Ards and North Down Borough Council a G E N

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

25 September 2019

Dear Sir/Madam

You are hereby invited to attend a meeting of the Planning Committee of the Ards and North Down Borough Council which will be held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Tuesday, 1 October 2019 commencing at 7.00pm.

Tea, coffee and sandwiches will be available from 6.00pm.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Reid Chief Executive Ards and North Down Borough Council

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Matters arising from minutes Planning Committee Meeting of 3 September 2019 (Copy attached)

4. Planning Applications

Construction of discount food store, provision of car parking, landscaping and associated site works (relocation of existing supermarket at No. 1 Jubilee Road – supermarket to be retained but food store use to be extinguished and transferred to the 4.1 LA06/2018/1388/F application site) Undeveloped land bounded by Castlebawn Drive to the East immediately opposite and West of Castlebawn Retail Park, and approximately 120m North of Messines Road (otherwise known as the A20 Southern Relief Road), Newtownards

5. Update on Planning Appeals (Report attached)

6. Planning Budgetary Control Report – August 2019 (Report attached)

7. Proposed Amendment to Scheme of Delegation (Report attached)

7b. Outcome of DFI Planning Visits to Planning Committees (Report attached)

7c. Planning Monitoring Framework (Report attached)

8. Governance Arrangements for Local Development Plan (LDP) (Report attached)

9. Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council Consultation and Engagement Strategy (Report attached)

10. Update from Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group MASWG – Local Development Plan (Report attached)

11. Proposed Good Practice Guide (Report attached)

MEMBERSHIP OF PLANNING COMMITTEE (16 MEMBERS)

Alderman Gibson Councillor Cooper Alderman Girvan Councillor Kennedy Alderman Keery Councillor McAlpine Alderman McDowell Councillor McClean Alderman McIlveen (Chair) Councillor McKee Councillor Adair Councillor P Smith Councillor Brooks Councillor Thompson Councillor Cathcart Councillor Walker (Vice Chair)

ITEM 4.1 Ards and North Down Borough Council

Application Ref LA06/2018/1388/F Construction of discount food store, provision of car parking, landscaping and associated site works (relocation of existing supermarket at No. 1 Jubilee Road - supermarket building to Proposal be retained but food store use to be extinguished and transferred to the application site)- Additional information/plans received

Undeveloped land bounded by Castlebawn Drive to the East immediately opposite and West of Castlebawn Retail Park, Location and approximately 120m North of Messines Road (otherwise known as the A20 Southern Relief Road) Newtownards

DEA: Newtownards Committee Major development application Interest Validated 16/01/2019 • Site lies inside settlement limit of Newtownards and outside Town Centre as defined in Ards and Down Area Plan 2015

• Not zoned for particular land use

• Designated in Development Plan as a Development Opportunity Site

• Slight increase in retail floorspace, but not considered to have adverse retail impact on town centre Summary • Existing Lidl Store at Jubilee Road is outside town centre

• Current retail use at Jubilee Road will be extinguished via a Discontinuance Notice

• Impact on drainage, flooding, historic and natural environment considered by statutory consultees

• No objections submitted

Approval subject to conditions and legal agreement relating to Recommendation Discontinuance Notice

Attachment Item 4.1a – Case Officer Report

Development Management Case Officer Report

Application Ref: LA06/2018/1388/F DEA: Newtownards Proposal: Construction of discount food store, provision of car parking, landscaping and associated site works (relocation of existing supermarket at No. 1 Jubilee Road - supermarket building to be retained but food store use to be extinguished and transferred to the application site)- Additional information/plans received Location: Undeveloped land bounded by Castlebawn Drive to the east immediately opposite and West of Castlebawn Retail Park, and approximately 120m North of Messines Road (otherwise known as the A20 Southern Relief Road) Newtownards Applicant: Agent: Castlebawn Newtownards Ltd MBA Planning Ltd

Date Valid: 16.01.2019 Env Statement Requested: No

Date last Advertised: 19/09/2019

Date last Neighbour Notified: N/A

Consultations: Yes

Representations: No

Letters of support 0 Letters of Objection 0 Petitions 0

Summary of Main Issues:

• Retail Impact • Impact on designated sites and natural heritage • Access and roads safety • Drainage and flood risk • Impact on the historic environment • Aircraft safety Case Officer: Clare Rodgers

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission

Agreed by Authorised Officer

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

1. Description of Site and Surrounding Area The site lies to the south of the town of Newtownards and on lands immediately west of Castlebawn Retail Park (separated by Castlebawn Drive) which contains Tesco, Matalan, Home Bargains and a currently vacant retail unit, Tesco petrol station and a Burger King drive thru restaurant.

The site lies to the north of the ‘Southern Relief Road’ which runs from the ‘Castlebawn’ roundabout to the Portaferry Road roundabout. The site and the wider area as shown in blue on the map below is an expanse of overgrown rough land which is occasionally utilised for temporary uses such as the circus/fun fair.

Playing grounds belonging to Regent House Grammar School abut the north western corner of the site. Further west and abutting the blue line below is a car sales business which fronts the Comber Road.

Further south of the site on the opposite side of the new link road is Ards Airfield.

The existing Lidl store, located at 1 Jubilee Road, is located to the south west of the site on the opposite side of the Comber Road.

Early mapping (1900-1932) shows part of the site on ‘Ards Recreation Ground’ with racing track. In more recent years it was used as the compound and storage area for works whilst the Southern Link Road was under construction.

