason: To enable the Council to consider in detail the proposed development of the site.

. During the first available planting season after the occupation of the dwellings, a hawthorn/natural species hedge shall be planted in a double staggered row 200mm apart, at 450 mm spacing, 500 mm to the rear of the sight splays along the front boundary of the site. Reason: To ensure the amenity afforded by existing hedges is maintained.

9 replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/1163/O

APPENDIX 3(a)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) - Addendum

Application Reference LA05/2016/1121/F

Date of Application 10 November 2016

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description Erection of one two-storey dwelling for residential use

Location Site beside 24 Beechdene Park, Lisburn, BT28 3LU

Representations 85

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application was presented with a recommendation to approve planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 17June 2019 (see appendix 3(b)HoS).

2. The development management report sets out the detail of the officer’s assessment of this application. This was presented to the Committee on 17 June 2019.

3. The report advised that the detailed layout and design of the proposed dwelling would create a quality residential environment. It advised that it would not impact adversely on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

4. It explained that there was a previous history of approval for a dwelling at this site and that the planning policy context remains largely unchanged.

5. The report set out the reasons why the proposed development of the land was acceptable in principle. The advice was that this is a sustainable location for

housing and the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling consistent with other similarly sized plots in the immediate visual context of the site.

6. DfI Roads offered no objection to scheme as presented from a road safety or traffic impact perspective.

7. That said, following the presentation of the application and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred to allow for further information and clarification to be received from DfI Roads.

Further Clarification

8. In light of the concerns expressed by Members in respect of the relationship between the operation of the turning head and the provision of parking within the curtilage of the site, further advice was sought from DfI Roads.

9. In a response received on 21 June 2019, DfI Roads explained that the guidance set out in paragraph 20.27 of Creating Places states that provision should be made to allow vehicles to reverse and exit in forward gear from driveways accessing onto carriageways serving more than around 200 dwellings, except where these are designed to a target maximum speed of 20mph.

10. In this case, Beechdene Park access road serves 31 dwellings, therefore the guidance which provides for vehicles to reverse and exit in forward gear from driveways does not apply. That said, there is scope within the curtilage of the site to allow for turning if required for one vehicle.

11. If both spaces are occupied, there is no road safety or adverse traffic impact caused as a result of reversing onto Beechdene Park. This is the existing arrangement for the other properties.

12. DfI Roads also maintain the view that the proposed access for in-curtilage parking for both dwellings via Beechdene Park does not impinge on the existing arrangement at this end of the cul-de-sac and that the operation of the new driveways will not impede the movement of vehicles entering or leaving the existing adjacent driveways on the street.

13. They also advised that there is adequate space along Beechdene Park for other drivers to park and that there is no need to park within the turning head.

14. That said, the shape of the existing turning head which is not of a standard design, should still not impede the ability of other road users to turn within this space should cars be parked there.

Recommendation

15. It is recommended that the further information and clarification received from DfI Roads is used to assist Members with the decision making process. 2

16. The content of this addendum report should be read in conjunction with the original case officer report.

17. The officer’s recommendation to approve remains unchanged and no further update is required in respect of the original planning report.

Condition(s)

18. The following conditions are recommended:

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

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

. The vehicular access, including any visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 02C, bearing the date stamp 15 February 2019, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

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

. The access 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 or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway.

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

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved Drawing No. 02C, bearing date stamp 15 February 2019 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, sight visibility splays, forward sight lines or access shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicant’s expense.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practise. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the dwelling.

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/1121/F

APPENDIX 3(b)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 17 June 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2016/1121/F

Date of Application 10 November 2016

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description Erection of one two-storey dwelling for residential use

Location Site beside 24 Beechdene Park, Lisburn, BT28 3LU

Representations 85

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local application. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation in that it has been Called In.

2. This application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as the detailed layout and detailed design of the proposed dwelling will create a quality residential environment and will not impact adversely on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

3. There is a previously history of approval for a dwelling at this site. The policy context remains largely unchanged and the proposed development of the land is acceptable in principle as this is a sustainable location for housing and the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling consistent with other similarly sized plots in the immediate visual context of the site.

Description of Site and Surroundings

4. The site is located to the west of Duncans Road and south east of Beechdene Park. The site slopes from east to west from Beechdene towards Duncans Road and the topography of the site is undulating throughout.

5. The site is currently undeveloped and its northern and eastern boundaries are undefined.

6. The north western boundary is defined by a wooden panel fence and abuts the turning head in Beechdene Park. The south western boundary is defined by a wooden fence on top of a bank of earth. The south western boundary abuts 24 Beechdene Park.

7. The site is situated within an established residential neighbourhood comprised mainly of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Thiepval Barracks is on the opposite side of Duncans Road.

Proposed Development

8. The application is for full planning permission for the erection of one two-storey dwelling.

Relevant Planning History

9. The following is the associated planning history of the site:

Application Site Address Proposal Decision Reference S/1996/0875 Adjacent to 24 2 dwellings Permission Beechdene Park Granted 27/05/1998 S/1993/0823 Adjacent to 24 Dwelling and Permission Beechdene Park garage Granted 15/12/1993 S/2001/0256/O Adjacent to 24 Site for 2 Permission Beechdene Park dwellings (renewal Granted of 12/04/2001 outline permission S/1996/0875) S/2001/0632/F Beside 24 Erection of 2 two Permission Beechdene Park storey dwellings Granted 27/07/2007 LA05/2018/0960/F Site adjacent to New dwelling Application 44 Duncan's Pending Road

Planning Policy Context

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

. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2) : Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7): Quality Residential Environments . PPS 7 (Addendum): Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas . Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15): Planning and Flood Risk . Creating Places . DCAN 8

Consultations

11. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response DfI Roads No objection. Conditions and informatives provided. LCCC Environmental Health No Objection. NI Water No Objection. DAERA Water Management No specific comment other than standing advice. Unit

Representations

12. Eighty Five letters of objection have been submitted in respect of the proposal. The following issues have been raised:

. Opening of a driveway from Beechdene Park . Fence at Beechdene Park has been opened up illegally . Main sewer would appear to run through the site . Impact of construction vehicles . Inaccurate drawings . Condition of the road way in Beechdene Park. . Design is unsuitable/Risk of structural problems . Neglected Site 3

. Removal of Trees . Retaining Walls . Turning/Manoeuvring of Vehicles . Safety of Children . Not in keeping with Existing Character . Overdevelopment of the Site. . Application submitted for the adjacent site . Inaccurate P1 form . The photo montage is misleading. . Relationship with the immediate surroundings. . Environmental Impact Assessment . Planning Policy Statement 8 . Planning Policy Statement 7 . Planning Policy Statement 3 . Access to correspondence/information and strategic planning policies . Impact of Excavation works . Health and Safety Insurances . Noise, disturbance, loss of privacy, loss of space . Additional traffic problems . Visual impact. . Contingency Plans if works not completed . Amended Drawings . Plot Sizes . Limited Amenity

Consideration and Assessment

13. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Quality Residential Environments - Impact on Character of Area - Layout / Design / Materials - Residential Amenity - Provision of Open Space/Landscaping . Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas - Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity . Access, Movement and Parking . Flooding . Natural Heritage Interests

Local Development Plan 14. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

15. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 had in its entirety not been lawfully adopted.

16. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however, draft BMAP remains a material consideration.

17. The application site is located within the Settlement Development Limit of Lisburn in both the Lisburn Area Plan and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan.

Principle of Development

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

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

20. The SPPS states that the policy approach must be to facilitate and promote more sustainable housing development within existing urban areas and the provision of mixed housing development with homes in a range of sizes and tenures.

21. It also states that good design identifies and makes positive uses of the assets of a site and the characteristics of its surroundings to determine the most appropriate form of development.

22. Strategic policy states that the key to successful place-making is the relationship between different buildings; the relationship between buildings and streets etc. and that the compatibility of a development with its immediate and wider context, and the settlement pattern of a particular area are important considerations.

23. Having considered the content of both the SPPS and the retained policies at, QD1 of PPS 7 and LC 1 of the second addendum to PPS 7 no distinguishable differences are found that should be reconciled in favour of the SPPS.

24. The planning history is also a consideration to be weighed in the decision making process and it is noted that the principle of development is previously conceded with a long history of approval for two dwellings at this location.

25. The regional policy context in respect of policy QD1 of PPS7 remains unchanged and significant material weight is attached to the fact that it was previously accepted that this land could accommodate at least one dwelling.

Quality Residential Environments

26. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments.

27. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. 28. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

29. Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7 - Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity states that in established residential areas a key consideration is to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and that the development is in harmony with the local character of the established residential area.

30. The following are criteria of Policy QD1 of PPS 7 to ensure compliance with Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7.

Impact on Character of Area

31. The plot size and general layout and arrangements of the buildings are comparable to others found in the local vicinity of the site.

32. The immediate area is comprised predominately of semi-detached and detached dwellings set in medium sized plots with in curtilage parking.

33. Whilst a detached dwelling is proposed in a street comprised of semi-detached dwelling the scale and massing of the block would not appear to be out of character within the established residential area.

34. The applicant has had due regard to the site context in developing the detail of the design including the topography of the site and the dominant view of the rear elevation of the building to Duncans Road.

35. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be largely in keeping with the existing dwellings in the area and the use of appropriate materials integrates the building into the site.

36. Due regard has also be taken of the vacant plot adjacent on which there is a current application (LA05/2018/0960/F) for an identical dwelling. When viewed together these dwellings will reinforce the established the character of the area

and will make a positive contribution to the visual character by closing a significant and unsightly gap along the Duncans Road and enclosing the cul de sac at Beechdene Park.

37. Policy LC 1 has been complied with in that the density is considered to be consistent with the density in the surrounding established area.

Layout/Design/Materials

38. The proposed dwelling and its layout is consistent with the form of housing found in the local context. The dwelling is sensitively positioned within the site, with front and rear gardens and in curtilage car parking provision that is broadly consistent with the parking standards set out in the Creating Places document.

39. The design of the dwelling draws upon the characteristics of the existing buildings and similar in character to the existing built form in terms of height, scale and massing.

40. Duncans Road is approximately 5.5 metres lower than Beechdene Park and the dwelling is designed to utilise the sloping site. The dwelling will be viewed as single storey when viewed from Beechdene Park with a ridge height of 4.8 metres and as a two-storey dwelling from Duncans Road with a ridge height of 7.8 metres.

41. The materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling include black/grey roof tiles, red brick finish and aluminium windows and PVC/Composite doors. These are considered to be acceptable for the site and context.

42. These finishes match those found on the existing dwellings in the surrounding area and the design of the buildings and proposed construction materials are acceptable and will not harm the overall character of the area.

Residential Amenity

43. The proposed dwelling presents single storey elevation to Beechdene Park. It is approximately 3.2 metres from the side elevation with 24 Beechdene Park, and the building is oriented so that views are towards the front of the site including the driveway and front garden.

44. The ridge height of the proposed dwelling is approximately 4.8 metres in height when viewed form Beechdene Park. The existing dwelling at no 24 Beechdene Park is set at a higher level than the proposed dwelling and has a ridge height of approximately 8.5 metres.

45. Two windows are proposed to the upper ground floor on the side elevation facing 24 Beechdene Park. They will serve an en-suite / bathroom and will be obscure glazing.

46. The proposed two storey elevation overlooks Duncan’s Road and beyond this is Thiepval army Barracks.

47. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not create conflict or result in unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

Provision of Open Space / Landscaping

48. The level of private amenity (measured as the garden) and illustrated in the proposed site layout plan is considered to be acceptable.

49. The landscaping drawing indicates the size of the garden proposed at approximately 140 square metres is approximately twice the recommended area set out in guidance in the Creating Places document.

50. Landscaping has been provided in the form of boundary planting. A retaining wall and fence is proposed to the northern boundary, a 1.8 metre timber fence is proposed to the southern boundary and 1.2 metre black estate railings are proposed on the eastern boundary fronting Duncans Road.

51. It is considered that the provision of private open space, and the landscaping proposed is acceptable.

Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas

52. The addendum to PPS 7 – Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas provides additional planning policies on the protection of local character, environmental quality and residential amenity within established residential areas.

Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential amenity

53. Policy LC1 – Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity states that in established residential areas planning permission will only be granted for the redevelopment of existing buildings or the infilling of vacant sites (including extended garden areas) to accommodate new housing where all of the criteria in policy QD1 of PPS 7 and all the additional criteria set out below are met:

(a) the proposed density is not significantly higher than that found in the established residential area;

54. The proposed plot size is similar to that found within the local area which demonstrates that the proposed development is in keeping with the local character/pattern of established residential area. The proposal does not result in the sub-division of an existing plot.

(b) the pattern of development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area; and

55. As demonstrated within the context of policy QD1 considerations, the proposed development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality

of the established residential area.

56. Towards the top end of Beechdene Park where the proposal is sited, the area has a mixture of character to it. It views the rear of properties and adjacent land which is currently derelict. All adjacent properties are two storey with an element of red brick. The proposal is considered that due to its location and design would not have a negative impact on the character of the area.

57. A single two storey detached dwelling is proposed where the established character comprises a two storey detached dwelling and two storey semi- detached dwellings. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in its context.

58. The associated Annex A sets out space standards against which new dwellings units should comply to ensure that adequate living conditions are provided. Space standards comprise a calculation of internal floor space area.

59. Detail submitted with the application indicates that the proposed dwelling will comprise two storeys with 3 bedrooms. Standards indicated that a typical two storey 4 person/ 3-bedroom house should be 80/85 m2. The proposed internal floor space area is 120 square metres and is considered to be acceptable.

Access, Movement and Parking

60. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking.

61. A new 3.4 metre wide access is proposed from Beechdene Park and provision is also made within the site for the parking of two vehicles.

62. Based on the advice of DfI Roads the proposal as presented is compliant with prevailing policy as set out at in PPS 3.

Natural Heritage

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

64. The application site does not have any natural heritage features that would provide habitat for any protected species and there are no features of priority habitat on the site.

Flooding and Drainage 65. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out policy to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment. The susceptibility of all land 9

to flooding is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

66. There are no watercourses within or adjacent to the application site and the rivers agency flood maps detail that the site is not located within a flood plain.

67. A drainage assessment was not required for this application and it is considered that the proposal would not cause or exacerbate flooding. 68. NIEA Water Management Unit has also considered the potential impacts of the proposed development on the water environment and on the basis of the information provided is content subject to informatives.

Consideration of Representations

69. The issues raised by way of third party representation are considered below:

Opening of a driveway from Beechdene Park

70. Concern is expressed about the opening of a driveway from Beechdene Park and that a photo montage shows that the development should have been accessed via Duncans Road.

71. Detail submitted with the application shows the dwelling being accessed from Beechdene Park. DfI considered the detail of the submission and offered no objection on the grounds of road safety or traffic impact.

Fence at Beechdene Park has been opened up illegally

72. Concern is expressed that the fence at Beechdene Park has already been opened up illegally and that hard core material has been dumped on the site.

73. From site inspection it is evident that the original fence has been replaced and that no further dumping or site works have been carried out.

Main sewer would appear to run through the site

74. The view is expressed that a main sewer would appear to run through the site.

75. NI Water and NIEA Water Management Unit have been consulted and have not raised any objection to the proposal.

Impact of construction vehicles

76. Concern is expressed in relation to the potential impact of construction vehicles on local residents.

77. The construction process would be temporary and the onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that the contractors are considerate to local neighbours during the construction phase of the process.

Inaccurate drawings

78. The view is expressed that the drawings do not reflect the true nature of the levels of the site and the under build required.

79. Amended drawings have been submitted showing the existing and proposed ground levels and as long as the development is carried out in accordance with detail of the drawings there is no reason to dispute the accuracy.

Condition of the road way in Beechdene Park

80. Reference is made to the condition of the roadway in Beechdene Park.

81. The condition of the road is not weighed as a significant material consideration in assessment of this planning application.

Design is unsuitable/Risk of structural problems

82. Concern is expressed that the proposed design is unsuitable and that the works will cause structural problems for neighbouring properties.

83. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure at the detailed design stage of the project that consideration is given to the structural adequacy of the buildings and that the interest of neighbours are protected. This is not a matter to be afforded significant material weight in the determination of the planning application.

Neglected Site

84. Concern is expressed that the site has been neglected for the past 20 years and is known as the dump.

85. The site is currently undeveloped and the proposal if implemented would be considered to be an improvement to the overall character of the area..

Removal of Trees

86. Concern is expressed that the owner has cut down trees without permission.

87. Trees without a Tree Preservation Order attached to them may be cut down at any time. The relationship between the owner of the site and the neighbours is not weighed as a significant material consideration.

Retaining Walls

88. The view is expressed that there is no mention of retaining walls being built.

89. The amended plans indicate a proposed retaining wall, the height, detail and finish of which is considered to be acceptable in planning terms.

Turning/Manoeuvring of Vehicles

90. Concern is expressed that the turning area in the cul-de-sac is very tight for vans/lorries and should these safety defences (refers to the existing fence) be weakened we could have a serious accident.

91. The extent of the existing turning area is not impacted by the proposed development and DfI Roads has not raised any objections to the proposal on the grounds of traffic impact

Safety of Children

92. Concern is expressed in relation to the safety of children with the view expressed that they play in the cul-de-sac and that it is regarded as safe place for them.

93. Questions are also asked as to whether a technical examination has been employed by local authorities to report on the road/child safety fears the traffic impact will have on Beechdene residents.

94. The addition of another residential unit in a residential area has been assessed and no road safety concerns are identified in consultation with DfI Roads

Not in keeping with Established Character

95. The view is expressed that the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties, in terms of its scale and proportions. It is also considered that this would significantly alter the fabric of the area and be detrimental to the local environment.

96. The properties within Beechdene Park are two storey red brick. At the top end of the park, adjacent to the proposed site, there are properties that face towards Duncans Road. The top end of the park where the proposal is located is a transition area between the two places and this proposal is considered to be acceptable for the site and its locality and would not have a negative impact on the character of the area.

Limited space of Landscaping

97. The view is expressed that the proposal allows for little space for landscaping and that the works would lead to overdevelopment of the site.

98. The scheme incorporates adequate landscaping and amenity for the scale of development proposed and it is not considered to be overdevelopment.

Additional application has now been submitted for the adjacent site

99. Concerns is expressed that an additional application submitted for the adjacent site to 44 Duncans Road would clearly add to residents difficulties.

100. A separate application has been submitted on the adjacent site under planning application LA05/2018/0960/F is assessed accordingly on its own merits in accordance with prevailing policy.

101. The question of the weight to be afforded to the planning history is addressed previously in this report.

Incorrect P1 Form

102. The view is expressed that the P1 form is incorrect as the site is owned by Partcon Limited which is leasehold.

103. A disputed land ownership is a civil and legal matter and it is for the developer to ensure that he has ownership/control of all lands should they proceed with the development. There is no indication of third party prejudice in this case.

Misleading photomontage

104. Representations express the view that the photo montage is misleading.

105. The submitted photo montage is for guidance only and the proposal is considered having regard to the full detail of the submission including the plans and elevations and any supporting documents.

Relationship with immediate surroundings

106. The view is expressed that the proposal does not display an appropriate relationship with the immediate surroundings.

107. The proposal is for a dwelling in an established residential area. This is considered to be an appropriate use for the land. The building is designed having regard to prevailing guidance so as to not impact adversely on the surrounding neighbouring properties.

Environmental Impact

108. Representations question whether an Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out and whether there has been any consultation with the appropriate authorities and distributed to all the residents of Beechdene Park.

109. The proposal does not meet the threshold for the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment as per The Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017.

110. Consultations have been carried out in accordance with due process and neighbour notifications have issued in accordance with legislative requirements.

Planning Policy Statement 8

111. Representations question whether PPS 8 has been considered as part of the assessment.

112. The site does not fall within the meaning of open space as set out in Annex A of PPS 8 - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation and as such, policy tests associated with PPS 8 are not relevant to this assessment.

Planning Policy Statement 7

113. Representations question whether PPS 7 has been considered as part of the assessment.

114. The proposal has been assessed against PPS 7 - Quality Residential Environments for the reasons set out above

Planning Policy Statement 3

115. Representations question whether PPS 3 has been considered as part of the assessment.

116. The proposal has been assessed against PPS 3 Access, Movement and Parking. DfI Roads has also been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal.

Access to correspondence/information and planning polices

117. Representations questioned whether residents have access to all correspondence in relation to the strategic planning policies and reports.