2. Site Location Plan

Site location plan with existing Lidl store on Jubilee Road shown by red star

Orthophotography showing rough outline of proposed site and existing Lidl store with red roof to west (flight date Quarter 3 2018)

Historic orthophotography showing site in context of surrounding area

Flight date 11/07/2005 Flight date 31/05/2009

Flight date 27/05/2012 Flight date 23/07/2014

3. Planning History

Existing Lidl Store at 1 Jubilee Road:

X/2003/1348/F Local Foodstore with associated Approval: parking 13/01/2005 X/2004/1488/F Local Foodstore with associated Approval: parking 18/11/2005 X/2005/0884/F Right Hand Turning Lane Approval 27/02/2006 X/2011/0109/F Single storey extension to existing Approval: Lidl store to provide ancillary storage 24/11/2011 and recladding to elevations to meet brand standards LA06/2016/1129/PAN Proposed redevelopment of existing PAN acceptable: Lidl store 28/11/2016

For application site:

LA06/2018/0907/PAN Reconfiguration and reorganisation Pan acceptable: of part implemented retail approvals 28.08.2018 (X/2003/1093 and X/2004/1753). Relocation of Lidl supermarket onto Note X/2003/1093 lands with part implemented should read as planning permission for retail X/2002/1093/RM warehousing under X/2004/1753. Relocation of part implemented planning permission for supermarket under X/2003/1041 onto lands with part implemented approval for retail warehouses under X/2003/1093. X/2002/1093/RM Comprehensive mixed use Approval: development including retail 24/11/2003 warehousing, business units, leisure units, car parking and landscaping. (Amended Scheme) X/2004/1753/F Erection of 1 no. retail warehouse Approval: unit and associated car parking with 24/10/2005 access from proposed Comber Road LA06/2017/1060/F Temporary Sunday market with Under consideration adjacent overflow parking (Amended proposal)

For wider site (red line and blue line of application): LA06/2019/0656/LDP Completion of works to construct a Under consideration neighbourhood foodstore with access from Comber Road/Portaferry Road link under approval X/2003/1041/F

X/2003/1041/F Erection of neighbourhood food Appeal upheld: store, with access from proposed 24.08.2004 Comber Road, Portaferry LA06/2018/1093/F Coffee shop drive through restaurant, Under consideration car parking, and access and associated works. LA06/2019/0406/F Erection of 2 drive-through Under consideration restaurants/cafes, with car-parking, access and associated site works

To north of site – within Bawn Walls

LA06/2019/0603/F Proposed residential development Under consideration providing a total of 112 no. detached and semi-detached units to include 74 no. 3 and 4-bedroom houses and 38 no. 2-bedroom apartments with associated landscaping. The scheme also includes the retention and restoration of Bawn Wall and a linear park with all roads, parking and infrastructure. Main access to the site will be from the A20 Southern Distributor Road with provision for a pedestrian link to Court Street.

For wider ‘Castlebawn’ area

X/1998/0623/O Comprehensive mixed use Approval: development including retail 14/05/2002 warehousing, leisure and business parks, car parking, new link road between Comber Road and Portaferry Road and new pedestrian access to the development from Court Street X/1998/0624/O Comprehensive development Approval: proposals: food superstore, petrol 14/05/2002 filling station, car parking, new road link between Comber Road and Portaferry Road and new pedestrian access to Court Street X/2002/1093/RM Comprehensive mixed use Approval: development including retail 24/11/2003 warehousing, business units, leisure units, car parking and landscaping. (Amended Scheme) X/2004/0748/F To vary condition 06 of planning Appeal Upheld: application X/98/0623/O and 01/08/2005 condition 02 of X/02/1093/RM (bulky goods restriction). 5

X/2008/0919/F Chemist at ground floor with doctors Approval: surgery at first floor with access from 14/10/2009 Portaferry roundabout via the southern distribution road. X/2009/0291/F Car Park - provision in association Approval: with X/2008/0919. 14/10/2009 X/2010/0211/F Erection of petrol station and Approval: associated site works. 18/10/2010 X/2010/0765/F Extension of retail units approved Approval: under X/2002/1093 at ground floor, 02.09.2011 with Class D1 use at first floor, amendment to siting of extant approval X/2002/1143/F and associated parking.

4. Planning Policy Framework

The relevant planning policy framework for this application is as follows:

• Ards and Down Area Plan 2015 • Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland • Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage • Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement & Parking • Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning and Economic Development • Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology & the Built Heritage • Planning Policy Statement 15: Revised – Planning and Flood Risk

5. Supplementary Planning Guidance

Relevant supplementary planning guidance for this application is as follows:

• Living Places • Parking Standards

6. Consultations Consultation was carried out with the following statutory and non-statutory consultees and a synopsis of responses is listed Consultee Response Shared Environmental Service No objection subject to conditions DFI Roads No objection NI Water No objection subject to conditions DAERA – Water Management Unit No objection DAERA – Land, Soil and Air No objection subject to conditions DFC - Historic Environment Division No objection subject to conditions AND Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions DFI Rivers No objection

Ulster Flying Club Initial concerns raised – now no objection

7. Assessment of Planning Issues/Material Considerations Pre Application Community Consultation

As this application is within the category for major development, the applicant was required to undertake pre-application community consultation (PACC).

This PACC explained that the proposal was for relocation of Lidl’s long-established premises to a larger and more accessible site with better car parking facilities. It was a direct response to customer feedback who desire a more modern shopping experience and an enhanced range of products particularly its chilled and fresh food offer.

Two public exhibition and drop-in events were held in the Strangford Arms Hotel on 2nd and 24th October. Whilst not organized by the applicant’s planning team, the Newtownards Chronicle picked up on the public notice and ran a story on their front page referring to the exhibition on 11th October, further increasing public awareness of the event and the proposal. A total of ten written responses were received – and were overwhelmingly positive. No changes were made to the layout, design or use of the proposal as a result of this PACC.

The Proposal and Development Quality and Impact on Character of Area

The proposal is for the construction of a discount food store (Lidl), provision of car parking, landscaping and associated site works. This incorporates relocation of the existing Lidl at Jubilee Road. Whilst the supermarket building to be retained, the food store use is to be extinguished (by way of a Discontinuance Notice) and transferred to the application site.

The proposal has been designed to allow Lidl to carry out its full range of goods and function efficiently as a supermarket for both basket and trolley shopping: • A foodstore positioned along the western boundary of the site comprising a gross floorspace of 2205 sqm and a net sales area of 1420sqm; • Car park with 136 spaces; • A modern mono pitched roof building consisting of glass and cladding; • Creation of service yard that is discreetly positioned at the rear of the building and screened from public view; • Use of existing junctions created as part of the A20 Southern Relief Road; • Hard and soft landscaping and creation of new pedestrian link through the site.

This is a single storey structure with a monopitch roof that starts at 3.3m and rises up to 6.7m. The sloping roof helps to address one of the main vehicular junctions within the wider Castlebawn site. It is also seen against Scrabo Hill and Scrabo Tower which provides an attractive backdrop to the site.

As one can see from looking at the site on the ground and from the orthophotography, it lies within a currently disused area of scrubland bounded by Messines Road, 7

Castlebawn Drive and in the wider area by Comber Road. It forms part of the wider area known locally as Castlebawn, and reads with the Retail Park opposite. It is not considered that the proposal will adversely impact on the area in light of the surrounding retail uses and road network, and the acceptability of retailing in this location as referred to by designation of the Development Opportunity Site.

The site is not located in proximity to residential development and therefore there is no expectation of impact regarding amenity.

Contextual photo of proposal in place

Development Plan

Section 6(4) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (The Act) states that where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Section 45 (1) of The Act requires regard to be had to the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. In practice this means that development that accords with the development plan should be approved.

The application site is located within the settlement development limit of Newtownards, but outside and south of the designated Town Centre, as detailed within the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015. Whilst the site is not zoned for a particular land use, it is designated under Proposal NS 46 – ‘Castlebawn’ as a ‘Development Opportunity Site’ in accordance with Policy SETT 3 of the Plan.

Development Opportunity Sites (DOSs) are identified within the settlement limits of main and large towns to indicate areas which are considered particularly suitable for a specified type of development. They are identified where lands are under-utilised or vacant and where development, which might provide a mix of new uses, could promote the vitality and viability of the urban area. The Plan states that proposals to develop DOSs will be considered in the context of prevailing planning policy and guidance.

The Plan (adopted in 2009) refers to the site as having planning permission for mixed use development including retail warehousing, leisure and business park, car parking, a new link road between Comber Road and Portaferry Road (Southern Link Road as constructed) and a new pedestrian access to the development from Court Street.

There is no conflict with the Development Plan.

Planning history of wider Castlebawn site

It is maintained by the owner of the overall Castlebawn site that previous approvals have been kept live by virtue of the their lawful implementation and as such a Certificate of Lawfulness of the Proposed Use or Development (ref LA06/2019/0656/LDP) has been submitted to seek confirmation that the approval for ‘Completion of works to construct a neighbourhood foodstore with access from Comber Road/Portaferry Road link under approval X/2003/1041/F’ can be implemented lawfully. Evidence submitted with this application includes reference to a pile having been driven on the site in a location corresponding with the approved layout. This application is currently being assessed on the basis of its facts, the location of the site within a DOS, and previous approvals granted on the wider site previously.

Discontinuance of Existing Lidl Store

The applicant has requested that an Order be made under Section 73 of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requiring the discontinuance of the use of the existing Lidl foodstore located at Jubilee Road, Newtownards. The purpose of a Discontinuance Order is to effectively remove the Class A1 retail floorspace from the existing Lidl store to ensure that there will not be significant net gain in Class A1 retail floorspace should the proposed Lidl store be approved by Planning Committee. This is discussed later in this Report.

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS)

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

Paragraph 4.5 of the SPPS directs the planning authorities when decision making to contribute positively to health and well-being through, inter alia, providing for safe and secure age-friendly environments, supporting delivery of homes to meet the full range of housing needs contributing to balanced communities.

Town Centres and Retailing – Assessment of Retail Impact

Planning Policy Statement 5 on Retailing and Town Centres was cancelled by the introduction of the SPPS in September 2015. The aim of the SPPS is to support and sustain vibrant town centres through the promotion of established town centres as the appropriate first choice location for retailing and other complementary functions consistent with the Regional Development Strategy.

The SPPS directs planning authorities to adopt a town centre first approach for retail and states that all applications for retail development above a threshold of 1000m2 gross external area not proposed in a town centre should be required to undertake a full assessment of retail impact as well as a quantitative and qualitative assessment of need.

This proposal seeks to relocate the existing Class A1 retail foodstore at 1 Jubilee Road to this site. The store currently operating from Jubilee Road consists of a gross floorspace of 1770sqm and a net sales area of 1286sqm. 9

The agent acting on behalf of the applicant submitted a retail study as supporting information with the application. Due to the specific nature of retailing associated with this proposal, the Council had the supporting information independently assessed by a retail expert employed by the Planning Department. The summary of findings was as follows:

In many respects the retail policy tests of retail need and retail impact of the proposal (i.e. solus impact of the store on its own) are substantially addressed by the following points:

− The proposal relates to the relocation of the existing Lidl store in the Town. − the increase in retail sales space is quite modest (134 net sqm equating to a 10% increase on the existing store size). − the additional floorspace is equivalent to 4.7% of existing convenience goods floorspace and 0.2% of existing comparison goods floorspace in Newtownards Town Centre. The small increase in size bodes well for minimal retail impact. − Solus retail impact is likely to disproportionately affect retailers at Castlebawn Retail Park (Tesco and Home Bargains) due to their close proximity to the proposal. The applicant estimates solus retail impact on these stores at 0.82% and 2.31% respectively. In the absence of survey data it is extremely difficult to estimate impact at this micro level but, given the small increase in the floorspace proposed, it is most unlikely to be significantly adverse.

In terms of the sequential test, recognition needs to be afforded to the fact that the store already trades in an out of centre location, some 480m walking distance from the boundary of the town centre. The application site is likewise in an out of centre location, albeit it is situated slightly closer to the town centre boundary (circa 420m walking distance). Also, unlike the site of the existing store, the application site is a recognised Development Opportunity Site in the ADAP.

The assessment concludes that the proposal is acceptable from the perspective of retail planning.