118. All documents are available to view on the public planning portal and the public register copy has been available to view at the planning office. Nothing is withheld in respect of the detail of the submission.

Impact of Excavations

119. Representations questioned whether an investigation has been carried out by chartered engineers to assess the impact of any excavation works on adjoining land/properties.

120. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that any site works would not have a negative impact on any neighbouring properties or residents for the reasons set out previously.

Health and Safety Insurances

121. Questions are asked as to what plans are in place in regard to health and safety and insurances for any accidents or incidents that may incur in event of building works in the vicinity of the street.

122. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that all relevant insurances are in place, for the event of any accidents during construction works for the reasons set out previously.

Noise, disturbance, loss of privacy, loss of space

123. Representations questions what assurances will be afforded to the residents that will undoubtedly affect the residential amenity of neighbours by way of noise, disturbance, loss of privacy and loss of open space.

124. The construction works are a normal part of the development process and as the duration of the construction phase is short term significant weight is not normally attached to an objection on the grounds of loss of amenity as a result of noise or disturbance from construction.

125. Environmental Health have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal. The proposal has been designed to ensure that no overlooking into neighbours private amenity space would occur and there would be no loss of privacy. The existing layout of the cul-de-sac and turning area would remain unchanged with the addition of this proposal.

Visual impact

126. Representations make reference to concerns over the visual impact of the proposal.

127. The visual impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and would not harm the local environment for the reasons set out previously.

Contingency Plans if work not completed

128. Question are raised in a number of representations as to what contingency plans are in place in the event of bankruptcy for any contractors involved in the constriction process and whether assurances can be given in that event the street is a building site causing blight on the area resulting in a devaluation of current properties in Beechdene.

129. Loss of property value is a material consideration but not something that is afforded significant determining weight in the assessment process. No evidence has been submitted to substantiate a claim that the works will result in a devaluation of the neighbouring properties.

Amended Drawings

130. The view is expressed that the amended and re-submitted drawings do not actually indicate what any of the revisions are. Any changes should be clearly identifiable and noted for all parties to see. Without this the drawings should be rejected.

131. The amended drawings can be compared to the previous drawings to ascertain the amendments. Each submitted amended drawing does not have to annotate the changes.

Plot Sizes

132. The view is expressed that the proposed building plot are not of similar size and shape to those in the surrounding locality.

133. The plot sizes are similar in nature and is considered that the proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the area for the reasons set out previously.

Limited Amenity

134. Representations express the view that the proposed garden amenity is limited for household recreational needs.

135. The proposed amenity space is above the minimum requirement and is considered acceptable for the reasons set out previously.

Conclusions

136. There is a previously history of approval for a dwelling at this site. The policy context remains largely unchanged and the proposed development of the land is acceptable in principle as this is a sustainable location for housing and the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling consistent with other similarly sized plots in the immediate visual context of the site.

137. The detailed layout, arrangement and design of the proposed dwelling will create a quality residential environment and will not impact on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

Recommendation

138. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Condition(s)

139. The following conditions are recommended:

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

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

level surface no higher than 250 mm 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 interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

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

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/1121/F

APPENDIX 4(a)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) - Addendum

Application Reference LA05/2018/0960/F

Date of Application 17/09/2018

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description New dwelling

Location Site adjacent to 44 Duncan's Road, Lisburn

Representations 67

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation APPROVAL

Background

1. This application was presented with a recommendation to approve planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 17June 2019 (see appendix 4(b)HoS).

2. The development management report sets out the detail of the officer’s assessment of this application. This was presented to the Committee on 17 June 2019.

4. It was explained that there was a previously history of approval for a dwelling at this site and that the planning policy context remains largely unchanged.

5. The report set out the reasons why the proposed development of the land was acceptable in principle. The advice was that this is a sustainable location for housing and the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling consistent with other similarly sized plots in the immediate visual context of the site.

6. DfI Roads offered no objection to scheme as presented from a road safety or traffic impact perspective.

Further Clarification

11. If both spaces are occupied there is no road safety or adverse impact caused as a result of reversing onto Beechdene Park. This is the existing arrangement for the other properties.

13. They also advised that there is adequate space along Beechdene Park for other drivers to park and that there is no need to park within the turning head.

14. That said, the shape of the existing turning head which is not of a standard design, should still not impede the ability of other road users to turn within this space should cars be parked there.

Recommendation

15. It is recommended that the further information and clarification received from DfI Roads is used to assist Members with the decision making process.

16. The content of this addendum report should be read in conjunction with the original case officer report.

17. The officer’s recommendation remains unchanged and no further update is required in respect of the detail of the original planning report.

Recommendation

18. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Condition(s)

19. The following conditions are recommended:

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

. The vehicular access, including any visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 04B, bearing the date stamp 15 February 2019, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

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

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

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved Drawing No. 04B, bearing date stamp 15 February 2019 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

. Any existing street furniture or landscaping obscuring or located within the proposed carriageway, sight visibility splays, forward sight lines or access 3

shall, after obtaining permission from the appropriate authority, be removed, relocated or adjusted at the applicant’s expense. Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/0960/F

APPENDIX 4(b)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 17 June 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/0960/F

Date of Application 17/09/2018

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description New dwelling

Location Site adjacent to 44 Duncan's Road, Lisburn

Representations 67

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local application. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation in that it has been Called In.

Description of Site and Surroundings

4. The site is located to the west of Duncans Road and south east of Beechdene Park. The site slopes from east to west from Beechdene towards Duncans road and the topography of the site is undulating throughout.

5. The site is currently undeveloped. Its northern boundary abuts the property at 44 Duncans Road and is currently undefined. The eastern boundary is also undefined.

6. The western boundary is defined by a wooden panel fence and abuts the turning head in Beechdene Park. The south western boundary is defined by a wooden fence with a bank of earth below it and it abuts property number 24 Beechdene Park.

7. The site is situated within an established residential neighbourhood comprised mainly of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Thiepval Barracks is on the opposite side of Duncans Road.

Proposed Development

8. The application is for full planning permission for the erection of one dwelling.

Relevant Planning History

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

Application Site Address Proposal Decision Reference S/1996/0875 Adjacent to 24 2no. dwellings Permission Beechdene Park Granted 27/05/1998 S/1993/0823 Adjacent to 24 Dwelling and garage Permission Beechdene Park Granted 15/12/1993 S/2001/0256/O Adjacent to 24 Site for 2 no. dwellings Permission Beechdene Park (renewal of outline Granted permission 12/04/2001 S/1996/0875) S/2001/0632/F Beside 24 Erection of 2no. two Permission Beechdene Park storey dwellings Granted 27/07/2007 LA05/2016/1121/F Site beside 24 Erection of 1no. 2 Application Beechdene Park storey dwelling for Pending residential use

Planning Policy Context

10. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2) : Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7): Quality Residential Environments . PPS 7 (Addendum): Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas . Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15): Planning and Flood Risk . Creating Places . DCAN 8

Consultations

11. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response DfI Roads No objection. Conditions and informatives provided. LCCC Environmental Health No objection. NI Water No objection. DAERA Water Management No specific comment other than standing advice. Unit

Representations

12. Sixty Seven letters of objection have been submitted raising the following concerns:

. Not in keeping with Existing Character . Overdevelopment of the Site. . Application submitted for the adjacent site . Inaccurate P1 form . The photo montage is misleading. . Relationship with the immediate surroundings. . Environmental Impact Assessment . Planning Policy Statement 8 . Planning Policy Statement 7 . Planning Policy Statement 3 . Access to correspondence/information and strategic planning policies . Impact of Excavation works . Health and Safety Insurances . Noise, disturbance, loss of privacy, loss of space . Additional traffic problems . Visual impact. . Contingency Plans if works not completed . Amended Drawings . Plot Sizes . Limited Amenity

Consideration and Assessment

13. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan Context . Principle of Development . Quality Residential Environments - Impact on Character of Area - Layout / Design / Materials - Residential Amenity - Provision of Open Space/Landscaping . Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas - Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity . Access, Movement and Parking . Flooding . Natural Heritage Interests

15. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 had in its entirety not been lawfully adopted.

16. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan (LAP) 2001 is the statutory development plan for the area, however, draft BMAP remains a material consideration.

17. The application site is located within the Settlement Development Limit of Lisburn within the Lisburn Area Plan and the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan.

Principle of Development

21. It also states that good design identifies and makes positive uses of the assets of a site and the characteristics of its surroundings to determine the most appropriate form of development.

23. Having considered the content of both the SPPS and the retained policy, QD1 of PPS 7, no distinguishable differences are found in the content of the policy that should be reconciled in favour of the SPPS.

26. The policy context is changed with the introduction of policy LC1 and this is considered as part of the assessment of the impact on the character of the established residential character of the immediate residential neighbourhood.

Quality Residential Environments

27. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments.

28. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development is a key policy test. It states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential development where it is demonstrated it will create a quality and sustainable residential environment. 29. Policy QD1 directs that the design and layout of residential development should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

30. Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7 - Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity states that in established residential areas a key consideration is to ensure that new residential schemes are sensitive in design terms to people living in existing neighbourhoods and that the development is in harmony with the local character of the established residential area.

31. The following are criteria of Policy QD1 of PPS 7 to ensure compliance with Policy LC1 of the addendum to PPS 7.

Impact on Character of Area

32. The plot size and general layout arrangements of the building is comparable to others in the local vicinity of the site.

33. The immediate area is comprised predominately of semi-detached and detached dwellings set in medium sized plots with in curtilage parking.

34. Whilst a detached dwelling is proposed in a street comprised of semi-detached dwellings, the scale and massing of the block would not appear to be out of character within the established residential area.

35. The applicant has had due regard to the site context in developing the detail of the design including the topography of the site and the dominant view of the rear elevation of the building to Duncan’s Road.

36. The proposed dwelling has been designed to be largely in keeping with the existing dwellings in the area and the use of appropriate materials integrates the building into the site.

37. Due regard is also taken of the vacant plot adjacent on which there is a current application LA05/2016/1121/F for an identical dwelling. When viewed together

these dwellings will reinforce the established character of the area and will make a positive contribution to the visual character by closing a significant and unsightly gap along Duncans Road and enclosing the cul-de-sac at Beechdene Park.

Layout/Design/Materials

39. The design of the dwelling draws upon the characteristics of the existing buildings and similar in character to the existing built form in terms of height, scale and massing.

40. Duncan’s Road is approximately 5.5 metres lower than Beechdene Park and the dwelling is designed to utilise the sloping site. The dwelling will be viewed as single storey when viewed from Beechdene Park with a ridge height of 4.8 metres and as two storey dwelling from Duncan’s Road with a ridge height of 7.8 metres.

42. These finishes match those found on the existing dwellings in the surrounding area and the design of the building and proposed construction materials are acceptable and will not harm the overall character of the area.

Residential Amenity

43. The proposed dwelling has a single storey rear elevation which is approximately 15 metres from the side elevation with number 25 Beechdene Park. The building is orientated so that views are towards the front. The dwellings is also approximately 22 metres from numbers 21/23 Beechdene Park.

44. At its closest point the proposed side elevation of the dwelling is approximately 4.5 metres from the side elevation of 44 Duncan’s Road.

45. The ridge height off the existing dwelling at 44 Duncan Road is approximately 8 metres in height, and the proposed dwelling, which will be at a lower level than the existing dwellings, will have a ridge height of approximately 7.8 metres when viewed from Duncan’s Road.

46. Two windows are proposed to the upper ground floor on the side elevation facing 44 Duncan’s Road. They will serve an en-suite / bathroom and will be obscure glazing.

47. The proposed front elevation faces Duncan’s Road and beyond this is Theipval army Barracks.

48. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not create conflict or result in unacceptable adverse effects in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

Provision of Open Space / Landscaping

49. The level of private amenity (measured as the garden) and illustrated in the proposed site layout plan is considered to be acceptable.

50. The landscaping drawing indicates the size of the garden proposed at 50 square metres which is considered to be in line with the standards specified in Creating Places document

51. Landscaping has been provided in the form of boundary treatments and planting. A retaining wall and fence is proposed to the southern boundary, an existing wall will remain on the northern boundary and 1.2 metre black estate railings are proposed on the eastern boundary fronting Duncans Road.

52. It is considered that the provision of private open space, and the landscaping proposed is acceptable.

Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas

53. The addendum to PPS 7 – Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas provides additional planning policies on the protection of local character, environmental quality and residential amenity within established residential areas.

Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity

54. Policy LC1 – Protecting Local Character, Environmental Quality and Residential Amenity states that in established residential areas planning permission will only be granted for the redevelopment of existing buildings or the infilling of vacant sites (including extended garden areas) to accommodate new housing where all of the criteria in policy QD1 of PPS 7 and all the additional criteria set out below are met:

(a) the proposed density is not significantly higher than that found in the established residential area;

55. The proposed plot size is similar to that found within the local area which demonstrates that the proposed development is in keeping with the local character/pattern of established residential area. The proposal does not result in the sub-division of an existing plot.

(b) the pattern of development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area; and

56. As demonstrated within the context of policy QD1 considerations, the proposed development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area.

57. Towards the top end of Beechdene Park where the proposal is sited, the area has a mixture of character to it. It views the rear of properties and adjacent land which is currently derelict. All adjacent properties are two storey with an element of red brick. The proposal is considered that due to its location and design would not have a negative impact on the character of the area.

58. A single two storey detached dwelling is proposed where the established character comprises a two storey detached dwelling and two storey semi- detached dwellings. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in its context.

59. The associated Annex A sets out space standards against which new dwellings units should comply to ensure that adequate living conditions are provided. Space standards comprise a calculation of internal floor space area.

60. Detail submitted with the application indicates that the proposed dwelling will comprise two storeys with 3 bedrooms. Standards indicated that a typical two storey 4 person/ 3-bedroom house should be 80/85 m2. The proposed internal floor space area is 120 square metres and is considered to be acceptable.

Access, Movement and Parking

61. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the policies for vehicular access and pedestrian access, transport assessments, the protection of transport routes and parking.

62. A new 3.6 metre wide access is proposed from Beechdene Park and provision is also made within the site for the parking of two vehicles.

63. Based on advice from DfI Roads is contended that the proposed development will not prejudice the safety and convenience of road users and that it complies with the relevant policy tests set out in PPS 3.

Natural Heritage

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

65. The application site does not have any natural heritage features that would provide habitat for any protected species and there are no features of priority habitat on the site.

Flooding and Drainage

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

67. There are no watercourses within or adjacent to the application site and the rivers agency flood maps detail that the site is not located within a flood plain.

68. A drainage assessment was not required for this application and it is considered that the proposal would not cause or exacerbate flooding.

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

Consideration of Representations

70. The issues raised by way of third party representation are considered below:

Opening of a driveway from Beechdene Park unacceptable

71. Concern is expressed about the opening of a driveway from Beechdene Park and that a photo montage shows that the development should have been accessed via Duncan’s Road.

72. Detail summited with the application shows the proposed access arrangements and this has been assessed by DfI Roads. They have no objection on the grounds of road safety or traffic impact to the dwelling being accessed from Beechdene Park.

Fence at Beechdene Park has been opened up illegally

73. Concern is expressed that the fence at Beechdene Park has already been opened up illegally and that hard-core material has been dumped on the site.

74. From site inspection it is evident that the original fence has been replaced and that no further dumping or site works have been carried out.

Main sewer would appear to run through the site

75. The view is expressed that a main sewer would appear to run through the site. NI Water and NIEA Water Management Unit have been consulted and have not raised any objections to the proposal.

Impact of construction vehicles

76. Concern is expressed in relation to the potential impact of construction vehicles on local residents.

77. The construction process would be temporary and the onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that contractors are considerable to local neighbours during the construction phases of the development.

Inaccurate drawings

78. The view is expressed that the drawings do not reflect the true nature of the levels of the site and the under build required.

79. Amended drawings have been submitted showing the existing and proposed ground levels and as long as the development is carried out in accordance with the detail of the drawings, there is no reason to dispute their accuracy.

Condition of the road way in Beechdene Park.

80. Reference is made to the condition of the roadway in Beechdene Park.

81. The condition of the road is not weighed as a significant material consideration in the assessment of this planning application.

Design is unsuitable/Risk of structural problems

82. Concern is expressed that the proposed design is unsuitable and that the works will cause structural problems for neighbouring properties.

83. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure at the detail design stage of the project that consideration is given to the structural adequacy of the building and that the interest of neighbours are protected. This is not a matter to be afforded significant material weight in the determination of the planning application.

Neglected Site

84. Concern is expressed that the site has been neglected for the past 20 years and is known as the dump.

85. The site is currently undeveloped and the proposal if implemented would be considered an improvement to the overall character of the area.

Removal of Trees

86. Concern is expressed that the owner has cut down trees without permission.

Retaining Walls

88. The view is expressed that there is no mention of retaining walls being built. The amended plans indicate a proposed retaining wall, the detail of which is considered to be acceptable.

Turning/Manoeuvring of Vehicles

89. Concern is expressed that the turning area in the cul-de-sac is very tight for vans/lorries and should these safety defences (refers to the existing fence) be weakened we could have a serious accident.

90. The extent of the existing turning area is not impacted by the proposed development and DfI Roads has not raised any objections to the proposal on the grounds of traffic impact

Safety of Children

91. Concern is expressed in relation to the safety of children with the view expressed that they play in the cul-de-sac and that it is regarded as safe place for them.

92. Questions are also asked as to whether a technical examination has been employed by local authorities to report on the road/child safety fears the traffic impact will have on Beechdene residents.

93. The addition of another residential unit in a residential area has been assessed and no road safety concerns are identified in consultation with DfI Roads.

Not in keeping with Established Character

94. The view is expressed that the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties, in terms of its scale and proportions. It is also considered that this would significantly alter the fabric of the area and be detrimental to the local environment.

95. The properties within Beechdene Park are two storey red brick. At the top end of the park, adjacent to the proposed site, there are properties that face towards Duncan’s Road. The top end of the park where the proposal is located is a transition area between the two places and this proposal is considered to be acceptable for the site and its locality and would not have a negative impact on the character of the area.

Limited space of Landscaping

96. The view is expressed that the proposal allows for little space for landscaping and that the works would lead to overdevelopment of the site.

97. The scheme incorporates adequate landscaping and amenity for the scale of development proposed and it is not considered to be overdevelopment.

Additional application has now been submitted for the adjacent site

98. Concerns is expressed that an additional application submitted for the adjacent site to 44 Duncan’s Road would clearly add to residents difficulties.

99. A separate application has been submitted on the adjacent site under planning application LA05/2016/1121/F. It will be assessed accordingly on its own merits in accordance with prevailing policy.

Incorrect P1 Form

100. The view is expressed that the P1 form is incorrect as the site is owned by Partcon Limited which is leasehold.

101. A disputed land ownership is a civil and legal matter and it is for the developer to ensure that he has ownership/control of all lands should they proceed with the development. There is no indication of third party prejudice in this case.

Misleading photomontage

102. Representations express the view that the photo montage is misleading.

103. The submitted photo montage is for guidance only and the proposal is considered having regard to the full detail of the submission including the plans and elevations and any supporting documents.

Relationship with immediate surroundings

104. The view is expressed that the proposal does not display an appropriate relationship with the immediate surroundings.

105. The proposal is for a dwelling in an established residential area. This is considered to be an appropriate use for the land. The building is designed having regard to prevailing guidance so as to not impact adversely on the surrounding neighbouring properties.

Environmental Impact

106. Representations question whether an Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out and whether there has been any consultation with the appropriate authorities and distributed to all the residents of Beechdene Park.

107. The proposal does not meet the threshold for the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment as per The Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017.

108. Consultations have been carried out in accordance with due process and neighbour notifications have issued in accordance with legislative requirements.

Planning Policy Statement 8

109. Representations question whether PPS 8 has been considered as part of the assessment.

110. The site does not fall within the meaning of open space as set out in Annex A of PPS 8 - Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation and as such, policy tests associated with PPS 8 are not relevant to this assessment.

Planning Policy Statement 7

111. Representations question whether PPS 7 has been considered as part of the assessment.

112. The proposal has been assessed against PPS 7 - Quality Residential Environments for the reasons set out above

Planning Policy Statement 3

113. Representations question whether PPS 3 has been considered as part of the assessment.

114. The proposal has been assessed against PPS 3 Access, Movement and Parking. DfI Roads has also been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal.