Planning Policy Statement 2 – Natural Heritage

Policy NH 1 European and Ramsar Sites, International

Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that, either individually or in combination with existing and/or proposed plans or projects, is not likely to have a significant effect on –

• a European Site (Special Protection Area, proposed Special Protection Area, Special Areas of Conservation, candidate Special Areas of Conservation and Sites of Community Importance);

• a listed or proposed Ramsar Site

The potential impact of this proposal on Special Areas of Conservation, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites has been assessed in 10

accordance with the requirements of Regulation 43(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended). The proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features, conservation objectives or status of any of these sites. Mitigation is proposed through the inclusion of conditions.

Natural Environment Division has considered the impacts of the proposal on designated sites and other natural heritage interests and, on the basis of the information provided, has no concerns subject to conditions.

Policy NH 21 Species protected by law

Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm a European protected species or any other statutorily protected species and which cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated against.

The site is dominated by ranked semi-improved grassland and bare ground (hard standing). No hedgerows are present. Natural Environment Division has considered the impacts of the proposal on the site and, on the basis of the information provided, is content with the proposal.

Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access, Movement and Parking

Policy AMP 2: Access to Public Roads

Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the intensification of the use of an existing access, onto a public road where: a) such access will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic; and b) the proposal does not conflict with Policy AMP 3 Access to Protected Routes.

Following a query raised by DFI Roads in relation to the originally submitted red line of the application site, a revised plan was received and re-advertised accordingly. DFI Roads was reconsulted and offers no objection to the proposal.

Vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access is provided into this site through the existing road infrastructure provided as part of the A20 Southern Relief Road and link to the existing road network at Comber Road and South Street. The site is within walking distance of the town centre. All footways are well lit and overlooked. Pedestrian crossings will have lowered kerbs and tactile paving. Traffic signal-controlled junctions have a pedestrian stage incorporated into the phasing.

Policy AMP 7: Car Parking and Servicing

Development proposals will be required to provide adequate provision for car parking and appropriate servicing arrangements. The precise amount of car parking will be determined according to the specific characteristics of the development and its location 11

having regard to the Department’s published standards or any reduction provided for in an area of parking restraint designated in a development plan. Proposals should not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic. The service access will be provided through the internal access road to a dedicated and discreetly positioned access bay to the north of the site. Generally, only one lorry movement is required per day which stocks the supermarket and returns waste to Lidl’s Regional Distribution Centre at Nutts Corner. There is sufficient space within the car park to enable the lorry to manoeuvre within the site and exit in a forward gear. Servicing will undertaken in dedicated delivery space to the north of the site.

Parking has been assessed in accordance with the Parking Standards for land use Class A1 Shops: Food Retail. The requirement is 1 space per 14m2 of net floor area and therefore 1808/14 = 129 spaces are required.

A total of 136 car parking spaces including 4 spaces for disabled users and 4 for parent and toddler spaces are proposed. They are located in close proximity to the entrance pod of the foodstore in order to provide convenient pedestrian access to the store.

A customer toilet has been included within the scheme and is suitable for disabled customers. All proposed formed gradients are between 1:50 and 1:100 to facilitate disabled wheelchair and ambulant disabled used.

Cycle stands will be provided to encourage both staff and customers to use bicycles as an alternative form of transport. Cycle routes (combined cycle and footways are provided on the recently constructed A20.

The site has excellent public transport facilities and is within easy walking distance of the bus stops at the Tesco store on the A20. Buses serve the main residential areas within the town and other nearby towns including Comber, Portaferry, Dundonald and Belfast. Over 20 private hire taxi firms operate in the Newtownards. This provides an opportunity for the promotion of sustainable travel patterns.

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage

Historic Environment Division: Historic Monuments has assessed the application and on the basis of the information provided is content that the proposal is satisfactory to SPPS and PPS 6 archaeological policy requirements. Conditions have been recommended.

Planning Policy Statement 15 (revised): Planning and Flood Risk

Policy FLD 1 - Development in Fluvial (River) and Coastal Flood Plains

The Flood Hazard Map (NI) indicates that the site lies within the defended coastal and fluvial flood plain. The application was accepted as an exception as it was previously developed land which is defended. DfI Rivers considered the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and accepted its logic and has no reason to disagree with its conclusions. 12

Policy FLD 3 - Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk Outside Flood Plains

In accordance with revised PPS 15, Planning and Flood Risk, FLD 3, Development and Surface Water (Pluvial) Flood Risk outside Flood Plains, a Drainage Assessment is required if an additional 1000m2 or greater of hard-surfacing is to occur. The Drainage Assessment was considered by Rivers Agency and it accepted its logic and has no reason to disagree with its conclusions.

Policy FLD5 - Development in Proximity to Reservoirs

The proposed car park of the site falls within an area of inundation of both Kiltonga and Strangford Lough Wildflowers Pond as illustrated on the Controlled Reservoir Development Planning Flood Map.

The applicant has not provided information, in line with Revised PPS 15 or the Technical Advice Note “The Practical Application of Strategic Planning Policy for Development in Proximity to Reservoirs” (TAN), that demonstrates that the condition, management and maintenance regime of the reservoirs is appropriate to provide sufficient assurance regarding reservoir safety.

In respect of Policy FLD 5 it is recognised that there has been unexpected practical challenges with the operation of the policy for planning authorities, Rivers Planning Advisory Unit, and agents and developers. This relates to the need for infilling and tension with Policy FLD 1, change of flow paths and dealing with depth and velocity. However, it is recognised that the condition of the reservoir is an important material consideration.

In light of not being able to provide the evidence required to satisfy the initial part of the Policy (FLD 5) in respect of the condition, management and maintenance regime of the reservoir at question, Rivers did require a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to indicate that the development as proposed is acceptable should the reservoirs breach.

Such an FRA was considered by Rivers Agency on the basis of the Defra model rather than the Binnie model. The Defra model is based on impact to people whereas the Binnie model is concerned with structural damage.

In respect of the submitted FRA for ‘All Development’ – it states “An assessment of depth and velocity has been carried out and it is considered that the potential reservoir flood risk to the proposed development site does not constitute an unacceptable combination of depth and velocity in accordance with the Defra ‘Risk to People Matrix’.

In respect of the ‘Change in flow paths’ the FRA states “Owing to the site having no active flow passing through, and a minor area of reservoir inundation affected there is no change in reservoir flow paths either on or off the site”.

DfI Rivers has no reason to disagree with either of the above statements.

The policy dictates that development is to be precluded where the FRA indicates flow path issues, fast flowing or deep inundation. This is not the case in this situation. 13

It is therefore considered by Planning that the development can proceed irrespective of the failure of the proposal to meet the first part of the policy.

Ards Airport The Obstacle Limitation Surface drawing by Taggarts show that the ridge height of the building will not interfere with the safeguarding criteria from the Air Traffic Services.

The height of the proposed building will not breach the protected surfaces of Newtownards Airport (Ulster Flying Club).

Any potential impacts during the construction phase can be planned for and appropriately managed.

The representative from the Airport had originally submitted comments objecting to the development in respect of the approach to the airport regarding an emergency runway issue; however, it has now been confirmed that the runway is not affected by this application and to this effect there is no objection from the Airport.

It is also notable that the Airport did not submit any objections to the Ards and Down Area Plan 2015 in relation to the Castlebawn site.

The planning agent has made the Planning Department aware of discussions with the Airport regarding whether a 15m emergency grass area within future landscaped areas for the rest of the Castlebawn site can be accommodated, if required, to deal with any emergency landing issues. In this respect the Planning Department does not have any reason to consider that this development will have any impact on the airport.

An informative shall be included to inform the applicant/contractor of the need to notify the Airport regarding the erection of any structures, including cranes, which are to be used in the construction phase of the development a minimum of 6 weeks prior to commencement of works.

Discontinuance Order

As previously referred to above, this proposal seeks to move the existing Class A1 retail use from the existing Lidl Store located at Jubilee Road, Newtownards, to this new proposed store, the subject of this planning application. To facilitate this arrangement the applicant is relying upon an Order being made under section 73 of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (discontinuance of use) by the Council, commonly referred to as a Discontinuance Order. Such an Order effectively takes away the existing rights to use land and property.

Section 73 reads as follows:

73—(1) If it appears to a council that it is expedient in the interests of the proper planning of an area within its district (including the interests of amenity), regard being had to the local development plan and to any other material considerations—

(a) that any use of land should be discontinued, or that any conditions should be imposed on the continuance of a use of land; or (b) that any buildings or works should be altered or removed; 14

the council may by order require the discontinuance of that use within such time as may be specified in the order, or impose such conditions as may be so specified on the continuance thereof, or require such steps as may be so specified to be taken within such time as may be so specified for the alteration or removal of the buildings or works, as the case may be.

In this case it is proposed that a Discontinuance Order would be made to discontinue the Class A1 retail use of the existing Lidl foodstore before the new Lidl store becomes operational.

This mechanism provides the Council with the power to control the nature and scale of Class A1 retailing within the area outside the designated town centre. The Discontinuance Order would remove the effect of the previous grant of planning permission for the existing Lidl Unit at Jubilee Road and its current Class A1 retail use. The building however can be retained, and planning permission sought for an alternative conforming use.

Whilst the applicant submitted a Proposal of Application Notice to the Council under LA06/2016/1129/PAN in November 2016 in respect of the ‘redevelopment of existing Lidl store’, no planning application has been submitted. The applicant has referenced that such a planning application will be made in the future.

It should be noted that Section 74 of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) confirms the Section 73 Discontinuance Order. The Committee should note that legislative provisions exist for compensation to be paid when a Discontinuance Order is made by a Council. As a consequence, should the Council decide to grant planning permission for the new store on the basis that it will replace the existing level of Class A1 retail use (and include a limited addition), the applicant will be dependent upon DFI confirming any Discontinuance Order prior to any decision notice for approval of this proposal being issued by the Council.

Furthermore, if during that period an issue arises that causes concern for the Council, the planning application will be returned to the Planning Committee for further consideration.

8. Consideration of Representations No letters in support of the proposal or in objection to the proposal have been received.

9. Conclusion This proposal has been assessed against the Development Plan, the prevailing planning policy context, and all material considerations, and I am content to recommend approval subject to conditions, and only issue once Discontinuance Order confirmed.

10. Recommendation

Grant Planning Permission With delegated powers to deal with associated Discontinuance Order

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

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

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

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

3. Access shall be afforded to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the Department for Communities – Historic Environment Division to observe the operations and to monitor the implementation of archaeological requirements.

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

4. Prior to the occupation of the proposed development a Verification Report must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Council. This report must demonstrate that the remediation measures outlined in the Contaminated Land Assessment (Phase 1 PRA, Phase 2 GQRA and outline remediation Strategy, Castlebawn (Hawksbay Retail) Commercial Development, prepared by MCL Consulting, referenced P1703-2 and dated September 2018 have been implemented. The Verification Report shall demonstrate the successful completion of remediation works and that the site is now fit for the commercial end-use. It must demonstrate that the identified potential pollutant linkages are effectively broken. The Verification Report shall be in accordance with current best practice and guidance as outlined by the Environment Agency. In particular, this Verification Report must demonstrate that:

• A 300mm clean soil capping layer shall be placed on any soft landscaping areas;

• Gas protection measures to meet Characteristic Situation 2 as per C665 shall be installed into the building which must attain a gas protection score of 2.5 (B.S 8485)

Reason: Protection of human health

5. Any fuel storage tanks (and associated infra-structure) must be fully decommissioned and removed in line with current Guidance for Pollution Prevention (GPP 2) and the Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG27) and the

quality of surrounding soils and groundwater verified. Should contamination be identified during this process, Conditions 6 and 7 will apply.

Reason: Protection of human health and environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use and to prevent adverse impacts on the integrity of European designated sites from polluting discharges associated with potentially contaminated land.

6. If during the development works, new contamination or risks are encountered which have not previously been identified, works shall cease, and the Council shall be notified immediately. This new contamination shall be fully investigated in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). In the event of unacceptable risks being identified, a remediation strategy shall be agreed with the Council in writing, and subsequently implemented and verified to its satisfaction.

Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for Use and to prevent adverse impacts on the integrity of European designated sites from polluting discharges associated with potentially contaminated land.