Access to correspondence/information and planning polices

115. Representations questioned whether residents have access to all correspondence in relation to the strategic planning policies and reports.

All documents are available to view on the public planning portal and the public register copy has been available to view at the planning office. Nothing is withheld in respect of the detail of the submission.

Impact of Excavations

116. Representations questioned whether an investigation has been carried out by chartered engineers to assess the impact of any excavation works on adjoining land/properties.

117. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that any site works would not have a negative impact on any neighbouring properties or residents for the reasons set out previously.

Health and Safety Insurances

118. Questions are asked as to what plans are in place in regard to health and safety and insurances for any accidents or incidents that may incur in event of building works in the vicinity of the street.

119. The onus is on the owner/developer to ensure that all relevant insurances are in place, for the event of any accidents during construction works for the reasons set out previously.

Noise, disturbance, loss of privacy, loss of space

120. Representations questions what assurances will be afforded to the residents that will undoubtedly affect the residential amenity of neighbours by way of noise, disturbance, loss of privacy and loss of open space.

121. The construction works are a normal part of the development process and as the duration of the construction phase is short term significant weight is not normally attached to an objection on the grounds of loss of amenity as a result of noise or disturbance from construction.

122. Environmental Health have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal. The proposal has been designed to ensure that no overlooking into neighbours private amenity space would occur and there would be no loss of privacy. The existing layout of the cul-de-sac and turning area would remain unchanged with the addition of this proposal.

Visual impact

123. Representations make reference to concerns over the visual impact of the proposal.

124. The visual impact of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and would not harm the local environment for the reasons set out previously.

Contingency Plans if work not completed

125. Question are raised in a number of representations as to what contingency plans are in place in the event of bankruptcy for any contractors involved in the construction process and whether assurances can be given in that event the street is a building site causing blight on the area resulting in a devaluation of current properties in Beechdene.

126. Loss of property value is a material consideration but not something that is afforded significant determining weight in the assessment process. No evidence has been submitted to substantiate a claim that the works will result in a devaluation of the neighbouring properties.

Amended Drawings

127. The view is expressed that the amended and re-submitted drawings do not actually indicate what any of the revisions are. Any changes should be clearly identifiable and noted for all parties to see. Without this the drawings should be rejected.

128. The amended drawings can be compared to the previous drawings to ascertain the amendments. Each submitted amended drawing does not have to annotate

the changes.

Plot Sizes

129. The view is expressed that the proposed building plot are not of similar size and shape to those in the surrounding locality.

130. The plot sizes are similar in nature and is considered that the proposal will not be detrimental to the character of the area for the reasons set out previously.

Limited Amenity

131. Representations express the view that the proposed garden amenity is limited for household recreational needs.

132. The proposed amenity space is above the minimum requirement and is considered acceptable for the reasons set out previously.

Conclusions

133. It is considered that detailed layout and detailed design of the proposed dwelling will create a quality residential environment and will not impact adversely on the character of the area or have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of existing residents by reason of overlooking or dominance.

134. There is a previously history of approval for a dwelling at this site. The policy context remains largely unchanged and the proposed development of the land is acceptable in principle as this is a sustainable location for housing and the plot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling consistent with other similarly sized plots in the immediate visual context of the site.

Recommendation

135. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Condition(s)

136. The following conditions are recommended:

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

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

other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

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

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

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/0960/F

APPENDIX 5(a)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In) – Addendum Report

Application Reference LA05/2018/1094/F

Date of Application 25 October 2018

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm

Location 100 metres east of 88 Steps Road, Donaghcloney

Representations None

Case Officer Richard McMullan

Recommendation REFUSAL

Background

1. This application was presented with a recommendation to refuse planning permission to the Planning Committee on the 1 July 2019 (see appendix 5(b)HoS).

2. The initial report advised that the proposed dwelling would not be visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm. Furthermore, it had not been demonstrated that health and safety reasons or verifiable plans existed to expand the farm business at the existing building group to justify an alternative site not visually linked with an established group of building on the farm. It was also advised that the development when read with the existing built development would create a ribbon of development which would cause a detrimental change to the rural character at this location.

3. It was also considered that the proposed road frontage site lacked long established boundaries and as such, was unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape. The use of new landscaping for integration would be required.

4. Following the presentation of the application and at the request of Members, it was agreed that the application be deferred for a site visit. This took place on Monday 8 July 2019.

Site Visit Consideration

5. At the request of the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer with the aid of the site layout plan outlined the extent of the application site and its boundaries.

6. Members viewed the immediate site context, surroundings, its topography and the proposed access point. The location of the poultry buildings to the east and the extent of the existing farm complex to the west on the other side of the road were noted.

7. The Head of Service for Planning and Capital Development provided clarification in relation to the minimum distances from the surrounding road network an agricultural building would have to be sited to be agricultural permitted development.

8. Members moved into the working farm complex to observe the extent of ongoing works that were being carried out by the applicant to alleviate surface water flooding within the principle group of farm buildings.

Consideration of Additional Information

7. Additional information was submitted by the Agent in support of the application electronically on 5 July 2019. The information consisted of a letter from the applicant explaining the operation of his farm business and his intention to build an agricultural storage shed on lands adjacent to the proposed site.

8. The agent expressed the view that this submission constituted verifiable plans to expand the farm business thus justifying the proposed site away from the group of existing farm buildings.

9. The letter from the applicant details that the farm yard is currently operating over three separate yards, milking 350 cows and rearing 300+ young stock with also two poultry houses facilitating 70,000 birds. It explains that over the past 5 years the applicant has expanded the home yard to cater for all the milking cows on the one platform and that a new milking parlour has recently been completed.

10. It makes reference to building work having commenced for further milk cow accommodation so that all cows can be milked through the one parlour rather than two different yards.

11. Completion of this work involved the demolition of a meal shed on the farm to build another cow shed to accommodate the entire herd.

12. The applicant makes reference to their intention to build a replacement meal shed and general purpose store adjacent to the proposed site. Currently meal is stored outside and tipped regularly to try and avoid contamination from wildlife and also the weather.

13. In this instance, the intention to build a shed would not be considered a verifiable plan as no Certificate of Lawful Development nor has a formal planning application been submitted to the Council for determination.

14. The applicant expresses the view that locating their future home away from the crossroads substantially reduces the dangers of the busy crossroads due to the house not obstructing the public views for pulling out and entering the road which runs beside the farm and has a considerable accident history.

15. It is however contended that the position of any dwelling closer to the crossroads could be set far enough back so as not to cause any obstruction to visibility. As such, limited weight is attached to the view expressed in this regard.

16. The applicant also feels that being closer to the farm would be very dangerous for children should he have a family sometime in the future.

17. In relation to the view expressed in this regard, it is noted that the main farm dwelling is located within the group of main buildings and that planning policy dictates that new dwellings should be sited to cluster with an existing group of buildings on the farm.

18. An unsubstantiated claim that there may be issues of noise and odour associated with living next to a working farm would not be sufficient to justify departure from policy. Accepting such a view would set an unwelcomed precedent for other applicants who express a desire to site farm dwellings away from the existing group of buildings on the farm.

19. A red line location plan and indicative site plan with elevations have been submitted in electronic form to show the proposed shed.

20. Paragraph 5.42 of the justification and amplification section of policy CTY10 it states that where an alternative site is proposed under criteria (c) which is removed from existing buildings on the farm, the applicant will be required to submit appropriate and demonstrable evidence from a competent and independent authority such as the Health and Safety Executive or Environmental Health Department of the local Council to justify the siting.

21. Evidence relating to the future expansion of the farm business may include valid planning permissions, building control approvals or contractual obligations to supply farm produce. No new evidence of this type is submitted with the application. No different weight is attached to the additional supporting evidence in this respect.

22. In addition and from a preliminary review of the drawings and detail submitted electronically, the ground area for proposed shed and area of hardstanding, far exceeds the 500 square metres area allowed within agricultural permitted development rights.

23. For something of this nature and scale, there is a reasonable expectation planning permission would be required and that such an application would need to be accompanied by a drainage assessment. Furthermore, the nature of the access required for vehicular traffic associated with the agricultural activities would in itself require the submission of a formal planning application.

24. On the basis of the information provided, and without prejudice to any application(s) that may come forward, no weight is attached to a potential shed being erected as a verifiable plan without the necessary permission being in place.

25. Issues relating to flooding are also referenced by the applicant to demonstrate that there is no alternative site available. It was explained by the applicant that measures to mitigate the risk of surface water flooding from an undersized pipe are being incorporated into the design of the new farm buildings in the yard. No weight is attached to the flooding argument for the need to expand the farm onto the opposite site of the road.

26. The volume of meal associated with the operation of the farm was not explained by the applicant and it was not clear that a building of the scale and size allowed under permitted development would be necessary for the operation of the farm holding. This proposal has not been assessed on its own merits as there is no Certificate of Lawful Development or planning application in front of the Council. No substantive weight is attached to this argument and the advice is unchanged.

27. The applicant also makes comment that it is important that their house is not build on top of the farm with the increasing reports of rising ammonia levels, emissions, noise and odours which can contribute to negative impacts on health in years to come. These are matters of good operation and practice and no verifiable information is submitted to support this argument for the reasons set out above.

Recommendation

28. It is recommended that the clarification provided during the site visit and the additional supporting information be used to assist Members with the decision making process.

29. The content of this addendum report should be read in conjunction with case officer’s report.

30. The officer’s recommendation to refuse remains unchanged and the assessment of the additional information should be read in respect of the detail of the original planning report.

Refusal Reasons

31. The following refusal reasons are recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new dwelling on a farm is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and access to the dwelling is not obtained from an existing lane; health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm; verifiable plans exist to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s) to justify an alternative site not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, add to a ribbon of development along Steps Road.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposal lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; it relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and it is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the development would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings creating a ribbon of development along Steps Road which would result in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside.

Site Location Plan - LA05/2018/1094/F

APPENDIX 5(b)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 1 July 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/1094/F

Date of Application 25 October 2018

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm

Location 100 metres east of 88 Steps Road, Donaghcloney

Representations None

Case Officer Richard McMullan

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that the application has been Called In.

3. The application is presented with a recommendation to refuse as the proposed dwelling will not be visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm.

4. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that health and safety reasons or verifiable plans exist to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s) to justify an alternative site not visually linked (or sited to cluster) with an established group of buildings on the farm.

5. The development will if permitted when read with the existing built development create a ribbon of development which will cause a detrimental change to the rural character of the area.

6. The proposed road frontage site also lacks long established natural boundaries and is therefore unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape. Instead it relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration.

Description of Site and Surroundings

7. The site is located on the northern side of the Redhill Road, Donaghcloney approximately 50 metres to the east of farm at 88 Steps Road. It consists of a rectangular plot cut out of the road frontage of an agricultural field. The site topography falls gently to the north western direction from the front to the rear of the site.

8. The northern and western boundaries of the site are undefined. The eastern boundary is defined by hedgerow interspersed with trees. The southern roadside boundary is defined by hedgerow.

9. The site is located in the open countryside where the land is primarily rural in character and mainly comprised of agricultural land and interspersed with individual houses and farms buildings.

Proposed Development

10. The application is for the erection of a two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm.

Relevant Planning History

11. There is no relevant planning history associated with the application site or the farm business under which this application has been made.

Planning Policy Context

12. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as: follows: . Lisburn Area Plan 2001; . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development; . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 - Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside

. Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside.

Consultations

13. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultees Response

Transport NI No objections

Environmental Health No objections

NI Water No objections

DAERA Natural Heritage No objections and Conservation Areas

DAERA Land, Soil and Air No objections

DAERA No objections Drainage and Water DAERA Farm business in existence for 6 years -Yes Subsidies claimed in last 6 years –Yes

Representations

14. No representations in opposition to the application have been received to date.

Consideration and Assessment

15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Dwellings on farms - Ribbon Development - Integration and Design - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage Local Development Plan

16. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

17. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.

18. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.

19. In both plans, the application site is identified in the open countryside beyond any defined settlement limit and as there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.

Principle of Development

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

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

22. Paragraph 1.2 of the SPPS states that where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy. Policy tests associated with PPS 21 are therefore relevant to the assessment of this application.

23. The aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.

24. Paragraph 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.

25. The application proposes the erection of two storey dwelling with attached double garage on a farm. As there are no distinguishable differences between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

26. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out the planning policies for development in the countryside.

27. Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of different types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

28. It states that planning permission will be granted in the countryside for dwellings on farms in accordance with Policy CTY 10.

Dwelling on a Farm

29. Policy CTY10 sets out the general criteria for dwellings on farms, policy states, planning permission will be granted for a dwelling on a farm where all of the following criteria can be met:

(a) The farm business is currently active and has been established for at least 6 years. (b) No dwellings or development opportunities out-with settlement limits have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application. This provision will only apply from 25th November 2008 and; (c) The new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and where practicable, access to the dwelling should be obtained from an existing lane. 30. Exceptionally, consideration may be given to an alternative site elsewhere on the farm, provided there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the farm or out-farm, and where there are either: . Demonstrable health and safety reasons; or . Verifiable plans to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s) 31. In such circumstances the proposed site must also meet the requirements of CTY 13 (a-f), CTY 14 and CTY 16.

32. Within the context of policy CTY 10, policy directs that planning permission granted under this policy will only be forthcoming once every 10 years. 33. With regard to criteria (a), the Form P1C indicates that a Business ID exists and that the ID was allocated in 1993.

34. DAERA’s Countryside Management Inspectorate Branch advised that the Business ID provided has been in existence for more than 6 years and that the business has claimed Single Farm Payment or Agri Environment Scheme Payment in the last 6 years. Claims for SFP were submitted 2005-2014 and for BPS 2015-2018.

35. In light of the evidence submitted, it is considered on balance that the site falls within an active and established farm business and that criteria CTY10 (a) is met.

36. A search of planning records illustrates that no dwellings or development opportunities appear to have been sold off from the farm holding and that criteria CTY10 (b) is met

37. In relation to criteria (c), it is considered that the proposed development would not be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings within the farm holding.

38. The proposed development is approximately 61 metres to the east of the closest farm building within the applicants holding separated by a crossroads and part of a larger agricultural field. This will leave a gap of approximately 45 metres (with a frontage of approximately 30 metres) along the Red hill Road..

39. The resulting gap created between the proposed site and the existing farm buildings is large enough that the site will not be visually linked to the established group of buildings on the farm. It also removes its ability to cluster with the established group of buildings on the farm holding.

40. Information was provided by the applicant in the form of a map/site plan illustrates those areas of land adjacent to farm which are subject to surface water flooding and that there is only potential for the farm to expand on the opposite side of the crossroads.

41. The farm is not adjacent to a watercourse or in the flood plain of a watercourse. Surface water flooding is in its own right not sufficient justification for the location of the dwelling away from the principal group of buildings as the impact of surface water flooding may be mitigated with improved drainage.

42. The adjacent section of the field between the site and the farm complex adjacent is hatched and annotated as ‘available area for future expansion of the dairy farm’ with some pink shading indicating constraints on areas of potential new build.

43. The agent has indicated that the entrance to the new site has suitable visibility and is staggered from crossroads in accordance with DfI Roads guidelines, indicating that it could not of been closer due to proximity to the cross roads. The position of the access relative to the crossroads does not mean that the dwelling could not be clustered with the established group of buildings on the farm and is not sufficient justification to treat this proposal as an exception to the policy.

44. The justification and amplification of policy CTY 10 states at paragraph 5.42 that where an alternative site is proposed under criteria (c) which is removed from existing buildings on the farm, the applicant will be required to submit appropriate and demonstrable evidence from a competent and independent authority such as the Health and Safety Executive or Environmental Health Department of the local Council to justify the siting. It advises that evidence relating to the future expansion of the farm business may include valid planning permissions, building control approvals or contractual obligations to supply farm produce.

45. No demonstrable evidence from a competent authority has been submitted to justify the proposed siting. A search of Council planning records indicates that no valid planning permissions are in place relating to the future expansion of the farm business and that no building control approvals or contractual obligations have been forwarded for consideration. The requirements of criteria (c) of the policy are not met.

46. When viewed from the south from the Taughlumny Road and the north from the Clarehill Road the gap between the established group of buildings within the farm and the site is visually significant, illustrating that the site is not sited to cluster with the farm complex.

Ribbon Development

47. Policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

48. The policy justification and amplification notes that ribbon development is detrimental to the character, appearance and amenity of the countryside and that it creates and reinforces a built-up appearance to roads, footpaths and private laneways and can sterilise back-land, often hampering the planned expansion of settlements. It also advises that it can make access to farmland difficult and cause road safety problems.

49. It is considered the proposed development will create a ribbon development along this section of the Steps Road at the junction with Redhill Road.

50. Both the existing farm dwelling and its associated farm outbuildings present a frontage onto the Steps Road. The application site is located to the south east.

51. The proposed development if built would read with the existing built form, creating a gap and a ribbon of development along the Steps Road causing a detrimental change to the character of the area.

Integration and Design

52. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where

it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

53. The policy states that a new building will be deemed to be unacceptable in the following instances:

(a) it is a prominent feature in the landscape; or (b) the site lacks long established natural boundaries or is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; or (c) it relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration; or (d) ancillary works do not integrate with their surroundings; or (e) the design of the building is inappropriate for the site and its locality; or (f) it fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features which provide a backdrop; (f) it fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features which provide a backdrop (g) in the case of a proposed dwelling on a farm (see policy CTY 10) it is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on a farm.

54. This is a rectangular plot cut out of the road frontage. Two of the four boundaries are undefined and part of the existing roadside hedgerow will need to be removed to provide access to the site. As such, it is considered that the site is prominent when viewed on approach to the junction in all directions particularly as it lacks established boundaries and that the development will rely heavily on the provision of new planting to provide a suitable degree of enclosure.

55. The proposed dwelling will be two storey with a hipped roof, a T-shaped footprint with extended section providing for an integral garage.

56. The dwelling has a sub-ordinate rear return with a pitched roof. There is a front storm porch with a flat roof on the front elevation. Windows are predominately vertical in nature and chimneys straddle the ridge line. There is also a flat roofed orangery on the side of the dwelling.

57. The proposed finishes of the development are as follows; . Blue/black slates . White upvc windows with concrete cill’s . A white smooth cast render to the walls with stonework to the garage . Hardwood doors 58. Whilst the design and finishes of the proposal are considered to be acceptable within the rural context, the scale and massing of the proposed dwelling adds to its prominence which particularly concerning where the building is not to be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings within the farm holding.

Rural Character

59. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

60. As the site is not visually linked or sited to cluster with the established group of buildings within the farm holding it is considered that the addition of a dwelling on this site would add to a build-up of development within this rural landscape.

61. It is also considered that the development would result in ribbon development as a result of its separation from the established group of buildings on the farm holding and its roadside location.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage

62. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

63. The P1 Form indicates that surface water will be disposed of via a field drain. It is indicated that a septic tank is to be provided to dispose of foul sewage. The Councils Environmental Health Unit has been consulted and have offered no objection.

Access, Movement and Parking 64. PPS 3 sets out policies to ensure that any development does not create a traffic hazard.

65. The P1 form indicates that access arrangements for this development will involve the construction of a new access to a public road.

66. DFI Roads have been consulted and have responded with no objections subject to standard conditions and informatives. It is therefore contended that a safe access to the site can be provided.

Natural Heritage

67. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage sets out the policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural environment.

68. DAERA - Natural Heritage and Conservation Unit have considered the detail of associated with the application including a biodiversity checklist and have offered no objections to the application.

Conclusions

69. All relevant policy and material considerations have been assessed and it is considered that the development as proposed contrary to the requirements of policy as it is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings within the farm holding.

70. No weight is attached to the other material considerations cited by the applicant to justify the off-site location.

71. No information has been provided illustrating that health and safety reasons exist to justify the proposed siting. No information has been provided outlining that verifiable plans exist to expand the farm business at the existing building group to justify the proposed siting of the development as proposed.

72. The dwelling it is felt would result in the suburban build-up of development within the local area and create a ribbon of development along Steps Road.

Recommendation

73. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reasons

74. The following refusal reasons are recommended: . The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new dwelling on a farm is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and access to the dwelling is not obtained from an existing lane; health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm; verifiable plans exist to expand the farm business at the existing building group(s) to justify an alternative site not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that

the proposal lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; it relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and it is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

Site Location Plan - L05/2018/1094/F

APPENDIX 6HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called in)

Application Reference LA05/2018/1007/O

Date of Application 01 October 2018

District Electoral Area Killultagh

Proposal Description Dwelling for non-agricultural business enterprises Site adjacent to 25 Station Road, Upper Ballinderry, Location Lisburn

Representations None

Case Officer Brenda Ferguson

Recommendation Refusal

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. It is presented to the Committee in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Committee in that it has been ‘Called In’.

3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse as it has not been demonstrated that there is a site specific need for the proposed dwelling that makes it essential for an employee to live at the site of their work in accordance with policy CTY 7.

4. It is also considered that the proposal would, if permitted add to a ribbon of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

Description of Site and Surroundings

5. The site is located adjacent to the buildings and curtilage of 25 Station Road. It includes a portion of a neighbouring field. There is a small temporary building used as an office and a shed used for the storage of sample products.

6. The field slopes down gently towards the south west. The western boundary of the site consists of wooden fencing with high hedging in parts. The fencing runs up to the shed separating it from the rest of the field. The southern and eastern boundaries are undefined.

7. The dwelling at number 25 is a large two storey red brick property that lies to the west of the site beyond the shed and temporary building.

8. The land surrounding is rural in character and mainly in agricultural use. To the west of the application site along Station Road and Crumlin Road, there are a number of dispersed rural dwellings. There is an existing ribbon of development immediately to the west of the site.

Proposed Development

9. The application is for proposed dwelling in association with a non-agricultural business enterprises.

Relevant Planning History

10. There is no planning history pertaining to the application site.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . SPPS: Strategic Planning Policy Statement (Northern Ireland) . Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside. . Planning Policy Statement 3 : Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage.

Consultations

12. The following consultations responses were received in relation to this application.

Consultee Response Transport NI No objection subject to conditions and informative provided.

Water Management Unit Standing advice applies NI Water Statutory response

LCCC Environmental Health No objection Service Unit

Representations

13. There have been no letters of representation received in respect of this application.

Consideration and Assessment

14. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside . - Dwellings for Non-Agricultural Business Enterprises. - Ribbon Development - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage

Local Development Plan 15. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications, regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

16. On 18th May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had not been lawfully adopted.

17. As a consequence of the decision, the Belfast Urban Area Plan (2001) is now the statutory development plan for the area with the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (Draft) 2004 remaining a material consideration in the assessment of applications.

18. In both plans, the application site is identified as being within the countryside beyond and defined settlement limit. As there are no distinguishable differences in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft

BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.

Principle of Development

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

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

21. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

22. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle is considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

23. Policy CTY1 – Development in the Countryside sets out circumstances when proposals for domestic properties are in principle considered acceptable in such a rural location. It states that there are a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

24. It states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling house 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 firms employees to live at the site of their work.

25. It states that where such a need is accepted the dwelling house will need to be located beside or within the boundaries of the business enterprise and integrate with the buildings on site. Planning permission granted under this policy will be subject to a condition restricting occupation of the dwelling for the use of the business.

Dwellings for non-agricultural business enterprises

26. Policy CTY 7 - Dwellings for non-agricultural business enterprises states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling house 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.

27. The policy states, where such a need is accepted the dwelling house will need to be located beside, or within, the boundaries of the business enterprise and integrate with the buildings on the site.

28. Policy directs that any planning permission granted under this policy will be subject to a condition restricting occupation of the dwelling for the use of the business.

29. The proposal in this case is for the applicant who is due to take over the family business following his father’s retirement.

30. Paragraph 5.30 of the justification and amplification to policy CTY 7 acknowledges that established non-agricultural business enterprises, location in the countryside, may require residential accommodation. The presence of such a business is not, of itself, sufficient justification to grant permission for someone to live on the site.

31. Applicants must provide sufficient information to show that there is a site specific need which makes it essential for one of the firm’s employees to live at the site of their work, as against a general desire for a dwelling in association with the business.

32. It also advises at paragraph 5.31 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.

33. Furthermore it notes that the need to provide improved security from theft and or vandalism by having someone living on the site is unlikely on its own to warrant the granting of planning permission.

34. To satisfy the policy tests outlined above, the applicant must provide sufficient information to show that there is a site specific need for an employee to live at the site as opposed to a general desire for a dwelling in association with the business.

35. During the processing of the application additional information was requested to enable the application to be fully and properly assessed against the policy tests associated with Policy CTY 7.

36. The information submitted indicated the following:

. Hickland Agencies is a furniture business that supplies furniture to the retail shops across the island of Ireland. . The company is registered at 40 Railway Street, Lisburn however the applicant has informed the Planning Unit that the office and business are based at 25 Station Road, Ballinderry. . The applicant, advises that he is required to be at the office at 25 Station Road, 7 days a week, to deal with business queries from his customers. . He states that he needs to be beside the existing business and that due to working with a number of third parties based in other countries from different time zones, he often needs to be at his office at other unusual times outside of standard Northern Irish trading/working hours.

37. The supporting statement, explains that the applicant’s father has been working with Hickland Agencies for over 20 years at 25 Station Road.

38. It explains that his father is no longer able to continue in the business and is due to retire in October 2019. The applicant is required to take sole responsibility for the running of the business.

39. The applicant advises that a dwelling is essential to enable him to keep the family business going, as they provide goods to over 35 local furniture stores across Northern Ireland and a further 18 stores in the Republic of Ireland.

40. The applicant has acknowledged in his supporting statement that his father has been working from his home address at 25 Station Road for over 20 years and that he has been working alongside him for the past 11 years.

41. Detail submitted with the application would indicate that the current business operates out of an office/warehouse building which would appear to have been within the curtilage of number 25 Station Road. The existing dwelling is therefore ideally sited for the supervision of the business. The applicant indicates that this is not an option as his father is retiring and the two are not linked.

42. An additional supporting statement was submitted from the applicant on the 30 May 2019. In this statement, the applicant advises that he is the sole owner of the business and therefore fully responsible for the day to day running of the business. The applicant is a sole trader with no full time staff. The business cannot sustain additional staff being employed to assist with trading demands outside working hours now. Expansion may not rule this out in the future.

43. The applicant indicates that on a number of occasions he would need to be on site outside of the normal working hours, seven days a week and that genuine hardship would be caused if he was not at the business premises.

44. No evidence of substance is provided to demonstrate the applicants current work pattern nor has any information been provided to demonstrate the

frequency of any out of hour working encountered by his father to date and no evidence is submitted to demonstrate trends in deliveries. 45. The settlement of lower Ballinderry is only a short distance from the application site (approximately 1.6 miles drive) with the settlement of upper Ballinderry approximately 2.5 miles. It is therefore unclear what hardship would be caused making the short commute as and when required.

46. It is contended that the nature of the business (furniture) is such that it is unlikely to operate beyond 9pm Monday to Friday. Whilst the occasional need to take delivery of samples/furniture outside the normal working hours is noted, advanced notice of such deliveries would allow time for travel from the nearby settlements.

47. Adjustments to orders and indeed conversations with furniture providers and customers could allow for deliveries and requests for products to be made during normal working hours or by appointment only.

48. Planning appeal 2009/A0205 considered the need for a dwelling associated with an existing business. The details of this appeal are very similar to this planning application.

49. In this case, the owner had performed the role of site security supervisor for the past 27 years from his dwelling at the site but was retiring and passing the business to his son.

50. The Commission concluded that

‘the existing dwelling is within the boundaries of the commercial enterprise and is ideally sited for the supervision of the business. The question of who occupies it is an operational business matter. The appellant’s son or another of the firm’s employees or associates could occupy the dwelling and provide the required security and supervision and in this context, I consider any specific need that makes it essential for one of the firm’s employees to live at the site of their work, to be met. Policy CTY7 makes no provision for an additional dwelling to facilitate the retirement of an employee or proprietor of a business and the evidence does not establish there to now be a site specific need for a further dwelling. There is no policy support for the proposal in CTY7. Furthermore, the retirement of a business proprietor does not amount to overriding reasons why a new dwelling is essential at the appeal site as opposed to within a settlement and I conclude the proposal to run contrary to Policy CTY1.’

51. Taking evidence submitted by the applicant and the position reached through this PAC decision it is considered that the existing dwelling, at number 25, associated with the family business could be utilised by the person taking over the operation.

52. The applicant indicated that he is not able to afford accommodation in the local area and that no alternative options are available to him. No evidence is submitted however to demonstrate that Mr Hickland has attempted to secure

other accommodation within reasonable distance of his business and that a new build dwelling is the only remaining option.

53. The information submitted with the current application has not sufficiently demonstrated a site specific need for a new dwelling at this location, particularly as one associated with the business already exists on site.

Ribbon Development

54. Policy CTY 8 – Ribbon Development states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. An exception is however permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size.

55. There are three dwellings to the west of the site which all present a frontage onto the Station Road.

56. Development of this site would add to an existing ribboning along this stretch of the road which would be detrimental to the character, appearance and amenity of the countryside.

Integration and Design of Buildings

57. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

58. The topography of the proposed site slopes slightly downwards in a south westerly direction so the proposed dwelling would be located on slightly lower ground than the Station Road.

59. This said, the site lacks suitable natural boundaries to the south and east and would benefit from additional landscaping in order to aid integration. An access would be better integrated if it ran alongside the existing fence line to the west however due to the topography of the site the ancillary works will not damage rural character provided new native species planting is provided either side of the proposed access.

Rural Character

60. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

61. The policy also directs that a new building will be unacceptable where (d) it creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

62. As indicated above, the proposed development will add to an existing ribbon of development along the Station Road and as such, it will be always detrimental to the rural character of an area as it contributes to a localised sense of build- up and in doing so, will fail to respect the traditional settlement pattern of the countryside.

Development relying on Non Mains Sewerage

63. Policy CTY 16 – Development Relying on Non- Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

64. The P1 Form indicates that foul sewage is to be disposed of by means other than mains i.e. via a septic tank and that surface water will be disposed of via soakaways.

65. NI Water, Environmental Health and NIEA Water Management Unit have no objections in principle.

Natural Heritage

66. PPS 2 - Natural Heritage sets out the Departments planning policies for the protection and conservation of natural heritage interests.

67. A Biodiversity Checklist was completed by the agent which indicated there were no natural heritage concerns. The Planning Unit would confirm the conclusions to the BC following a site inspection and it is contended that there are no issues of concern.

68. With regards to the removal of vegetation to the front for the purposes of the visibility splays, standing advice would apply.

Access, Movement and Parking

69. PPS 3 – Access Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard and that any proposed development can have a safe access/egress onto the public road.

70. DfI Roads offered no objection to this development proposal subject to standard conditions. It is contended that the proposed development will not create a traffic hazard. A number of conditions and informatives have been recommended.

71. It is therefore contended that the policy requirements associated with PPS 3 can be satisfied.

Conclusions

72. Having considered the nature of the proposal against the prevailing planning policies it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a site specific need for the proposed dwelling that makes it essential for an employee to live at the site of their work in accordance with the requirements of policy CTY 7.

73. It is also considered that the proposal would, if permitted add to a ribbon of development and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

Recommendation

74. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reasons

75. The following refusal reasons are recommended.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 7 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case. in that it has not been demonstrated that there is a site specific need for the proposed dwelling that makes it essential for an employee to live at the site of their work

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the addition of ribbon development along the Station Road.

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

Site Location: LA05/2018/1007/O

APPENDIX 7HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Exceptions Apply)

Application Reference LA05/2019/0143/F

Date of Application 14 January 2019

District Electoral Area Castlereagh East

Proposal Description New dwelling and garage, in substitution for previous approvals LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F (Amended plans received)

Location 100 metre north of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South Carryduff

Representations None

Case Officer Rachel Taylor

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local application.

2. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation in that a legal agreement is required.

3. This application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is considered that the principle of a dwelling on a farm at this location in substitution for an earlier approval is acceptable.

4. Given the site is in a different location to the previously approved dwelling this recommendation is subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement (section 76 or revocation) so that only one dwelling can be built.

Description of Site and Surroundings

5. The site is located 100 metres north of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South Carryduff. It forms part of an irregular shaped group of agricultural fields which rise up gently from the road by approximately 5 metres.

6. The south western and north western boundaries are defined by mature hedging. The south eastern boundary is defined by roadside hedging and the north eastern boundary is undefined.

7. There is an existing single storey dwelling located at 19 Ballykeel Road South to the north east of the site.

8. A dwelling with ancillary buildings at 21 Ballykeel Road South lies to the south of the proposed site.

9. The surrounding area is primarily rural in character and the land is primarily in agricultural use. There are some single dwellings dotted around the landscape.

Proposed Development

10. The application as presented is a full application for a new dwelling and garage, in substitution for previous approvals LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F.

Relevant Planning History

11. Whilst there is no relevant planning history pertaining to the application site, the relevant planning history associated with this application is set out in the table below.

Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference LA05/2015/0750/O South west of and adjoining 21 Permission Granted Ballykeel Road South Carryduff 25/7/16 – new single dwelling

LA05/2018/0277/F South west of and adjoining 21 Permission Granted Ballykeel Road South – new 29/1/19 dwelling and garage

12. Planning applications LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F granted planning permission for a farm dwelling under the same farm business ID within the context of policy CTY 10 – Dwellings on Farms.

13. These permissions are still live and could be implemented. This proposal is in substitution for the permission granted under these two applications.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside

Consultations

15. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response Transport NI No objection subject to conditions

Environmental Health No Objections

NI Water Standard response

NIEA: Water No objections Management Unit DAERA The farm business is in existence for more than 6 years and the business has not claimed SFP, LFACA or Agri Environment schemes in the last 6 years

Representations

16. There have been no letters of representation received in relation to this application.

Consideration and Assessment

17. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Planning History . Sustainable Development in the Countryside

- Dwelling on a Farm - Integration and Design - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking

Local Development Plan 18. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in the making a determination on planning applications regard must be given to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

19. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.

20. As a consequence of this decision, the Belfast Urban Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.

21. In both plans, the application site is identified in the open countryside beyond any defined settlement limit and as there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.

Principle of Development

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

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

24. Paragraph 6.65 states that ‘The aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS’.

25. Paragraph 6.70 states that ‘All development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed’.

26. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition – A sustainable Design Guide for Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals within the countryside.

27. Paragraph 1.2 of the SPPS states that where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy. Policy tests associated with PPS 21 are therefore relevant to the assessment of this application.

28. The application proposes a new dwelling and garage, in substitution for previous approvals LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F and as there are no distinguishable difference between the SPPS, the application falls to be assessed against prevailing planning policies.

Planning History

29. The development is proposed in substitution for the following two planning approvals:

. LA05/2015/0750/O – Single New Dwelling southwest of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South, Carryduff; and

. LA05/2018/0277/F - New Dwelling and Garage southwest of and adjoining 21 Ballykeel Road South, Carryduff 30. In progressing LA05/2015/0750/O to a decision, it was accepted by the Planning Committee that applicant was the owner of a farm business which had been in existence for more than 6 years and whilst the DAERA response advised that the business has not submitted claims for the full previous 6 years, the Committee accepted that there was evidence of a commercial equestrian business operating within the holding as the applicant had detailed horse breeding, showing and training evidence in addition to the farm business.

31. Both these permissions accepted the principle of development of a dwelling at this location within the context of policy CTY 10 – Dwelling on a Farm and there is no reason to revisit the principle of development in assessing the current substitution application.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

32. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out the planning policies for development in the Countryside.

33. Policy CTY1 sets out those range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside. An application for an individual dwelling is acceptable in principle if it is sought under one of 6 listed cases.

34. Policy CTY 10 stipulates that planning permission granted under this policy will only be forthcoming once every 10 years. In this case, it is noted that the applicant has already secured an approval for a farm dwelling within this policy context.

35. This application is in substitution for a farm dwelling and it is noted that the new dwelling should be normally grouped with the farm building. The principal group of farm buildings are located at 21 Ballykeel Road and comprised of a dwelling and outbuilding.

36. The site is on the opposite side of the group of farm buildings and the dwelling will still read in conjunction with the buildings at 21 Ballykeel Road. Acknowledging the planning history is a material consideration and regard is given to the siting of the buildings in the context of policy CTY 10.

37. This application is submitted in substitution of the permission granted previously. The applicant has acknowledged that the rationale for amending the siting is that the relocation of the dwelling to this site will allow for better integration of a dwelling into the open countryside and consolidate the buildings in a gap without extending a ribbon of development along Ballykeel Road.

38. The red line of this current application does not incorporate the lands associated with the previously approved site and the proposed dwelling does not overlap the footprint of the dwellings previously approved.

39. That said, the lands associated with the current application are however within lands owned or controlled by the same applicant (i.e. within the blue lands). Should the siting of the building be acceptable in visual terms any approval will be subject to a legal agreement (section 76 or revocation).

40. The balance of the assessment that follows focuses on Integration and Design considerations along with potential impact on Rural Character.

Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside

41. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

42. The application site as approved under LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F adjacent and south-west of the existing dwelling at 21 Ballykeel Road South - the address to which the Farm Business ID is registered.

43. The previous approval LA05/2018/0277/F was for a development of a large 4 bedroom two storey modern designed farm dwelling with a single new access positioned along the roadside approximately 15 metres from the road. The large dwelling was grey render finished with pitched roof, substantial rear return and detached double garage.

44. The amended siting as proposed is located 100 metres north of 21 Ballykeel Road South. The dwelling would still be visually linked to the main farm dwelling/buildings as accepted previously and as such, it is considered that its re-siting to a field to the north instead of a field to the south would not result in any demonstrable harm.

45. The current application proposes a siting 60 metres back from the roadside which is significantly further back than the dwellings proposed within the context of LA05/2015/0750/O and LA05/2018/0277/F. The application also proposes an amended house type which still provides for a significant two storey 4 bedroom farm dwelling, rear return and detached garage.

46. The proposal seeks a new access to be created to the north eastern corner of the site which will be planted along both sides. A landscaping plan has been submitted detailing the planting to define the access lane, showing planting out of all boundaries with hedging.

47. Detail submitted with the proposed application shows a dwelling with a hipped roof with chimneys on the ridge, general vertical emphasis to the windows and a textured render finish with natural slate roof and painted hardwood window frames.

48. The entrance is defined with a 2 metre wall, gates and pillars and there are portions of the dwelling with red clay facing brick finish.

49. Whilst this dwelling is somewhat ornate in design and not as simple or traditional in form to that approved previously, it is considered that its location towards the rear of the site, set back from the road along with the proposed landscaping will provide adequate screening is more preferable to the previously approved roadside dwelling to the south.

50. It is also considered that the scale and massing of the proposal will be less obtrusive than the earlier approval by virtue of being set back in the site.

51. Consideration is also given to the different roof types and finishes in the locality which included hipped roof structures and red brick as is the case with the existing main farm dwelling at 21 Ballykeel Road South.

52. For these reasons, the design is generally in accordance with the requirements of the Building on Tradition document and that a reason for refusal pertaining to design alone could not be sustained. That said, it is recommended that conditions relating to retention of any existing natural screenings and provision and maintenance of existing and new planting are included to ensure that the dwelling integrates into the countryside.

Rural Character

53. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental

change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

54. It is considered that a dwelling at this location, given its set back position and proposed landscaping would not be unduly prominent in the landscape or result in a sub-urban style of build-up of development.

55. The proposed dwelling will also group with the existing buildings on the farm.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage

56. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that Planning Permission will only be granted for development relying on non- mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

57. Details are provided with regards to the positioning of the proposed sewage treatment tank and soakaway. Both Environmental Health and Water Management Unit have been consulted and they have raised no objections to the proposal.

Access, Movement and Parking

58. PPS 3 sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.

59. A new access is proposed from the Ballykeel Road South and detail submitted with the application demonstrates that the site is large enough to make provision for the parking of 3 vehicles along with space for the manoeuvring of vehicles.

60. DfI Roads were consulted on the application and have no objections to this development proposal and conditions and informatives have been provided.

Conclusions

61. Based on careful consideration of all material considerations, it is considered that the principle of a dwelling on a farm at this location in substitution for an earlier approval is acceptable.

62. Given the site is in a different location to the previously approved dwelling, this recommendation is subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement (section 76 or revocation) that only one dwelling can be built.

Recommendation

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

Conditions

64. The following conditions are recommended: . As required by section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Time limit

. The vehicular access, including any visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 05, bearing the date stamp 14 March 2019, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter

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

. The access gradient to the dwellings 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 or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway.