7. After completing the remediation works under Conditions 5 and 6; and prior to occupation of the development, a verification report must be submitted in writing and agreed with the Council. This report must be completed by competent persons in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). The verification report must present all the remediation and monitoring works undertaken and demonstrate the effectiveness of the works in managing all the risks and achieving the remedial objectives.

Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use and to prevent adverse impacts on the integrity of European designated sites from polluting discharges associated with potentially contaminated land.

8. Prior to development the historical deep borehole must be fully decommissioned and in line with SEPA guidance document Good Practice for Decommissioning Redundant Boreholes and Wells (UK Groundwater FoWMm). Evidence for the decommissioning will be provided in the verification report required for Condition 7.

9. No development or piling work shall commence on this site until a piling risk assessment has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Council. Piling risk assessments shall be undertaken in accordance with the methodology contained within the Environment Agency document on “Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention” available at http://publications.environment- agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0501BITT-E-E.pdf.

10. A clearly defined buffer of at least 10m must be maintained between the location of all refuelling, storage of oil/fuels, concrete mixing and washing areas, storage of machinery/materials/spoil etc. and the Back Burn Drain.

Reason: To prevent polluting discharges entering and impacting on the site integrity of European designated sites.

11. No retailing in or from the building hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed within the site and permanently marked to provide parking and servicing in accordance with Drawing No. 03 bearing the council’s date stamp 16 January 2019. No part of the hard-surfaced areas shall be used at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site is provided.

12. The gross floorspace of the food store hereby permitted shall not exceed 2205 sq. metres, of which the net floorspace shall not exceed 1420 sq. metres when measures internally.

Reason: To enable the council to retain control over the scale of retailing activity so as not to prejudice the continued vitality and viability of existing retail centres.

13. The retail unit hereby permitted shall be limited to the display and sale of convenience goods with the exception of an area not exceeding 284 sq. metres of the total net retail floor space that may be used for non-convenience retailing. Convenience goods for this purpose are hereby defined as; - (a) food and drink, including alcoholic drink; (b) tobacco, newspapers, magazines, confectionery; (c) stationery and paper goods; (d) toilet requisites and cosmetics; (e) household cleaning materials; and (f) other retail goods as may be determined in writing by the council as generally falling within the category of 'convenience goods'. Reason: To enable the Council to ensure the comparison functions of the existing retail centres are not adversely affected by this development. 14. No internal operations, including the installation of mezzanine floors, shall be carried out to increase the gross retail floorspace for retail use without the express grant of planning permission by the Council.

Reason: To enable the Council to retain control over the nature, range and scale of retailing activity so as not to prejudice the continued vitality and viability of existing retail centres.

15. The floorspace of the food store hereby approved shall be operated as a single unit and shall not be sub-divided into independent or separate retail units.

Reason: To enable the Council to retain control over the nature, range and scale of retailing activity so as not to prejudice the continued vitality and viability of existing retail centres.

Informatives

1. This notice relates solely to a planning decision and does not purport to convey any other approval or consent which may be required under the Building Control Regulations or any other statutory purpose.

2. The applicant/contractor shall notify the Ulster Flying Club located at Ards Airport, 61 Portaferry Road, Newtownards, of the height of any structures, including cranes, to be used on site during ground preparation and the construction phase of the project at least 6 weeks prior to commencement of works.

Proposed Site Plan

Proposed Elevations

Proposed Floorplan

ITEM 5

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 13 September 2019

File Reference Planning Committee

Legislation Planning Act (NI) 2011

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Update on Planning Appeals

Attachments Item 5a – Decision 2018/A0232

Decisions

1. The following appeal was dismissed on 23 August 2019.

Appeal reference: 2018/A0232 Application Reference: LA06/2017/0491/F Appeal by: Mr Eric McVea Subject of Appeal: Retention of an agricultural shed for the purpose of indoor cattle wintering Location: Land approximately 30m west of 4 Ballyblack Road East, Newtownards

The Council refused this application on 07 November 2018 for the following reasons:

• The proposal is contrary to 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 Policy CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that, it is not necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding; the proposal is not sited beside

Page 1 of 3

existing farm buildings and the applicant has not provided sufficient information to confirm the following:

- there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding that can be used; - that exceptional circumstances exist to justify an alternative site away from the main farm group

• The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21 ‘Sustainable Development in the Countryside’ in that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal will not result in detrimental impact on the amenity of a residential dwelling (No.4 Ballyblack Road East, Carrowdore) which is outside the holdings, (including potential problems arising from noise, smell and pollution).

• The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the building adds to an existing ribbon of development along the Ballyblack Road East.

• The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the site will rely primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration

The Commissioner sustained 4 of the 5 refusal reasons:

The appeal building was not demonstrated as necessary for efficient use of the agricultural holding (criterion (a) of Policy CTY 12). The Commissioner was of the opinion there was an existing building within the group of buildings on the farm holding therefore the exceptional test was not complied with.

Despite there being no objection by neighbours to the shed, the Commissioner stated that public interest involved protecting the amenity of future residents. There were no acoustic fencing/ventilation extraction facilities proposed and therefore the proposal offended criterion (e) of Policy CTY 12.

As the proposal failed criterion (a) and (e) it therefore failed CTY 1 of PPS 21.

The Commissioner considered the building to have sufficient natural boundaries to appear adequately integrated therefore the refusal reason regarding Policy CTY 13 was not sustained.

The decision is attached to this report.

New Appeals Lodged

2. The following enforcement appeal was lodged on 28 August 2019:

Appeal reference: 2019/E0032 Application Reference: LA06/2018/0262/CA Appeal by: Mr Ben Hamilton

Page 2 of 3

Subject of Appeal: i) The alleged unauthorised erection of a two- storey building consisting of a residential apartment use at first floor level with entry via an external stairwell and an agricultural use at ground floor level. ii) The alleged unauthorised erection of a single storey detached garage Location: Lands at 60 Old Belfast Road, Newtownards

Details of appeal decisions, new appeals and scheduled hearings can be viewed at www.pacni.gov.uk.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Committee notes the content of this report.