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

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved Drawing No. 05, bearing date stamp 14 March 2019 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

REASON: In the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other

9 recognised Codes of Practise. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the dwelling.

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

Site Location Plan - LA05/2019/0143/F

APPENDIX 8HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/0846/F

Date of Application 10 August 2018

District Electoral Area Killtulagh

Proposal Description Proposed erection of agricultural shed to quarantine livestock

Location 340 metres west of 90 Glenavy Road, Lisburn, BT28 3UX

Representations Two

Case Officer Richard McMullan

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that the application has been Called In.

3. The application is presented with a recommendation to refuse as it has not been demonstrated that the development is necessary for the efficient use of the active and established agricultural holding in accordance with policy CTY 12.

4. No persuasive evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used nor has evidence been provided to demonstrated that the proposal is sited beside existing farm buildings and that health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site away from the existing farm buildings within the holding or that the alternative site is essential for the efficient functioning of the business.

5. Also, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on priority habitats and natural heritage features worthy of protection.

6. It is also contended that the development would not visually integrate into the local landscape without the provision of additional landscaping.

Description of Site and Surroundings

7. This site is located approximately 340 metres west of number 90 Glenavy Road, Lisburn and a rectangular plot cut out of a larger agricultural field. It is also behind an existing agricultural outbuilding.

8. Access to the land is via an existing agricultural lane leading to an existing single detached agricultural building that is constructed from smooth rendered block walls with corrugated sheeting. It has a mono-pitch roof and one end of the building remains open.

9. The northern, southern and western boundaries are defined by mature hedgerows. The eastern boundary is undefined.

10. The topography of the site rises gently from the Glenavy road in a northernly direction.

11. The area surrounding is rural in character and the land mainly in agricultural lands interspersed with single dwellings and farms buildings.

Proposed Development

12. The application as presented is for the proposed erection of an agricultural shed to quarantine livestock.

Relevant Planning History

13. There are no relevant planning histories associated with the application site.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) - Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 - Natural Heritage

. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) - Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21) - Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Building on Tradition - A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside.

Consultations

15. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultees Response

DfI Roads No objections

Environmental Health No objections

DAERA Veterinary No response Service

DAERA Natural Heritage Objection/Further information required to be submitted and Conservation Areas for assessment.

Shared Environmental No response Service

DAERA No objections Drainage and Water DAERA Farm business in existence for 6 years -Yes Subsidies claimed in last 6 years -Yes Business submitted claims for SFP 2005-2014 and claims for BPS 2015-2018.

Representations

16. Two letters of representation were received from an adjacent farmer during the processing of this application. The following issues were raised: . Proximity of proposed shed to adjacent working farm . in the event of a break out of an infectious disease found in animals in the proposed development will this result in their herd/farm being closed with the same restrictions.

Consideration and Assessment

17. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Agricultural and Forestry Development - Integration and Design - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage

Local Development Plan 18. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

19. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.

20. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.

Principle of Development

and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS’.

25. Paragraph 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.

26. Paragraph 6.73 states that provision should be made for development on an active and established (for a minimum 6 years) agricultural holding or forestry enterprise where the proposal is necessary for the efficient operation of the holding or enterprise. New buildings must be sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings on the holding or enterprise. An alternative site away from existing buildings will only being acceptable in exceptional circumstances;

28. The application proposes the erection of a 2 agricultural shed to quarantine livestock. As there is no distinguishable difference between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

29. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out the planning policies for development in the countryside.

30. Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of different types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

31. It states that planning permission will be granted in the countryside for agricultural and forestry development in accordance with Policy CTY 12.

Agricultural and Forestry Development

32. Policy CTY12 - Agricultural and Forestry Development sets out the general criteria for agricultural and forestry development. The policy states, planning permission will be granted for development on an active and established agricultural or forestry holding where it is demonstrated that;

(a) it is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural or forestry enterprise; (b) in terms of character and scale it is appropriate to its location; (c) it visually integrates into the local landscape and additional landscaping is provided as necessary; (d) it will not have an adverse impact on the natural or built heritage; and

(e) it will not result in detrimental impact on the amenity of residential dwellings outside the holding or enterprise including potential problems arising from noise, smell and pollution.

33. Paragraph 5.56 of the justification and amplification to Policy CTY 12 states that for the purposes of this policy, the determining criteria for an active and established business will be that set out under Policy CTY 10.

34. DAERA’s Countryside Management Inspectorate Branch advised in a response dated 5 October 2018 that the Business ID provided has been in existence for more than 6 years and that the business has claimed Single Farm Payment or Agri Environment Scheme Payment in the last 6 years. Claims for SFP were submitted 2005-2014 and for BPS 2015-2018.

35. In light of the above, it is considered that the applicant has an active and established farm business and the first part of the test is met.

36. In respect of the balance of the policy considerations and with regard to criteria (a), the applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposal is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural enterprise. Supporting information provided 8 March 2019 outlined the following by way of justification: . the farm unit at 90 Glenavy road consists of several large buildings in use at various times throughout the year. . The farming activity includes livestock, breeding, milking and importing/exporting with facilities for winter feeding. . The proposed isolation shed will facilitate the imported restricted livestock and the isolation of sick cattle and will allow safe management away from the existing farm holding. It will allow routine testing annually. 37. A supporting letter from Lisburn Veterinary Clinic dated 6 November 2018 is included in the submission. This letter states that it is good practice to isolate new stock from the main herd for a period of time, indicating that as many livestock diseases are airborne isolation facilities need to be a considerable distance from the main herd.

38. This letter does not include any advice on the distance the quarantine building should be from the principal group of farm buildings and/or why this is a suitable location given its proximity to an existing farm building that could be used to house animals. No weight is attached to this letter.

39. The submitted drawings dated 8 August 2018 indicated that the existing open ended agricultural structure to the front is to be used as a holding pen for cattle. It is not explained why this building cannot be modified or extended for the purpose of isolating the animals.

40. Further information received from the agent dated 15 February 19 confirmed that there will be no increase in herd size and that the proposed new shed was only intended to house 2-3 cattle at a time. There is no explanation as to why the need arises now and what the arrangements were in the past.

41. It also comments that there would be no slurry holding tank required on site as dry bedding would be used and the manure collected and taken off site to the main farm slurry holding tank as required.

42. Recent documentation confirms however that the effluent collected at this facility will now be isolated and stored in the existing structure to the front (which is also identified as a holding pen for cattle) and then spread on lands as identified in an attached farm map to be rotationally grown in spring cereals in order to responsibly dispose of the manure from the quarantine facility in line with best practice.

43. Information submitted by the agent on 8 March 2019 provided evidence of the importation of a number of cattle from outside of Northern Ireland (36 heffers of which 35 were from Holland and 1 from Scotland). It explained that such imported cattle require tagging and blood testing before they can join the main herd.

44. The information outlined that in suspected cases of bovine diseases e.g. Blue Tongue, where testing needs to occur, the cattle in question will need to be isolated for 7-10 days. It advises that such animals must not be moved from the premises, must be kept housed and isolated from all other ruminants in a separate air space at the location/premises and the isolation facility must be cleansed and disinfected and pre-sprayed with a recommended insecticide etc.

45. The detail associated with the supporting information is noted. However, following an assessment of information on the DAERA website and also the British Cattle Veterinary Association (Biosecurity Advice and Cattle Purchasing Checklist) it is considered that the information provided does not illustrate that the proposal is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding.

46. This information outlines that isolation facilities for cattle do not need to be sited away from the main farm complex. The information states that isolation means no direct contact between any purchased cattle or their by-products and your own herd. It states that ideally, any purchased cattle should be housed in a separate building from your own stock. If this is not possible a distance of at least 3 metres should be maintained between purchased stock and your own cattle.

47. Purchased stock isolated at grazing should be kept in a separate field to your own stock with a gap of at least 3 metres to prevent any direct nose-to-nose contact. This distance of 3m would allow an application for a shed which is policy compliant in terms of grouping with the existing buildings on the holding.

48. Guidance on the DAERA website also states that buildings used for farm export isolation facilities must serve no purpose other than on farm export isolation and be physically separate e.g. a free standing building i.e. solid walls, no shared airspace, water supply or drainage with other animal accommodation from any buildings used for livestock.

49. It is stated that it will be possible to use these buildings for other purposes while animals are not being isolated. In turn it may therefore be possible to use one of the other buildings on the farm as an isolation pen for the infrequent periods which it is needed.

50. The supporting information submitted with the application states that there are a number of existing buildings within the main farm complex in use at various times throughout the year. It does not claim nor is it demonstrated that the existing buildings are at full capacity throughout the year.

51. No information has been provided to illustrate that the existing buildings could not be used for isolation purposes as and when required and it is noted that guidance from DAERA – Annex A ‘EIF Conditions for Approval’ illustrates that existing buildings and fields can be used when required.

52. Supporting information dated 8 Match 19 provides an inventory of the buildings within the farm complex but does not illustrate that any of them cannot be utilised when required for isolation purposes.

53. Further additional supporting information submitted 25 April 19 contains a document from Neville Graham Bachelor of Agriculture (Hons) and a set of amended plans which changes the layout of the proposed shed.

54. The letter from Mr Graham reinforces the requirement for a standalone isolation unit following best practice allowing livestock to be held in quarantine for at least 42 days.

55. It explains the size of the facilities required and the layout of feed storage area, veterinary medicines store, livestock equipment and PPE storage for the avoidance of cross contamination. It also explains that this has been designed to meet livestock welfare codes as attached to the Nitrates Action Programme and Phosphorous Regulations ‘BS 5502 part 40 – the Design of Livestock Holdings’.

56. The block plan and layout of the shed has now been amended to reflect the above layout. The agricultural shed to the south is still annotated to be used as a holding pen for cattle

57. The document confirms that the effluent collected at this facility will be isolated and stored in the existing silo to the front and then spread on lands as identified in an attached farm map to be rotationally grown in spring cereals in order to responsibly dispose of the manure from the quarantine facility in line with best practice.

58. Good design is not a justification for need for a building and little weight is attached to this evidence. DAERA is the competent authority for animal welfare and their advice is given precedence.

59. The proposed shed is to be sited beside a single building - not a group of buildings as required by policy. Whilst the requirement for an isolation facility is

not being queried, the chosen site is not policy compliant and the distance from the main farm buildings is unsupported. It has also not been demonstrated that no other buildings are capable of being used for this function in between uses.

60. Paragraph 5.54 of the justification and amplification to Policy CTY 12 states that a proposal located away from existing agricultural buildings will only be acceptable where it is shown to be essential for the efficient functioning of the holding. This part of the policy test is not met.

61. With regard to criteria (b) due to the modest size of the building (10 metres x 16 metres) and its agricultural design with open side, agricultural gates and part wall and roof cladding it is considered that the proposed building would in terms of its character and scale be visually acceptable within the surrounding rural landscape as many similar sized agricultural buildings are found within the immediate local area and this building is also located to the rear of an existing silo building.

62. With regard to criteria (c) the entire eastern boundary of the site is undefined and as a result the site would be open to public views from the west of the site. No landscaping details have been provided as part of the application. That said, the proposed development is unlikely to integrate into the local landscape without substantial landscaping.

63. With regard to criteria (d), DAERA Natural Heritage and Conservation Unit requested further information in December 2018 to enable them to provide specific advice in relation to potential impacts on designated sites.

64. The following information was requested to be submitted; . DAERA Agricultural Development Datasheet and submission of relevant documents; . Air Dispersion Modelling; and . Biodiversity checklist.

65. In a response received in February 2019 a biodiversity checklist was provided for consideration.

66. DAERA were re-consulted and in a response received on 6 March 2019 and having acknowledged the completed biodiversity checklist advised that they had no further comment to make in this regard. They did indicate that the other information requested in their initial response in relation to DAERA Agricultural Development datasheet and submission of relevant documents and details of air dispersion modelling were still required.

67. Following the assessment of the application and recommendation of refusal further information was submitted for consideration 25th April 2019. No air dispersion modelling was provided or DAERA Agricultural Development Datasheet.

68. With respect to criteria (e) LCCC Environmental Health unit have been consulted and have no objections. Consequently, it is considered that the

proposal will not result in any detrimental impacts on the amenity of residential dwellings outside of the holding including potential issues with noise, smells or pollution.

69. The policy also directs that in cases where a new building is proposed policy directs that applicants need to provide sufficient information to confirm all of the following;

. There are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used; . The design and materials to be used are sympathetic to the locality and adjacent buildings; and . The proposal is sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings.

70. Within this policy context, it is considered that no substantive evidence is submitted to demonstrate that there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the holding and that there are health and safety reasons for the proposed siting of the development away from the main farm complex.

71. Furthermore, whilst the design and materials to be used are typical of an agricultural building, its location approximately 340 metres west of the existing farm dwelling and associated outbuildings is unacceptable.

72. The policy directs that exceptionally, consideration may be given to an alternative site away from existing farm or forestry buildings, provided there are no other sites available at another group of buildings on the holding, and where:

. It is essential for the efficient functioning of the business; or . There are demonstrable health and safety reasons.

73. As indicated above, no robust evidence has been provided to justify that the proposed siting away from the main farm complex/established group of buildings is essential for the efficient functioning of the farm holding nor have been health and safety reasons for the proposed siting of the development away from the main farm complex been demonstrated.

Integration and Design

74. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

75. The policy states that a new building will be deemed to be unacceptable in the following instances:

(a) it is a prominent feature in the landscape; or

(b) the site lacks long established natural boundaries or is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; or (c) it relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration; or (d) ancillary works do not integrate with their surroundings; or (e) the design of the building is inappropriate for the site and its locality; or (f) it fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features which provide a backdrop; (f) it fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features which provide a backdrop (g) in the case of a proposed dwelling on a farm (see policy CTY 10) it is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on a farm.

76. The proposed building is enclosed on three sides and open on one, with agricultural gates into each of the three penned areas. It is 16 metres x 10 metres in floor area and around 4.8 metres in height. Materials are metal sheeted cladding over a pitched roof which continues half way down the sides. The bottom half of the sides are concrete walls (on three sides) with the forth side to remain open.

77. It is considered that prominence would not be an issue of concern due to the existence of an agricultural shed in from of the proposed shed and topography of the land to the rear rising. 78. The site provides two mature boundaries only. No additional landscaping has been proposed within this scheme. Therefore, it is considered that the site is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the development. It would rely upon the use of new landscaping (which has not been proposed) for integration purposes.

79. Ancillary works by way of existing laneway in and proposed hardstanding around the proposed shed would not be an issue of concern as the extent of the works are limited in nature.

80. The agricultural design and nature of the proposed development is considered to be visually acceptable. The proposed building is enclosed on three sides and open on one, with agricultural gates into each of the three penned areas. Materials are metal sheeted cladding which continues half way down the sides. The bottom half of the sides are concrete walls (on three sides) with the forth side to remain open.

81. The proposed building is considered to be typical of modern agricultural buildings found within the countryside. Its scale, massing, detailing and materials are considered to be visually acceptable.

Rural Character

82. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

83. When viewed from the Glenavy road the topography to the rear of the site rises providing a suitable backdrop for the development.

84. That said, it is considered that the addition of another shed at this location approximately 340 metres from the main group of farm buildings would lead a build-up of development.

85. Given that the proposed shed is to be located to the rear of the existing silo, there are no issues with respect to ribbon development. The associated ancillary works which comprise the existing lane access and area of hardstanding to the front of the shed should not be detrimental to rural character.

86. It is considered that when added to the existing development in the area that the proposal would create a build-up of development and have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the area.

Access, Movement and Parking

87. PPS 3 sets out policies to ensure that any development does not create a traffic hazard.

88. The P1 form indicates that access arrangements for this development will involve the use of an existing unaltered access to the public road.

89. DFI Roads have been consulted and have responded with no objections subject to standard informatives.

90. It is therefore contended that a safe access to the site can be provided and as such, the proposal is considered to comply with the policy tests associated with AMP 2 - Access to public roads.

Natural Heritage

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

92. Policy NH 5 - Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to species, priority habitats etc.

93. DAERA Natural Heritage and Conservation indicated that they required the submission of further information to enable them to provide specific advice on the potential impacts of the proposed development. To date all of the requested information has not been provided.

94. It is therefore considered that it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon priority habitats and natural heritage features worthy of protection.

Consideration of Representations

95. Two letters of representation from a neighbouring farmer raised issues of concern in respect of any break out of an infectious disease found in animals in the proposed development will this result in his herd/farm being closed with the same restrictions applying to those which may be imposed on the originally infected herd.

96. There is no planning policy test that specifically addresses the impact of new buildings on the operation of existing farm businesses. Little or no weight is attached to this objection and the operation of out buildings for the spread of infectious disease if detected would be a matter for DAERA.

Conclusions

97. All relevant policy and material considerations have been assessed and it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the development is necessary for the efficient use of the active and established agricultural holding.

98. Furthermore, no persuasive evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used nor has evidence been provided to demonstrated that the proposal is sited beside existing farm buildings and that health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site away from the existing farm buildings within the holding or that the alternative site is essential for the efficient functioning of the business in accordance with policy CTY 12.

99. Also, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on priority habitats and natural heritage features worthy of protection.

100. It is also contended that the development would not visually integrate into the local landscape without the provision of additional landscaping.

Recommendation

101. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reasons

102. The following refusal reasons are recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that it has not been demonstrated that it is necessary for the efficient use of the active and established agricultural (or forestry) holding; it would not visually integrate into the local landscape without the provision of additional landscaping; it would not have an adverse impact on natural heritage features; that there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used; the proposal is sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings and that health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site away from the existing farm (or forestry) buildings or that the alternative site away is essential for the efficient functioning of the business.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries/is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape and the proposed building relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed development, if permitted would result in a suburban style build- up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and cause a detrimental change to the rural character of an area.

. The proposal would be contrary to the SPPS and Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage in that it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on priority habitats & natural heritage features worthy of protection.

Site Location Plan - L05/2018/0846/F

APPENDIX 9HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/0910/F

Date of Application 29 August 2018

District Electoral Area Castlereagh South

Proposal Description Proposed extension and rationalisation of existing meat processing and packaging facility

Location 64a Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh, Belfast

Representations One

Case Officer Kevin Maguire

Recommendation Approval

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. The application is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that it has been Called In.

3. It is recommended for approval as the proposed extension is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SPPS and policy PED 3 of PPS 4 in that the nature and scale of the proposed extension is such that it will not harm the rural character or appearance of the local areas.

4. The additional 210 square metres of floorspace is not considered to represent a major increase in the enterprise and is within the established curtilage of the existing industrial premises.

5. It is also considered that the proposed development will not cause harm to the amenities of the occupants of nearby properties by virtue of noise and odour nuisance.

Description of Site and Surroundings

6. The site is located at 64a Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh, Belfast. It is a rectangular parcel of land measuring approximately 0.5 hectares in size and comprised of the buildings and curtilage of a meat processing plant and its associated ancillary farm shop.

7. There is an area of hardstanding to the south of the existing building. This area is used for parking. This area is used for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles used in association with the operation of the business.

8. The western boundary is defined by a concrete wall and metal fencing approximately 1.2 metres in height. The southern boundary is relatively undefined and follows the edge of the car parking area.

9. The northern boundary is relatively ill-defined and faces into an existing dwelling at 64 Lisnabreeny (within the control of the applicant). The rear (eastern) boundary is defined by an existing post and wire fence and some scrappy hedging.

10. Surrounding land use is primarily agricultural with some dispersed dwellings.

Proposed Development

11. The application is for an extension to and rationalisation of the existing meat processing and packaging facility. The application proposes finishes to match existing factory building.

Relevant Planning History

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

Application Address & Proposal Decision Reference Y/2010/0450/F 64A Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh - Withdrawn Erection of farm/coffee shop in association 26.09.2011 with existing meat factory Y/2011/0389/F 64A Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh - Permission Granted Erection of a single storey extension to 28/03/2017 existing business enterprise to provide improved staff facilities and prepacked stock storage area and environmental improvements to site Y/2014/0344/A 64A Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh - Permission Granted Advertising board erected on 4 poles 2.4M 19.02.2015 high

Y/2014/0349/F 64A Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh - Permission Granted Amended access & parking & landscaping 11.05.2015 to business (non-compliance of conditions 2,5,8 of Y/2011/0389/F) Y/2014/0350/F 64A Lisnabreeny Road, Castlereagh - Permission Granted Minor extension to curtilage of existing 30.03.2015 factory to facilitate installation of LPG tank LA05/2016/1178/O 80m SE of 64a Lisnabreeney Road – New Dismissed at Appeal dwelling and garage Nov 2018.