Page 3 of 3

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/A0232 Appeal by: Mr Eric McVea. Appeal against: The refusal of full planning permission. Proposed Development: Retention of an agricultural shed for the purpose of indoor cattle wintering. Location: Land approximately 30m west of 4 Ballyblack Road East, Newtownards. Planning Authority: Ards and North Down Borough Council. Application Reference: LA06/2017/0491/F. Procedure: Written representations and accompanied site visit on 17th July 2019. Decision by: Commissioner Damien Hannon, dated 23rd August 2019.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

2. This appeal raises the issues of whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle in the countryside as well as those of residential amenity, visual amenity, and rural character.

3. The Ards and Down Area Plan 2015 (ADAP) operates as the relevant statutory Local Development Plan (LDP) and indicates the appeal site as located in the countryside and outside any specific policy designation. The LDP however, contains no provisions relevant to this proposal for an agricultural shed. Furthermore, no conflict arises between the provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland - Planning for Sustainable Development - September 2015 (SPPS) and those of retained policy in respect of the appeal development. Consequently, the relevant policy context is provided by Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS 21).

4. Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 sets out a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside. The appellant argued the proposal to be acceptable as agricultural development in accordance with Policy CTY 12 of PPS 21. Policy CTY 12 states that planning permission will be granted for development on an active and established agricultural holding where it is demonstrated that a number of stated environmental and planning requirements are met. It is common case that the appeal site forms part of an active and established farm. The Council however, argued that the test in criterion (a) of policy CTY 12,

2018/A0232 1

requiring the proposed development to be necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding, would not be met.

5. This registered farm business comprises two distinct parcels of land, one of which is an area of approximately 24ha, accommodating a farmhouse and a group of farm buildings at 22 Mountstewart Road and referred to as ‘Blossom Hill Stables’. The other parcel embodies two fields of some 5ha fronting Ballyblack Road East. This plot, described by the appellant as an out farm, accommodates open grazing land, the appeal building, a hardsurfaced area and an access off Ballyblack Road East. The appeal building is a green metal clad shed measuring 18m in length, 9m in width and 4.6m in height, located 40m back from the road.

6 Agricultural activity at the registered farm business involves guardianship of both cattle and sheep. The appellant’s statement that there has been a historic equine element at the main plot was not disputed. Indeed, permission was granted in 2010 for the change of use of part of an existing agricultural building to livery stables and construction of concrete horse walking pad at 22 Mountstewart Road Ref. (X/2010/0019/F).

7. Planning permission Ref. (X/2015/0074/F) was granted circa 2016 for the erection of an agricultural building for storage of agricultural goods, housing of cattle and sheep and storage of agricultural machinery at the main farm group. This building has been constructed with modification and is being used exclusively for equine purposes. A planning application Ref. (LA06/2019/0368/F) for the retention of this agricultural building as an indoor equestrian exercise arena to facilitate keeping, breeding, breaking and training of horses is under consideration by the Council.

8. Equine use at Blossom Hill Stables has expanded in recent years with the adaptation and use of the approved agricultural building as an equestrian arena, conversion of outbuildings to stables and provision of facilities for breeding, livery, riding, ménage, event training open to the public and 30 individual paddocks for separate grazing. The appellant explained that his daughter had returned in 2017 after attaining relevant qualifications and that the rationalisation of the equine enterprise enabled her full time engagement with that business. Some stables can be used on a temporary basis for agricultural purposes during lambing season. Otherwise, the Blossom Hill Stables element of the farm is entirely given over to equine activity.

9. I find the appellant’s evidence regarding the incompatibility of equine and bovine uses to be persuasive. On the basis of the evidence presented I conclude that this incompatibility and the commercial decision to expand the equine business at Blossom Hill Stables has precipitated the displacement of previous bovine activity at the Blossom Hill Stables part of the farm to the Ballyblack Road East out farm.

10. Nonetheless, while the application for equine use of the building at Blossom Hill Stables, approved for agricultural use including the housing of cattle, remains undetermined, its lawful use for agricultural purposes endures and its equine use remains unauthorised. In these circumstances where an agricultural building remains at the disposal of the appellant, and taking all other material factors in the round, I am not persuaded that the appeal building has been demonstrated as necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding. Criterion (a) of Policy CTY 12 is not therefore met. 2018/A0232 2

11. Policy CTY 12 also states that exceptionally, consideration may be given to an alternative site away from existing farm 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. However, as I have concluded that an existing building within the group is available and that the requirement for the appeal building is driven by the unauthorised equine use of this building, this exceptional test would not therefore be complied with either.

12. Criterion (e) of Policy CTY 12 requires it to be demonstrated that proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residential dwellings outside the holding including potential problems arising from noise, smell and pollution. The appeal site shares a boundary with No 4 Ballyblack Road East. The existing shed lies within 10m of the curtilage of No. 4 and some 26m from the dwelling itself. The Council, on the advice of their Environmental Health Department, argued that a 75m distance between the shed and adjacent residential property was necessary to protect residential occupiers from potential detrimental impacts from noise and smell.

13. A substantial conifer hedge forms the boundary between the appeal site and No 4. Furthermore, it is intended that the shed would only be used for the overwintering of yearling cattle from November through to April and that the building would remain fully closed when occupied. These factors, together with the shed’s thick concrete walls and the use of bedding material would all serve to reduce the impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of neighbours through noise and odour. However, given the proximity of the shed to residential property, I am not persuaded that these measures, even if rigorously observed, would remove the potential for unacceptable detrimental impact. I accept that the current occupants of No. 4 raised no objection to the proposal. However, there is a public interest involved in protecting the amenity of future occupiers. In the absence of demonstrably effective measures such as acoustic fencing and / or ventilation extraction facilities, I conclude that the proposal would offend criterion (e) of Policy CTY 12.

14. Having concluded that the proposal offends criteria (a) and (e) of Policy CTY 12, I further conclude that the proposal does not constitute acceptable agricultural development in compliance with Policy CTY 12 of PPS 21. Policy CTY 1 states that other types of development in the countryside will only be permitted where there are overriding reasons why that development is essential and could not be located in a settlement. The appellant however advanced no such argument and the Council’s objection to the proposal in principle is well founded and its first, second and third reasons for refusal based on Policy CTY12 are sustained.