Permission Refused

Planning Policy Context

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

. Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Urban Area Plan and draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 – Planning and Economic Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 - Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 - Planning and Flood Risk . DCAN 15 – Vehicular Access Standards

Consultations

14. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response DfI Roads No objection subject to conditions

Environmental Health No objections

NI Water No objection

NIEA - Water No objection Management Unit NIEA – Land, Soil and Air No objection

Rivers Agency No objection

Historic Environment No objection Division

Representations

15. Two representations were received in respect of the proposal. The following issues were raised in opposition to the application: . Inaccurate Site Location Plan . Layout Plan lacks detail . No Operation time stipulated . Access Arrangements . P1 Form . Biodiversity check list . Noise Impact Statement . Drainage Assessment

16. A representation in support of the application from an MLA expressed the view that the application was associated with a well-established family run business which due to its own success was now under significant pressure to provide an additional production space.

Consideration and Assessment

17. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Planning and Economic Development - Economic Development in the Countryside - Expansion of an Established Economic Development Use in the Countryside - General Criteria for Economic Development - Integration and Design of Buildings - Rural Character . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage . Planning and Flood Risk

19. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.

20. As a consequence of this decision, the Belfast Urban Area Plan is the statutory development plan however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.

22. The application site lies outside but adjacent to an area of high scenic value and an area of constraint on minerals development in draft BMAP. In quashed BMAP the site also lies outside of but adjacent to an area of high scenic value COU05/08 and an area of constraint on minerals development

23. The established industrial use associated for the processing and packaging of meat products is an important material consideration to be weighed in the assessment of this application.

Principle of Development

24. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) published in September 2015 states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance will apply.

25. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

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

27. The aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.

28. All development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.

29. Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account when assessing all development proposals in the countryside.

30. Where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policies this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded by the retained policy.

31. Given that the application proposes the extension and rationalisation of an existing meat processing and packaging facility in a countryside location and as there are no distinguishable difference between the SPPS, the application falls to be assessed against prevailing planning policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

32. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out the planning policies for development in the countryside.

33. Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of different types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

34. It is stated that planning permission will be granted for industry and business uses in accordance with PPS 4 – Planning and Economic Development provide the relevant context.

Planning and Economic Development

35. PPS 4 – Planning and Economic Development sets out the planning polices for economic development uses and indicates how growth associated with such uses can be accommodated and promoted in development plans.

Economic Development tin the Countryside

36. Policy PED 2 – Economic Development tin the Countryside states that proposals for development uses in the countryside will be permitted in accordance with the following policies:

. The expansion of an established economic use – Policy PED 3 . The redevelopment of an established economic development use – Policy PED 4 . Major industrial development – Policy PED 5 . Small Rural Projects – Policy PED 6

37. It is considered that the application relates to the expansion of an established economic development use in the countryside and as such, it falls to be assessed against policy PED 3.

Expansion of an Established Economic Development Use in the Countryside

38. Policy PED 3 - Expansion of an Established Economic Development Use in the Countryside states that permission will be permitted where the scale and nature of the proposal does not harm the rural character or appearance of the local area and there is no major increase in the site area or the enterprise.

39. Based on the detail submitted with the application, the main part of the extension is located to the rear of the existing buildings and as such, there will be limited views from the public road.

40. The nature and scale is such that it will not harm the rural character or appearance of the local area.

41. The proposed extension will see the total floor area increase to 862 square metres. The additional 210 square metre floor space (approximately 25% of the original floor area) is not considered to represent a major increase in the enterprise.

42. There is no increase in the site area as this has already been extended in accordance with the previous approval Y/2014/0350/F which made provision for an LPG tank. The extension to the factory is within the approved curtilage.

43. PED 3 also states that proposals for expansion will normally be expected to be accommodated through the reuse or extension of existing buildings on site and that any extension or new building should respect the scale, design and materials of the original building (s) on site and any historic or architectural interest that the original property may have.

44. In this instance, it is proposed to extend the existing buildings. The extension measures 12.5 metres from the existing rear of the processing plant by 18m in width at its widest part. The materials proposed and design of the extension will match those of the existing building.

General Criteria for Economic Development

45. Policy PED 9 - General Criteria for Economic Development states that a proposal for economic development use will be required to meet a number of policy criteria.

46. With regard to criteria (a), the extension is associated with an established industrial use. The extension is within the established curtilage as approved.

47. In terms of criteria (b), the closest property to the proposed extension (excluding the adjacent dwelling in the control of the applicant) is 68 Lisnabreeny Road.

48. The proposed development will extend the built form approximately 12.5 metres to the east. The side elevation will be approximately 110 metres from the dwelling at 68 Lisnabreeny Road.

49. The Environmental Health Unit has advised that an odour assessment was not considered necessary as the proposal relates to changes to the existing raw processing area and as such, additional odour is not likely to arise.

50. In relation to the potential for noise nuisance, Environmental Health also advised that the orientation and separation distances are such that the proposed development is unlikely to cause any observed effect in relation to

noise impact and as such, a noise impact assessment was not considered to be necessary.

51. It is considered on the basis of this advice that the proposed development will not cause harm to the amenities of nearby residents.

52. In relation to criteria (c), a consultation issued to Historic Environment Division and based on their response, it is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect features of the natural or built heritage.

53. In terms of criteria (d), the Strategic Flood Map produced by Rivers Agency was reviewed as part of the assessment and it is noted that the site is not located within a floodplain or any designated or undesignated watercourse or any area of surface water flooding. Much of the site is already developed with buildings and hardstanding in associated with car parking areas. The additional area of hardstanding proposed is less than 1000 square metres and as such, a Drainage Assessment was not required.

54. The application site is not located in an areas of flood risk and the works proposed will not cause or exacerbate flooding elsewhere.

55. In respect of criteria (e) Environmental Health advised that the orientation and separation distances are such that the proposed development is unlikely to cause and observed effect in relation to noise impact and as such, a noise impact assessment was not considered to be necessary.

56. The current factory operates without the imposition of conditions relating to operating hours and without complaints to Environmental Health. The planning history LA05/2016/1178/O pertaining to the site cited the operation of the facility to facilitate deliveries throughout the night as justification for a dwelling in association with the business.

57. Whilst this application and associated appeal were not successful, the operations of the facility were well documented to include night time deliveries. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed extension would cause any additional amenity concerns.

58. Supporting information submitted by the agent confirmed that no new processes are being proposed. The extension will allow the current operations to be rationalised.

59. The agent confirmed that internally, the plant is currently running at operational capacity, given the constraints of the existing buildings cramped conditions this modest extension will allow rationalisation of existing works to allow a better working environment for existing employees whilst also providing additional space for expansion and new orders.

60. In relation to criteria (f), the application proposes an extension to an existing meat processing facility. No additional emissions from the processing operations are envisaged. No additional vents or flues are proposed.

61. The P1 Form indicates that foul sewage will be disposed of through an existing treatment plant and the floor plans show that the additional area is to be taken up by further factory processing areas and raw intake activities. No additional foul sewage infrastructure is proposed.

62. In terms of criteria (g), (h) and (i), it is considered that the existing road network can safely handle the extra vehicular traffic associated with the proposed extension and that adequate provision is made within the site for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. DfI Roads has no objection in principle to the proposed development.

63. Given that the use is established and that the proposal is for an extension to an existing facility, it is not envisaged that a movement pattern supporting walking and cycling is required.

64. In terms of criteria (j) and (k) taking into account the existing context and built form, the proposed extension to the rear is a design and scale which is acceptable with this rural context. Whilst some hedgerows are shown to be removed, it is relatively young and sparse and unlikely to be of much value to biodiversity.

65. As such, the site layout, buildings and design and the associated landscaping arrangements are considered to be of high quality. Furthermore, the proposed new native hawthorn hedge to be planted along the eastern boundary will serve to support and enhance biodiversity value and will screen the proposed extension in part from the adjacent residential property to the east.

66. With regard to criteria (l), the extension is associated with an established use which already benefits from a level of site security. It is not envisaged that additional security is required.

67. In terms of criteria (m) and measures to aid integration, the location of the extension to the rear of the existing factory unit, its scale and set back position serve to integrate it with the existing built form. A new native species hedgerow is proposed to the eastern boundary to help screening and in replacement of the scrappy hedge that exists on the current boundary.

Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside

68. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

69. In terms of design the extension is no higher than that of the existing plant, and is located to the rear. The materials to be used are in-keeping with the existing building and it should be able to be absorbed into the countryside location without any negative impact on the area.

70. Whilst new landscaping is proposed, it is considered that there is minimal existing screening to the rear of the factory. The new planting will aid

screening of the extension from approach from the south in a northerly direction. There will be no views from the north in a southerly direction due to the topography of the land and the presence of the dwelling at 64 Lisnabreeny Road.

Rural Character

71. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

72. As the height of the proposed extension respects the existing height of the building and the materials, the building will still read as one entity. There should therefore be no effect of ribboning or detrimental change to the rural character of the area.

Flood Risk

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

74. A consultation with DfI Rivers provided comment in relation to the potential for flood risk only within the context of prevailing planning policy.

75. They advised that the site does not lie within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain and as such, they would have no specific reason to object from a drainage or flood risk perspective.

76. In terms of surface water, the area of hard standing does not exceed 1000 square metres and as such, a Drainage Assessment was not required. Advice provided indicates that it is the developers responsibility to assess the flood risk and drainage impact and to mitigate the rise to the development and any impacts beyond the site.

Natural Heritage

77. Policy NH 5 of PPS2 Natural Heritage sets out policy for Habitats, Species or Features of Natural Heritage Importance. This policy states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal which is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to species, priority habitats etc.

78. The extension proposes the removal of a short length of hedgerow located to the rear of the existing yard. Following discussion with Natural Heritage Division, this hedgerow is confirmed to be relatively young and sparse and is unlikely to be of value to biodiversity and as such, a biodiversity check list was not considered necessary.

79. The new native hawthorn hedge proposed along the new boundaries of the site will enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

Consideration of Representations

80. The issues raised by way of third party representation are set out below: Inaccurate Site Location Plan

81. Whilst it is acknowledged that the submitted site location plan is not up to date and that it does not include a number of more recently constructed buildings including the existing factory, it is sufficient to enable the application site to be identified.

Layout Plan lacks detail

82. An amended plan including existing levels and proposed finished floor levels has been provided (drawing 02A). It is not considered that site sections are required in this instance given the separation distance to neighbouring properties.

No Operation time stipulated

83. No restriction on operation times have been included in the previous applications. Environmental Health has been consulted and raised no concern in relation to potential impacts on residential amenity. No external plant is proposed and the existing operations are to be rationalised within the extension.

84. Addition control of the operation times is not necessary when there is no impact in terms of amenity and given the current operations are unrestricted.

Access Arrangements

85. Following initial consultation with DfI Roads and on receipt of further details, DfI Roads indicated that they were content with the proposal. They also advised that they had reviewed the detail of a letter of representation and offered no objection to the proposal on road safety and traffic progression grounds.

P1 Form

86. The view expressed in relation to the detail of the P1 Form with regard to staff numbers is noted. It is however considered that the variation mentioned would not make a material difference to the assessment.

Biodiversity check list

87. The extension proposes the removal of a short length of hedgerow located to the rear of the existing yard. Following discussion with Natural Heritage Division, this hedgerow is relatively young and sparse and is unlikely to be of

value to biodiversity and as such, a biodiversity check list was not considered necessary.

88. The new native hawthorn hedge proposed along the new boundaries of the site will enhance the biodiversity value of the site.

Noise Impact Assessment

89. Environmental Health reviewed the latest plans and note that the orientation and separation distances of the proposed extension are unlikely to cause an observed effect in relation to noise and as such, a noise impact assessment was not required.

Drainage Assessment

90. The proposed new hard standing area does not exceed 1000 square metres and the site is not located within an area of historic surface water flooding. As such, a drainage assessment was not considered to be necessary.

Conclusions

91. It is recommended for approval as the proposed extension is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SPPS and policy PED 3 of PPS 4 in that the nature and scale of the proposed extension is such that it will not harm the rural character or appearance of the local area.

92. The additional 210 square metre floor space is not considered to represent a major increase in the enterprise and is within the established curtilage of the existing industrial premises.

93. It is also considered that the proposed development will not cause harm to the amenities of the occupants of nearby properties by virtue of noise and odour nuisance.

Recommendation

94. It is recommended that planning permission is Approved

Condition(s)

95. The following conditions are recommended:

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

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

. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward site distance shall be provided in accordance with Drawing 05 bearing the Planning date stamp 09 Oct 2018, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

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

. The development hereby permitted shall not become operational until parking/hard standing has been provided and permanently retained in accordance with the approved drawing 02A bearing the Planning date stamp 15 October 18.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details as shown in Drawing No. 02A bearing the Planning date stamp 15 October 18 and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practise. The works shall be carried out prior to the operation of any part of the development

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

. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, dies or is seriously damaged, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place.

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/0910/F

APPENDIX 10HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/1089/O

Date of Application 24 October 2018

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Proposed dwelling

Location 160 metres north east of 22 Bottier Road, Moira

Representations None

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. The application is presented to the Committee in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that it has been Called In.

3. The application is recommended for refusal as there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

4. Furthermore, the proposed site does not meet the requirements of the SPPS and policy CTY 2a of PPS 21 in that it is not located within an existing cluster of development comprised of four or more buildings of which at least three are dwellings. The cluster does not appear as a visual entity in the local landscape and it is not associated with a focal point nor is it located at a cross-roads.

5. The proposed site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster and does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure. The dwelling would if permitted visually intrude into the open countryside.

6. With regard to personal and domestic circumstances offered in support of the proposal, the applicant has not provided satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused. It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of this case as required by policy CTY 6 of PPS 21.

7. The proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape. The proposed building relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

8. A dwelling if permitted would be prominent in the landscape and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

Description of Site and Surroundings

9. The site is located to the northern side of the Bottier Road along an existing private laneway that serves a number of dwellings.

10. The land on which the dwelling is proposed is agricultural land behind and to the west of an existing scrap metal yard.

11. The northern boundary is defined by mature hedgerow. The other boundaries are currently undefined. The land within the site is relatively flat throughout.

12. The land surrounding the site is primarily rural in character and mainly in agricultural use. There is a church approximately 250 metres distant from the proposed site to the south east with a ribbon of housing adjacent to the junction of Bottier Road and Bridge Road.

Proposed Development

13. Outline permission is sought for a proposed dwelling house.

Relevant Planning History

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

Application Address Description of Proposal Decision Reference LA05/2017/0423/RM 35 metres north Proposed infill dwelling Permission east of 22 Bottier under PPS 21 small gap Granted Road, Moira site in substantially built up 20/07/2017 frontage when viewed from existing laneway LA05/2016/1055/O 35 metres north Proposed infill dwelling Permission east of 22 Bottier under PPS 21 small gap Granted Road, Moira site in substantially built up 15/03/2017 frontage when viewed from existing laneway S/2013/0551/RM Adjacent to 22 Proposed farm dwelling Permission Bottier Road, Moira, Granted BT67 0PE 26/11/2013 S/2012/0545/O 22 Bottier Road, Proposed farm dwelling Permission Moira Granted 05/09/2013

Planning Policy Context

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

. Lisburn Area Plan 2001 . Draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015: Lisburn Countryside . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2): Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS 6): Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15): Planning and Flood Risk . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

Consultations

16. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response Roads No objection

Environmental Health No objection

Water Management Unit Refers to standing advice

Natural Environment Division Refers to standing advice

Historic Environment Division Content in principle.

NI Water No objection

Representations

17. No representations have been received to date.

Consideration and Assessment

18. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - New Dwellings in Existing Clusters - Personal and Domestic Circumstances - Integration and Design - Rural character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage . Planning and Flood Risk . Archaeology and Built Heritage

Local Development Plan 19. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications, regard must be had to the requirements of the local development plan and that determination of applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

20. On 18th May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had not been lawfully adopted.

21. As a consequence of the decision, the Belfast Urban Area Plan (2001) is now the statutory development plan for the area with the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (Draft) 2004 remaining a material consideration in the assessment of applications.

22. In both plans, the application site is identified as being within the countryside beyond and defined settlement limit. As there are no distinguishable differences in the local plan context, significant weight is attached to draft

BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.

Principle of Development

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

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

25. In practice this means that development which accords with an up-to-date development plan should be approved and development that conflicts with an up-to-date development plan should be refused, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

26. Paragraph 6.65 states that the aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.

27. Paragraph 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.

28. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: a sustainable design guide for the Northern Ireland countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside’.

29. The application proposes a dwelling house and garage in the countryside and as there is no distinguishable differences between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

30. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle is considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

31. Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside sets out a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside.

32. This application was submitted without justification or need shown for the dwelling to be located in the countryside and as such, the agent was asked to provide additional information in support of the application.

33. The Agent expressed the view that the proposed development could be considered as part of a cluster of development. Additional information was also submitted by the applicant in the form of a written statement advising of their particular personal and domestic circumstances.

34. In light of the above, the application has been assessed against the policy tests associated with policy CTY 2a – New Dwellings in Existing Clusters and CTY 6 – Personal and Domestic Circumstances.

New Dwelling in Existing Clusters

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

36. Policy CTY2a – New Dwelling in Existing Clusters is broadly consistent with the thrust of Strategic policy in that it states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development provided all the following criteria are met:

. The cluster lies outside of a farm and consists of four or more buildings (excluding ancillary buildings such as garages, outbuildings and open sided structures) of which at least three are dwellings; . The cluster appears as a visual entity in the local landscape; . The cluster is associated with a focal point such as a social/community building/facility, or is located at a cross-roads; . The identified site provides a suitable degree of enclosure and is bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster; . Development of the site can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside; and . Development would not adversely impact on residential amenity.

37. With regard to the first criteria, the proposed site does not appear to be part of an existing farm complex and there are four dwellings in close proximity to the application site.

38. Whilst four or more buildings exist, it is considered that they do not present as a cluster of development nor do they appear as a visual entity in the landscape. They have the appearance of a ribbon of development along a private laneway.

39. With regard to the third criteria, there is no focal point in the immediate vicinity. The church and parochial house located approximately 250 metres from the proposed site to the south east are visually separated and distinguishable in the landscape from the proposed site for the dwelling.

40. In relation to the fourth criteria, the site is not bound on at least two sides by other development in a cluster and the development of the site cannot be easily absorbed through rounding off and consolidation. Development of this site would visually intrude into the open countryside.

41. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed site is not located within an existing cluster of development consisting of 4 or more buildings of which at least three are dwellings and that the application fails to satisfy all of the policy tests associated with policy CTY 2a.

Personal and Domestic Circumstances

42. Policy CTY 6 - Personal and Domestic Circumstances states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling in the countryside for the long term needs of the applicant, where there are compelling, and site specific reasons for this related to the applicant’s personal or domestic circumstances and provided the following criteria are met;

(a) the applicant can provide satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused; and

(b) there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of the case, such as: an extension or annex attached to the existing dwelling; the conversion or reuse of another building within the curtilage of the property; or the use of a temporary mobile home for a limited period to deal with immediate short term circumstances.

43. Policy directs that all permissions granted under this policy will be subject to a condition restricting the occupation of the dwelling to a named individual and their dependents.

44. The applicant submitted a statement outlining personal and domestic circumstances in support of the application.

45. It advises that the applicant’s son has a lifelong medical condition which means that he needs round the clock care. The applicant expressed the view that the specific need of the son was relative to the application as his family were located nearby and can provide 24 hour care/assistance.

46. The supporting statement advises that the son wants to carry on with life as normal as possible with a wife and family but feels he can only be confident doing this if his family are around when full-time care is needed.

47. The statement also advises that in recent years there have been four break-ins at their premises, through the back yard area and that their intention is to build a dwelling for the son at this location which would also help secure the yard area.

48. Whilst the medical conditions of the applicant’s son is not disputed, the arguments advanced does not provide site specific reasons for a dwelling at the proposed location.

49. Paragraph 5.29 of the justification and amplification to Policy CTY 6 states that applicants will be expected to provide sufficient information to allow a proper assessment of each specific case to be carried out. It advises that such information should include: . A statement detailing the special personal or domestic circumstances supported if appropriate by medical evidence from a medical or health professional; . Details of the level of care required in relation to any medical condition again supported by the appropriate health professional, the identity of the main carer, their current address and occupation; . An explanation of why care can only be provided at the specific location and how genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission was refused; . Details of what alternatives to a new dwelling have been considered e.g. extension/annex to an existing dwelling and why such alternatives are not considered practical to meet the site specific need . Any other information considered relevant to the particular case.

50. No substantive evidence in line with the requirement of the policy has been provided to show that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

51. No alternative solutions such as an extension or annex to an existing dwelling; the conversion or reuse of another building within the curtilage of an existing property have been provided. The proposal does not comply with policy CTY 6.

52. The planning history shows that the applicant has over the past number of years secured an approval for an infill dwelling and a farm dwelling in the immediate surrounding area. One of these permissions could be used to meet the specific domestic circumstances of the applicant’s son. Another dwelling is not considered to be a necessary response to the particular needs specified.

Integration

53. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

54. The proposed siting of the dwelling is shown to be within an open field set away from existing buildings. The site is very open, with only the northern boundary being currently defined by an existing hedgerow.

55. The site does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure when viewed from the Bottier Road and Bridge Road. Whilst the site is set back from the road it would rely heavily on landscaping for integration purposes which is considered to be unacceptable.

Rural Character

56. Policy CTY14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

57. The proposal would be unduly prominent in the landscape due to the lack of existing boundary vegetation.

58. Any dwelling at this location would be considered incongruous in the landscape and would add to a build-up of development further eroding the character of the rural area.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage

59. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that Planning Permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

60. The P1 Form indicates that foul sewage will be disposed of via a septic tank and that surface water will be disposed of via a storm soak away. Whilst the application is for outline permission and no detail is provided in relation to the exact positioning of the proposed septic tank and soakaway, there is ample space to accommodate both.

61. Environmental Health and Water Management have been consulted and both have raised no objections to the proposal.

Access, Movement and Parking

62. PPS 3 - Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.

63. The proposal is to upgrade an existing access. There is an existing laneway that services numerous dwellings and it is proposed to utilise this by upgrading it and then extending the laneway if the proposal was acceptable.

64. DfI Roads have been consulted and have no objections to the development subject to standard conditions and informatives.

Natural Heritage

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

66. A small amount of hedgerow would be required to be removed in order to facilitate a safe access. No buildings are being removed or other natural heritage interests should be affected by the proposal. A new hedgerow could be conditioned to the rear of the visibility splays.

67. Natural Environment Division have been consulted and refer to standing advice. It is considered that the proposal would not harm any natural heritage or protected species.

Planning and Flood Risk

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

69. There are no watercourses within or adjacent to the application site. The Rivers Agency flood maps show that the application site is not located within a flood plain. The submission of a drainage assessment is not required for this proposal.

70. Water Management Unit have been consulted on the application and have raised no concerns. The proposal would not cause any concerns with regards to flooding or drainage and complies with PPS 15.

Archaeology and Built Heritage

71. PPS 6 makes provision for the protection of our archaeology and built heritage.

72. The application site is approximately 120 metres from Reach 11 of the Lagan Canal, which is a scheduled monument.

73. Policy BH 1 - The Preservation of Archaeological Remains of Regional Importance and their Settings states that planning authorities will operate a presumption in favour of the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains of regional importance and their settings. These comprise monuments in State Care, scheduled monuments and other important sites and monuments which would merit scheduling. Development which would adversely affect such sites of regional importance or the integrity of their settings will not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances.

74. Historic Environment Division has assessed the application and on the basis of the information provided is content in principle that a dwelling in this location is satisfactory to the SPPS and PPS 6 archaeological policy requirements.

Conclusions

75. Based on careful consideration of all the relevant material planning considerations, it is considered that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

76. Furthermore, the proposed site does not meet the requirements of the SPPS and policy CTY 2a of PPS 21 in that it is not located within an existing cluster of development comprised of four or more buildings of which at least three are dwellings. The cluster does not appear as a visual entity in the local landscape and it is not associated with a focal point nor is it located at a cross-roads. The proposed site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster and does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure. The dwelling would if permitted visually intrude into the open countryside.

77. With regard to personal and domestic circumstances offered in support of the proposal, the applicant has not provided satisfactory evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused. It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of this case as required by policy CTY 6 of PPS 21.

78. The proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape. The proposed building relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

79. A dwelling if permitted would be prominent in the landscape and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

Recommendation

80. The application is presented with a recommendation to refuse.

Refusal Reasons

81. The following refusal reasons are recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, New Dwellings in Existing Clusters in that the proposed dwelling is not located within an existing cluster of development consisting of 4 or more buildings of which at least three are dwelling; the cluster does not appear as a visual entity in the local landscape; the cluster is not associated with a focal point and / or is not located at a cross-roads; the proposed site is not bounded on at least two sides with other development in the cluster and does not provide a suitable degree of enclosure; and the dwelling would if permitted visually intrude into the open countryside.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY6 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the applicant has not provided satisfactory long term evidence that a new dwelling is a necessary response to the particular circumstances of the case and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused and it has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of this case.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY 13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries / is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; the proposed building relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted be prominent in the landscape and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2018/1089/O

APPENDIX 11HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 August 2019 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2018/0932/O

Date of Application 3 September 2018

District Electoral Area Killultagh

Proposal Description Dwelling and garage

Location To rear of 12A Whinney Hill, Lisburn

Representations Two

Case Officer Sinead McCloskey

Recommendation Approval

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application.

2. The application is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee in that it has been Called In.

3. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is contended that the requirements of policy CTY 8 are met and that the site is a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage.

4. The proposed development of the land for a dwelling and garage is in keeping with the established pattern of settlement and will not result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside at this location.

Description of Site and Surroundings

5. The site is located approximately 80 metres from Whinney Hill and is accessed via a laneway from the public road. There are double agricultural gates from the site onto the lane

6. The site consists of an agricultural field to the rear of the property at 12A Whinney Hill. There is a small stable located in the southern corner of this field, outside the application red line boundary. There is another stable block located in the adjacent field, to the east of the site.

7. The western boundary of the field consists of a one and a half metre wooden fence with a two metre hedge behind. The northern boundary of the site consists of a ranch fence with a three metre hedge and eight to nine metre high trees. The southern and eastern boundaries consist of trees and a ranch fencing.

8. The levels in the site fall away from the laneway towards the northern part of the site.

9. The land surrounding is primarily rural in character and mainly in agricultural use. There is a build-up of development in the local vicinity of the site mainly comprised of detached dwellings.

Proposed Development

10. The application is an outline application for a dwelling and garage.

Relevant Planning History

11. There is no relevant planning history associated with this site.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Lisburn Area Plan 2001; . draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2): Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15): Planning and Flood Risk . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside

Consultations

13. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response

DfI Roads Content

Environmental Health No objection

NI Water Standard response

Water Management Unit Refers to standing advice

Representations

14. Two representations were received in opposition to the proposed development. The following issues were raised:

. The proposal is not a gap site and is contrary to PPS21. . The laneway cannot sustain this proliferation of dwellings. . Query regarding visibility splays. . Ongoing issue with existing septic tanks at . Will set a precedent in the area. . Condition of the existing laneway and visibility onto Whinney Hill.

Consideration and Assessment

15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are:

. Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Ribbon Development - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking . Natural Heritage . Flooding

Local Development Plan 16. Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that in making a determination on planning applications regard must be had to the

requirements of the local development plan and that determination must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

17. On 18 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that the purportedly adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 had in its entirety, not been lawfully adopted.

18. As a consequence of this decision, the Lisburn Area Plan is the statutory development plan for the area, however the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 remains a material consideration.

19. The application site lies within the countryside beyond any defined settlement limit and as there is no distinguishable difference in the local plan context significant weight is attached to the draft BMAP and its draft policies which direct the assessment to be carried out in accordance with prevailing regional policy.

Principle of Development

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

22. Paragraph 6.65 states that the aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.

23. Paragraph 6.70 states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed.

24. Paragraph 6.78 of the SPPS states that Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition: a sustainable design guide for the Northern Ireland countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside’.

25. The application proposes a dwelling house and garage in the countryside and as there is no distinguishable differences between the policy tests associated with the SPPS and PPS 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside the proposal is assessed against these policies.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

26. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle is considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

27. Policy CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside makes reference to a number of circumstances when planning permission will be granted for individual dwelling houses in the countryside.

28. This application is for an infill dwelling and garage and as such, it falls to be assessed against the exceptions tests associated with policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development.

Ribbon Development

29. Policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development states that Planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development.

30. An exception will be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements.

31. For the purposes of this policy the definition of a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

32. The application site is situated to the rear of 12a Whinney Hill Road and presents a frontage to a private laneway serving four dwellings. It is stated at paragraph 5.33 of the justification and amplification of the policy that for the purposes of this policy, a road frontage includes a footpath or private lane.

33. The dwelling at 12a Whinney Hill Road and an associated detached garage within the curtilage of the dwelling along with two stable blocks to the east of the site also present a frontage to the private laneway.

34. It is therefore considered that the application site lies within a substantial and built up frontage which includes a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

35. In terms of the existing development pattern along this frontage, the size of the frontages presented by the other buildings range from 7 metres for the small stable block, 28 metres for the larger stable block and 70 metres for the dwelling and garage at 12A.

36. The proposed site measures approximately 42 metres. Given the range of frontage widths, it is considered that the frontage associated with the application site fits within the range of frontages sizes along this part of the

lane, and that the development of a single dwelling and garage will respect the existing pattern of development.

37. The application is therefore considered acceptable in principle as there is a small gap within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage at this location.

Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside

38. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

39. Given the site context and planted boundaries to the majority of the boundaries, it is considered that a dwelling and garage could be positioned within the site to allow it to integrate sufficiently and that such a development would not be a prominent feature in the landscape.

40. The site is at a lower level than the existing laneway and the existing mature vegetation will ensure that the development would not rely on new landscaping for integration.

41. This is an outline application and the details of the design will be conditioned to be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage. It is however considered that a dwelling could be designed for this site that would be in keeping with the dwellings in the immediate area.

42. Landscaping conditions are recommended to ensure that the existing natural screenings of the site is retained and that a scheme of compensatory planting is submitted at reserved matters stage to ensure that the development integrates into the countryside and to ensure the ongoing maintenance of screening to the site.

Rural Character

43. Policy CTY 14 - Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

44. As indicated above, the existing topography, the location of the proposed dwelling within the site, and existing boundary treatment will ensure that a dwelling and garage would not be unduly prominent in the landscape nor would it result in a sub-urban style of build-up.

45. A dwelling can be positioned and designed to respect the traditional pattern of development in the area and any ancillary works should not have a negative impact on the rural character.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage

46. Policy CTY 16 - Development relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

47. Although the application is for outline permission, details have been provided with regards to the positioning of a proposed septic tank and soakaway.

48. Both Water Management Unit and Environmental Health have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposal.

Access, Movement and Parking

49. PPS 3 sets out the policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.

50. The P1 Form indicates that an access will be provided from a private laneway which in turn access from Whinney Hill. There is also space within the red line for the provision of parking.

51. DfI Roads have been consulted and consider the application acceptable and provided conditions.

Natural Heritage

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

53. Whilst a small portion of hedgerow would need to be removed on the southern boundary, this is not likely to have a detrimental effect on any natural heritage interests.

54. It is considered that the proposal will not have negative impact on natural heritage interests.

Flooding

55. PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk sets out planning policies to minimise and manage flood risk to people, property and the environment.

56. From site inspection it is seen that there are no watercourses within or adjacent to the application site. The Rivers Agency flood maps show that the application site is not located within a flood plain or near a water course.

57. A Flood Risk and Drainage assessment is not required for this proposal.

Consideration of Representations

58. Consideration of the issues raised by way of third party representation are set out below:

The proposal is not a gap site and is contrary to PPS21

59. The application was found to comply to Policy CTY 8 in that the proposal represents a gap site in an substantial and built up frontage, with the 3 or more buildings making up this frontage being the dwelling at 12a, the associate garage building within the curtilage of this dwelling, the stable block to the rear of the garage, in the adjacent field, and the other stable block further along the laneway, to the south east of the site.

The laneway cannot sustain this proliferation of dwellings

60. The application is for a single dwelling and garage. DFI were consulted with the proposals and had no objection to the proposal in terms of potential impacts on the road network/laneway.

Query regarding visibility splays and adoption of the laneway

61. An objection was raised in relation to the visibility splays onto Whinney Hill. The view expressed was that the lane is constructed to adoptable standards. The applicant responded to this by email advising that the splays would be over the existing road side verge, and that a dwelling was recently approved under LA05/2017/0487/F which provided similar site splays to this current proposal.

62. DFI Roads were consulted and had no concerns with regards to the site splays proposed.

Ongoing issue with existing septic tanks

63. The Environmental Health Department of the Council were consulted. They offered no objection to the proposals. They were forwarded the objection letter and have provided a condition relating to the siting of the septic tank/sewerage treatment unit.

Will set a precedent in the area

64. Each planning application is assessed on its own merits and approval of this application will not set a precedent.

Condition of the existing laneway and visibility onto Whinney Hill

65. DFI Roads had no objections to road safety concerns in regard to the condition of the existing laneway and visibility onto Whinney Hill. They have not said that the lane should be brought up to an adopted standard for the number of dwellings existing and proposed with access onto Whinney Hill.

Conclusions

66. All material considerations have been assessed including the concerns raised by way of third party representation.

67. The application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to approve as it is contended that the requirements of policy CTY 8 are met and that the site is a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage.

68. The proposed development of the land for a dwelling and garage is in keeping with the established pattern of settlement and will not result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside at this location.

Recommendation

69. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Refusal Reasons

70. The following conditions are recommended:

. A plan at 1:500 scale (min.) shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters application showing the access to be constructed in accordance with the attached form RS1. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The dwelling shall not be occupied until provision has been made and permanently retained within the curtilage of the site for the parking of private cars at the rate of 3 spaces per dwelling. Reason: To ensure adequate (in-curtilage) parking in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The ridge height of the dwellings shall not exceed 7 metres from their finished floor levels and under-building shall not exceed 0.35m at any point above the existing ground level within the footprint of the building. Any application for approval of reserved matters shall incorporate plans and sections indicating existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels, all in relation to a known datum point. Reason: To ensure the development is not prominent in the landscape.

. The existing natural screenings of this site as identified in green on drawing 02/01 bearing the LCCC date stamp 4 February 2019, 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 within 7 days. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

Site Location Plan - LA05/2018/0932/O

APPENDIX 12(a)HoS Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 5 August 2019

Responsible Officer Conor Hughes

Date of Report 23 July 2019

File Reference LA05/2019/0695/PAN

Legislation Section 27 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

Subject Pre-Application Notice (PAN) for construction of new 3G Pitch, spectator stand, new ancillary block, carparking, floodlighting, fencing, paths, streetlighting & all other associated works

Attachments PAN Form and Site Location Plan

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to advise Members of the detail of a Pre- Application Notice (PAN) for construction of new 3G Pitch, spectator stand, new ancillary block, car parking, floodlighting, fencing, paths, street lighting & all other associated works at Billy Neill Soccer Centre of Excellence, 341 Comber Road.

Background Detail

2. Section 27 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that a prospective applicant, prior to submitting a major application must give notice to the appropriate council that an application for planning permission for the development is to be submitted.

3. It is stipulated that there must be at least 12 weeks between the applicant giving the notice (through the PAN) and submitting any such application.

4. The PAN for the construction of new 3G Pitch, spectator stand, new ancillary block, car parking, floodlighting, fencing, paths, street lighting & all other associated works was received on 1 July 2019.

5. The earliest possible date for the submission of a planning application is week commencing 23 September 2019.

Consideration of PAN Detail

6. Section 27 (4) stipulates that the PAN must contain:

A description in general terms of the development to be carried out; 7. The description associated with the FORM PAN 1 for construction of new 3G Pitch, spectator stand, new ancillary block, carparking, floodlighting, fencing, paths, street lighting & all other associated works.

8. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that a description in general terms of the development to be carried out has been provided.

The postal address of the site, (if it has one);

9. The postal address identified on the FORM PAN 1 is Billy Neill Soccer Centre of Excellence, 341 Comber Road, Belfast.

10. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that an adequate description of the location has been provided.

A plan showing the outline of the site at which the development is to be carried out and sufficient to identify that site; 11. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10, it is accepted that a site location plan with the site outlined in red submitted with the PAN form is sufficient to identify the extent of the site.

Details of how the prospective applicant may be contacted and corresponded with; 12. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.4 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is noted that the FORM PAN1 and associated covering letter includes details of how the prospective applicant may be contacted and corresponded with.

13. The Form PAN1 includes the Agents name and address. Any person wishing to make comments on the proposals or obtain further information can contact Rolston architects, 49 Lisleen Road, Belfast.

14. In addition to the matters listed above, regulation 4 of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 sets out that a PAN must also contain the following.

A copy (where applicable) of any determination made under Regulation 7 (1)(a) of the Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 in relation to the development to which the proposal of application notice relates;

15. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is noted that question 9 of the FORM PAN 1 indicates that no environmental impact assessment determination has been made.

16. It is accepted that this reference is made without prejudice to any future determination being made or the applicant’s volunteering an Environmental Statement.

A copy of any notice served by the Department under Section 26(4) or (6) i.e. confirmation (or not) of the Department’s jurisdiction on regionally significant developments

17. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 it is considered that the form of development proposed is not specified in the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 as a major development (i.e. regionally significant) prescribed for the purpose of section 26 (1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and it is noted that consultation with the Department has not taken place.

An account of what consultation the prospective applicant proposes to undertake, when such consultation is to take place, with whom and what form it will take

18. Having regard to the relevant section of the legislation and paragraph 2.5 of Development Management Practice Note 10 the account of what consultation the prospective applicant proposes to undertake, when such consultation is to take place, with whom and what form it will take has been provided.

The Form PAN1 indicates that two public events will be held at the current Billy Neill Soccer Centre of Excellence on 24 July 2019 from 4pm until 8pm.

The Notice indicates that the events will be advertised in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 July 2019, at least 7 days prior to the events in accordance with legislative requirements.

The Form PAN1 provides details of other publicity methods: . Invitation letter and A3 drawing delivered to adjacent properties within 200 metres from the site.

Elected Members for the DEA at the point of submission will have received a copy of the Proposal of Application Notice. This issued on 27 June 2019.

Recommendation

19. In consideration of the detail submitted with the Pre-Application Notice (PAN), it is recommended that the Committee note the information submitted with the Notice.

APPENDIX 12(B)

This is basedon drawings supplied by LCCC on 29.AUG'18.

Plo)ing r;eld

Drawing �J:it(. No ...... · · · ·

Plo�ng F1elds

Plo)'in9 riolds

JUL 2019

Loke

- ..,

fHUU OI

� ROLSTON architects 49 Lisleen Road, Belfast BT5 7SU www.ROLSTONarchitects.com [email protected] +44 (0) 28 9044 9814 \ PROPOSED NEW 3G SYNTHETIC SPORTS PITCHES& FLOODLIGHTING AT BILLY NEILL SOCCER CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE FOR LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL. PROJECT NUMBER: 18.901. SCALE: 1/2500@A3. 05.SEP'18/MC.

BILLY NEILL- site location plan dwg.no. 19.901A 01

Park House Appeal 87/91 Great Victoria Street BELFAST Decision BT2 7AG T: 028 9024 4710 F: 028 9031 2536 E: [email protected]

Appeal Reference: 2018/A0208 Appeal by: Mr R Collins Appeal against: The refusal of outline planning permission Proposed Development: Infill site to provide 2No. dwellings Location: Between Nos. 31 & 35 Clogher Road, Lisburn Planning Authority: Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Application Reference: LA05/2018/0630/O Procedure: Hearing on 21 May 2019 Decision by: Commissioner Brigid McGlinchey, dated 24 June 2019

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out below.

Reasons

2. The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposed development would be acceptable in principle, its impact on rural character and on residential amenity of one of the proposed dwellings.

3. Section 45(1) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 requires the Commission, in dealing with an appeal, to have regard to the local development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The adopted Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP) was declared unlawful by the Court of Appeal on 18th May 2017. As a result of this, the Lisburn Area Plan 2001 (LAP) operates as the local development plan for the area with draft BMAP remaining a material consideration. The appeal site is outside any settlement limit and within the countryside as indicated in LAP and remains so in the emerging draft BMAP. There are no specific operational policies relevant to the determination of the appeal in either plan. The relevant policy context is therefore provided by Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS21) which is identified by the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for NI (SPPS) as a retained policy document. Retained Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments (PPS7) is also relevant.

4. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 lists a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development. A number of instances when planning permission will be granted for an individual dwelling house are outlined. The appellant argues that the appeal proposal represents the development of a small gap site within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage in accordance with Policy CTY8. It automatically follows that if the proposal is in accordance with Policy CTY8 it will comply with Policy CTY1. 5. Policy CTY8, entitled ‘Ribbon Development’, states that planning permission will be refused for a dwelling that creates or adds to a ribbon of development. Notwithstanding that this form of development has been consistently opposed, the policy goes on to state that an exception will be permitted for the development of a gap site. This exception relates to the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage, provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements. The amplification text at paragraph 5.34 is clear that the gap is between houses or other buildings. An exception will be permitted, even where the gap provides relief and a visual break in the developed appearance of the locality that helps maintain rural character, providing four elements are met. Namely, the gap site must be within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage; the gap site must be small; the existing development pattern along the frontage must be respected; and other planning and environmental requirements must be met.

6. For the purpose of the policy, the definition of a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. Irrespective of the orientation on the plot, a building has a frontage to a road if the plot on which it stands abuts or shares a boundary with the road. The appeal site forms a substantial part of a grass field that is located between the residential properties of Nos. 31 and 35 Clogher Road. The latter is the appellant’s property. As the appeal site falls within a frontage comprising the dwelling and garage at No.31 and the dwelling and garage at No.35, the first element that is required in order to qualify as an infill site is therefore met.

7. The frontage of the appeal site measures approximately 65m. The critical issue however in policy terms is the size of the gap between the buildings. The gap between the dwelling at No.31 which sits forward in its plot and the buildings at No.35 which are set back and elevated above the road measures approximately 95m. The intervening field between the properties has a separate access from the road and is physically and visually separated from the dwelling at No.35 by a wooden D-rail fence along the edge of the driveway and by a bank that is planted out as a rockery. Whilst the appellant owns and maintains the field and steps through the rockery lead down to it, I accept that the bottom of the bank of the rockery defines the extent of the curtilage of his dwelling. The fence along the driveway demarcates the rest of the curtilage boundary with the field. The frontage of the residential property of No.35 measures 40m whilst that for No.31 extends to 32m. I consider that the gap between the existing buildings is of a size sufficient to accommodate only the proposed two dwellings and their garages, while respecting the plot size of the existing pattern of development along the road frontage. Whilst an approximately 5m wide part of the field next to the rockery falls outside the red outline of the appeal site, I consider that this narrow gap would not represent a further infill opportunity given the gradient of this part of the field in juxtaposition to the sloping rockery of No.35.

8. The surrounding settlement pattern in this area is varied with some dwellings occupying a road frontage position and others set back from the road. The scale and disposition of each of the dwellings are different and they do not replicate each other though they are generally characterised by moderately large gardens. Albeit that the gables of the dwellings of Nos. 31 and 35 are presented to the road and the indicative layout in the concept plan shows the proposed dwellings fronting the road, the proposed size, scale and siting within each plot would broadly adhere to the prevailing existing development pattern. I conclude that the second and third elements of Policy CTY8 are met. 9. The fourth step of the infill policy in CTY8 that must be considered is whether the appeal proposal meets other planning and environmental requirements. Policy CTY13 states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and is of an appropriate design. The appeal site slopes from the western roadside corner towards the eastern rear corner. The northwestern boundary with No.31 is mixed species hedgerow whilst the roadside boundary is defined by a laurel hedge. Removal of part of the roadside hedge would be necessary to facilitate the creation of the proposed shared access arrangement with proposed replanting behind the visibility splays. The rear boundary of the appeal site is not defined. There is however a mature hedgerow and trees along the northeastern boundary of the host field which forms a backdrop. Travelling in a southerly along Clogher Road, views of the appeal site are limited by the mature vegetation which defines the adjoining boundary of No.31. From this direction, the proposed buildings would become visible when almost at the site frontage and would be viewed against the backdrop of the elevated buildings of No.35. Travelling in a northerly direction, the site becomes visible from the crest in the road to the front of No.35. From here the proposed buildings would be viewed against the mature hedge and buildings of No.31 and the vegetation and trees along the northeastern boundary of the host field.

10. Retention of the mature vegetation and trees along the boundary of the host field would preclude dwellings with a ridge height restriction of 6m as proposed by the planning authority from being unduly prominent in the landscape. The ridge height of the dwellings can be controlled accordingly by the imposition of a condition. Notwithstanding that removal of part of the roadside hedge would be necessary to create the access, a substantial part of it would remain. This along with other existing vegetation combined with the buildings at Nos. 31 and 35 would be sufficient to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for two dwellings and their garages to integrate into the landscape. Accordingly, the objector’s concerns on integration are not upheld and the planning authority has failed to sustain its third reason for refusal based upon Policy CTY13.

11. Policy CTY14 states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area. Whilst the appeal dwellings would represent additional development in the area, they would be located within an existing substantially and continuously built up frontage as defined by policy. They would not create a ribbon of development or result in a suburban style build up of development when viewed with existing buildings. Accordingly, the objector’s concerns on build up are not upheld and the planning authority has failed to sustain its fourth reason for refusal based upon Policy CTY14.

12. The appeal proposal complies with the environmental and planning requirements under Policies CTY13 and CTY14. I therefore conclude that the fourth element required by Policy CTY8 is met. As the appeal dwelling meets the four elements within Policy CTY8 it qualifies as an exception under Policy CTY1. Accordingly, the third party objection is not upheld and the planning authority has failed to sustain its first and second reasons for refusal based upon Policies CTY1 and CTY8 of PPS21.

13. Paragraph 4.12 of the SPPS identifies impacts relating to visual intrusion as a potential amenity issue arising from development. The relevant detailed policy for residential developments is provided by Policy QD1 in PPS7. The aim of criterion (h) of Policy QD1 of PPS7 includes avoiding any unacceptably adverse effect on proposed properties in respect of matters such as overlooking. The appeal site slopes gradually slopes upwards from the intervening boundary with No.31 towards No.35 which is elevated in the landscape. Whilst the front elevation of the dwelling at No.35 is orientated towards the appeal site, it is set back in its plot and would be to the rear of the indicated position of the proposed dwellings shown on the concept plan. The intervening rockery between No.35 and proposed Site 2 includes 3-4m coniferous shrubbery at the top of the bank which presently screens views towards the lower ground. Notwithstanding that the boundary of Site 2 would be approximately 22m from the front of No.35, I am satisfied that the combination of the offset, difference in levels and the rockery vegetation mitigate any potential for unacceptable overlooking towards the rear of the proposed dwelling on Site 2. A considered arrangement of the proposed dwelling and garage on the site could further mitigate any potential for visual intrusion or overlooking from the rockery. I am there satisfied that the proposal would not offend the SPPS or criterion (h) of Policy QD1. The planning authority has not sustained its fifth reason for refusal.

14. The objectors raised other concerns relating to road safety and foul sewage disposal. Clogher Road currently serves 20 dwellings, two of which also appear to be operating as farms. Dfi Roads calculates that there are approximately 182 vehicle trips per day associated with the existing development on the road. Notwithstanding that Clogher Road is narrow and undulating, Dfi Roads has started that the current road network is capable of accommodating the additional traffic likely to be generated by the appeal proposal. I am satisfied that appropriate visibility of 2.4m x 60m in each direction can be achieved at the proposed shared entrance to the dwellings and I am reinforced in this by the lack of objection to the proposal by Dfi Roads. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not compromise road safety. The P1 form indicates that foul sewage is to be by septic tank. Notwithstanding the objectors’ concerns about the number of septic tanks in the area, Environment Health has no objection in principle. Separate controls exist to cover the discharge of effluent and this would ensure that the position of any septic tank and soakaway are acceptable. These additional matters, either individually or cumulatively, would not warrant the dismissal of the appeal.

15. In the interest of rural character and given topography within the appeal site, it is necessary to restrict the ridge height of the dwellings and require existing and proposed levels to be submitted. The detailed design of the dwellings however can be considered by the planning authority at reserved matters stage. In the interest of road safety visibility splays are required to be provided and permanently retained. In the interest of visual amenity, a landscaping scheme is required to be submitted showing the retention of the existing vegetation and new planting along the undefined boundaries of the sites.

Conditions

(1) Except as expressly provided for by Conditions 2 and 4 the following reserved matters shall be as approved by the planning authority – the siting, design and external appearance of the dwellings and the means of access thereto.

(2) The ridge height of the dwelling and garage on each site shall not exceed 6.0m above finished floor level and underbuilding shall not exceed of 0.45m.

(3) Any application for approval of reserved matters shall include plans indicating floor levels of the proposed dwellings and garages in relation to existing and proposed ground levels, all in relation to an identified datum point on Clogher Road. (4) A scale plan and accurate site survey at 1:500 scale shall be submitted as part of the Reserved Matters showing the access to be constructed with visibility splays of 2.4m by 60m and other requirements in accordance with the RS1 form issued by Dfi Roads. The access shall be laid out before any building operations commence and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

(5) A detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval at Reserved Matters stage providing for:

 the permanent retention of the hedgerow along the north eastern boundary of the host field at a minimum height of 2 metres from ground level;

 the permanent retention of the roadside hedgerow at a minimum height of 1.5 metres from ground level except for that required to provide the indicated access arrangement.

 new planting of native species hedgerow along the boundaries of each site and behind the visibility splays. This new planting shall be allowed to grow on and retained at a height of not less than 1.5 metres.

The scheme of planting as finally approved shall be carried out during the first planting season after the commencement of the development. 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 the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

(6) Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

(7) The development shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

This decision is based on the following drawings submitted with the application:- 01 1:2500 scale Site location plan; 02 1:500 scale Proposed concept layout.

COMMISSIONER BRIGID McGLINCHEY List of Appearances

Planning Authority:- K Maguire

Appellant:- T Wilson, Agent

Third Parties:- M Armstrong W Haire

List of Documents

Planning Authority:- C1 Statement of case + Appendices

Appellant:- A1 Statement of case

Third Parties:- O1 Statement of case from M Armstrong & J Monteith O2 Enhanced scale of aerial photograph submitted with statement of case Statutory targets monthly update - April 2019 - June 2019 (unvalidated management information) Appendix 14HoS Lisburn and Castlereagh

Local applications Cases concluded Major applications (target of 30 weeks) (target of 15 weeks) (target of 39 weeks)

% of cases % of cases % of cases Number Average processed Number Average processed Number "70%" concluded Number decided/ processing within 30 Number decided/ processing within 15 Number brought to conclusion within 39 recieved withdrawn1 time2 weeks recieved withdrawn1 time2 weeks opened conclusion3 time3 weeks April 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 88 88 25.6 43.2% # 20 15 18.8 93.3% May 3 - 0.0 0.0% 0 87 87 18.2 47.1% # 22 26 19.0 84.6% June 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 85 81 15.6 46.9% # 24 23 24.3 87.0% July 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% August 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% September 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% October 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% November 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% December 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% January 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% February 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% March 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% 0 0 - 0.0 0.0% Year to date 3 - 0.0 0.0% 260 256 18.6 45.7% 66 64 19.4 87.5% Source: NI Planning Portal

Notes: 1. CLUDS, TPOS, NMCS and PADS/PANs have been excluded from all applications figures

2. The time taken to process a decision/withdrawal is calculated from the date on which an application is deemed valid to the date on which the decision is issued or the application is withdrawn. The median is used for the average processing time as any extreme values have the potential to inflate the mean, leading to a result that may not be considered as "typical".

3. The time taken to conclude an enforcement case is calculated from the date on which the complaint is received to the earliest date of the following: a notice is issued; proceedings commence; a planning application is received; or a case is closed. The value at 70% is determined by sorting data from its lowest to highest values and then taking the data point at the 70th percentile of the sequence. APPENDIX 15(a)HoS

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 5 August 2019

Responsible Officer Conor Hughes

Date of Report 23 July 2019

File Reference N/A

Legislation N/A

Subject End of Year Planning Statistics 2018/19

Attachments See Appendix 15(b)HoS

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on year end planning statistics relative to Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council.

2. The report is based upon an analysis of the 2018/19 Annual Statistical Bulletin (the Bulletin) produced by the Department for Infrastructure (DfI).

3. A summary of the information is set out in tables and charts at appendix 15(b)HoS for ease of reference and for the purpose of comparison.

Background

4. The Bulletin provides an overall view of planning activity across Northern Ireland and detail of Council performance in respect of the statutory targets for major and local development applications as laid out in the Local Government (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015.

5. The statutory targets for Development Management are as follows:

. Major development applications will be processed within an average of 30 weeks.

. Local development applications will be processed within an average of 15 weeks.

Overall Planning Activity

6. The Annual Statistical Bulletin 2018/19 indicates that across Northern Ireland, the number of planning application received decreased by nearly 3% on the previous financial year.

Applications Received

7. Within Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council, 960 applications were received (11 of which fell within the major category of development). This is sixty less than the number received in the previous year.

8. Broken down by Quarter roughly the same number of applications were received in each period.

Applications received(2018/19) broken down by Quarter

229 259

238 234

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

9. Of the total number of applications 123 were received for outline (O) planning permission and 735 for full (F) planning permission.

10. When broken down by types of development the majority were for residential development (including alterations and extensions to existing dwellings).

Development Type Received (O or F) Residential 656 Commercial 31 Industrial 7 Mixed Use 32 Civic 52 Change of Use 45 Agricultural 10 Other 127

Applications Decided 11. In the 2018/19 business year, 914 decisions were issued. This compared with 957 decisions issued during the 2017/18 business year which represented a 4.5 % decrease in activity.

12. Figures captured within the 2018/19 Annual Statistical Bulletin indicate that 866 applications were approved compared with a figure of 897 for the last business year. The majority of these decisions were again mostly in the residential category of development.

13. The Annual Statistical Bulletin indicates that three of the 11 Councils issued more decisions than they received applications during 2018/19. This Council issued 46 fewer applications than it received.

14. The report acknowledges that in addition to processing planning applications, the Council dealt with other planning related work.

15. During 2018/19, it progressed 40 non material change applications, 35 discharge of condition requests, 64 formal Pre-Application Discussion requests and 17 Pre- Application Notices. Compared with figures captured last year, numbers increased across all these work remained fairly constant.

Approval Rates 16. The Annual Statistical Bulletin indicates that the overall Northern Ireland approval rate for all planning applications for 2017/18 was 93.8%, which was similar to the previous year.

17. The approval rate for Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council year end was 93.7% which is in line with the overall NI rate. The trend over the 4 quarters is reflected in the chart below.

LCCC Approval Rates - 2017/18

96 95.5 95.5 95 94.5 94 93.7 93.3 93.5 93 93 92.5

Approval Rate Approval 92.5 92 91.5 91 1 2 3 4 Year End Quarter

Live Applications 18. At the end of March 2019, there were 6454 live applications in the planning system as a whole which represents a decrease of 4.3% over the year from the 6745 figure captured at the end of March 2018.

19. The report indicated that over one-sixth of all live applications in the planning system at the end of March 2019 were over one year old (1144 – 17.7) which is an increase of 2.4 percentage points from the proportion reported for the end of March 2018.

20. The total number of live applications within LCCC at the end of March 2019 was 655. Last year, the figure as of the end of March 2018 was 659. The breakdown of live applications by length of time in the system is reflected in the chart below.

Live Applications broken down by Quarter

700 655 636 649 597 600

500

400 365 350 327 344 300

200 167 164 161 128 141 143 144 103 100

0 Q1 End Q2 End Q3 End Q4 End

6 months - 6-12 months 12 months + Overall

21. The report noted that the proportion of live cases in the system over a year increased in six councils. The percentage for LCCC was up by 7.9 percentage points to 22% which represented the greatest increase across the network.

22. Legacy Applications had been a specific focus for the Unit in the 2017/18 business year. The focus during the 2018/19 business year was on improving processing times in respect of local applications and the achievements in this regard were acknowledged in the report. This focus had an impact on output with regard to older cases.

23. The Unit will however continue to progress older cases to a conclusion in the coming business year. By increasing the overall timeliness of decision making for new applications entering the system this should not be to the detriment of other customers with applications in the system longer.

24. Work is commenced to unpick the detail of the increase in the number applications in the system more than a year and make sure that the oldest applications are being brought forward in sufficient numbers so as to not create a backlog of historical LCCC applications.

Major Development Planning Applications

25. The Annual report acknowledged that Major developments have important economic, social and environmental implications. The number of major applications received across Northern Ireland during 2018/19 was 137 a 14.9% decrease on the number received in the previous year (161).

26. Over the year, a total of 137 major planning applications were decided and 11 withdrawn.

27. LCCC received 11 major applications which was 5 more than the number received in the previous year. A total of 14 decisions issued in respect of major applications during the reporting period which was 4 less than last year.

28. Average processing times for major applications across the Council network was noted in the Annual Bulletin to be 59.0 weeks an increase of 8.8 weeks from the 50.2 week reported for the 2017/18 business year. Three councils met the statutory target of 30 weeks in 2018/19.

29. Average processing times for processing major applications in LCCC year end was 78 weeks which was an improvement of 16.4 weeks on the previous year. The report acknowledged that LCCC processed a large proportion of major legacy applications (38.1%) during this period.

30. Approval rates for Major applications within LCCC registered in the Annual report at 92.9% which was slightly lower that the Northern Ireland average of 93.2%.

31. Five of the 14 major decisions issued fell into the legacy category, the oldest application being a 2007 DoE application.

Local Development Planning Applications

32. Local applications are typically residential and minor commercial applications. The number of local applications received across Northern Ireland during 2018/19 was 12,404 a decrease of 2.9% from the 12,770 applications received during 2017/18.

33. The number of local planning applications decided in 2018/19 was 12,019 a decrease of 1% when compared with the 2017/18 figure.

34. LCCC received 949 local applications which was 55 less than the number received the previous year. A total of 900 decisions issued in respect of local applications during the reporting period which was 39 less than the number issued last year.

35. Average processing times across the Council network was noted in the Annual Bulletin to be 14.8 weeks representing an improvement of 0.4 weeks when compared with 2017/18 (15.2 weeks). The shortest average processing time for local applications was 9.6 weeks.

36. Average processing times for processing local applications in LCCC year end was 17.7 weeks is an improvement of 3.9 weeks when compared with the 21.6 week processing time captured for the previous business year. LCCC was recognised in the report as having the greatest improvement in terms of average processing times.

37. Approximately 6 of the 900 local decisions issued fell into the legacy category, the oldest application being a 2009 DOE application. In addition, the Unit presented some 120 applications to the Planning Committee for determination with approximately 180 applications coming forward onto the weekly delegated list for Member consideration, 60 applications were ‘Called In’ to the Committee for determination.

38. Approval rates for local applications within LCCC registered in the Annual report as 94.8%, which was 1.6% higher than the Council wide rate of 93.8%.

Recommendation

39. It is recommended that Members note: (i) Information provided in relation to year end statistics.

Appendix 15(b)HoS

Annex A Lisburn & Castlereagh Planning Statistics 2018/19

Overall Planning Applications Live Applications broken down by Quarter 1200 700 649 655 1038 636 10161020 987 597 960 957 914 600 1000 897 866 500 800 365 400 327 344 350 600 300 400 200 167 164 141 143 161 144 103 128 200 37 55 43 100 0 0 Received Decided Approved Withdrawn Q1 End Q2 End Q3 End Q4 End

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 6 months - 6-12 months 12 months + Overall

The number of planning applications received across Proportion of live cases in system over a year Two DOE legacy Northern Ireland, the number of planning application increased in six Councils. Percentage in applications still to received decreased by nearly 3% on the previous year. LCCC was up by 7.9 percentge points. be determined.

Applications by Development Type Planning Statutory Target

10 127 2018/19 78 45 17.7

52 32 2017/18 94.4 21.6 7 31 656 2016/17 73.4 22.4

Residential Commercial Industrial Mixed Use 0 20 40 60 80 100

Civic Change of Use Agricultural Other Major Local

Major Target: 30 weeks 11 Decisions in respect of legacy DOE 'Other' includes works to faciliate disabled applications issued during this period, i / d t d Li t d B ildi

pp g p , persons, signs/adverts and Listed Buildings Local Target: 15 weeks the oldest one being 2007.