15. The Council objected on the grounds of detrimental impact on visual amenity and rural character based on lack of integration. The Council argued that the shed was a prominent feature in the landscape, lacked sufficient established natural boundaries to provide enclosure and relied primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration and thereby failed to comply with criteria (a) (b) and (c) of Policy CTY 13.

16. Roadside vegetation is sparse and patchy although a more recently planted though established conifer hedge forms the field boundary to the north of the shed. The substantial conifer hedge that forms the site’s southern boundary with No.4 would 2018/A0232 3

screen views of the shed, on approach along the road from the south. For the most part, on approach from the north, the shed would be viewed against the backdrop of this substantial conifer hedge and rising landform beyond. The building would break the skyline and appear as prominent from only a small stretch along the site frontage. Nonetheless, even from this small stretch, the shed would be viewed in the context of conifer hedges on either side and a partial landform backdrop. In this context I consider the building, a cowshed, to have sufficient natural boundaries to appear adequately integrated into the surrounding landscape and while augmentation of the existing roadside vegetation would be advantageous, integration would not be reliant on it. The proposal would comply with Policy CTY 13 and the Council’s fourth reason for refusal based thereon is not sustained.

17. Policy CTY 8 states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. The dwelling and outbuildings within the curtilage of No.4 and the adjoining road frontage commercial buildings to its south read as ribbon development along Ballyblack Road East. Although limited by the set back of the shed from the road and the screening vegetation between them, I nonetheless consider there to be a visual linkage between these buildings in so much as there is a sequential visual awareness of them when travelling along the road. To this extent the appeal building, which I have found to not to be necessary for the purposes of agriculture, adds to ribbon development along the road and thereby offends Policy CTY 8. The Council’s fifth reason for refusal is therefore sustained.

18. The Council’s reasons for refusal, which I have found sustained are determining in this case and consequently, the appeal must fail.

This decision is based on the following drawings received by the council on 31st August 2017:- Location Plan numbered 01a 1:500 scale Block Plan numbered 02a 1:100 scale Plans & elevations numbered 03a.

COMMISSIONER DAMIEN HANNON

2018/A0232 4

2018/A0232

List of Appearances

Planning Authority:- Ms Christine Hamilton

Appellant:- Mr Colin McAulay (Agent) Mr David Rankin (Agricultural Consultant) Jim and Christine Hooks

List of Documents

Planning Authority:- COU1 Statement of Case COU 2 Comments

Appellant:- APP1 Statement of Case APP 2 Comments

Unclassified

ITEM 6

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Finance Service

Date of Report 24 September 2019

File Reference FIN45

Legislation Section 5 Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable ☒

Subject Planning Budgetary Control Report – August 2019

Attachments -

This Planning Budgetary Control Report covers the 5-month period 1 April to 31 August 2019 and is set out in Report 1 on page 2. The net cost of the service is showing an over spend of £15,159 (3.5%) – box A.

A key assumption of the 2019/20 rates setting process was that payroll budgets would be £600k under spent so this was built in to the Council’s 2019/20 budget. This budget is shown separately from Services so is not included in the variance above. The Planning Service’s year to date share of this salary rebasing budget on a pro- rata basis is £15,443 so, if this was included, the adverse variance would increase to £30,602.

Explanation of Variance

The Planning budget performance is further analysed on page 2 into 3 key areas: -

Report Type Variance Box Report 2 Payroll Expenditure £200 adverse B Report 3 Non-Payroll Expenditure £15,459 favourable C Report 4 Income £30,418 adverse D

Page 1 of 3

Unclassified

Boxes B, C and D add up to the overall adverse variance (Box A - £15,159).

This variance can be summarised in the following table: -

Type Variance Comment £’000 Payroll Expenditure 0.2 Non-payroll Expenditure (15.5) A number of small underspends to date.

Planning application income is £56.3k behind budget. Property Planning Income 30.4 Certificate income is £25.9k better than budget. Total 15.2 Box A

Page 2 of 3

Unclassified

REPORT 1 BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT Period 5 - August 2019 Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance E Actual Budget Budget O Y £ £ £ £ % £ Planning 330 Planning 454,159 439,000 15,159 1,207,400 3.5 Total 454,159 439,000 A 15,159 1,207,400 3.5

REPORT 2 PAYROLL EXPENDITURE BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT

£ £ £ £ % £ Planning - Payroll Expenditure

330 Planning 788,900 788,700 200 1,895,600 0.0

Total 788,900 788,700 B 200 1,895,600 0.0

REPORT 3 NON-PAYROLL EXPENDITURE BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT

£ £ £ £ % £ Planning - Non-Payroll Expenditure

330 Planning 57,241 72,700 (15,459) 310,300 21.3

Total 57,241 72,700 C (15,459) 310,300 21.3

REPORT 4 INCOME BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT

£ £ £ £ % £ Planning - Income

330 Planning (391,982) (422,400) 30,418 (998,500) (7.2)

Totals (391,982) (422,400) D 30,418 (998,500) (7.2)

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes this report.

Page 3 of 3

Unclassified

ITEM 7

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 12 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Proposed amendment to Scheme of Delegation - local development application where associated major application is due to be or has been determined by the Planning Committee

Attachments Item 7a - Scheme of Delegation

1. Members will be aware that the Council’s Scheme of Delegation contains a list of non-mandatory planning applications that are determined by the Planning Committee (see Part B: Non-Mandatory applications for determination by Planning Committee in Item 7a).

2. Included in Part B is ‘a Local development application where an associated major application is due to be or has been determined by the Planning Committee – such association to be determined and recorded by the Head of Planning’ (see highlighted text in Item 7a).

3. From previous experience, the most common application falling into this category has been for a change of house type, or a change to a condition, to that previously approved through the major application for a housing development. To date these types of minor applications have been relatively straightforward to process and

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

have not attracted any public objection but under the current Scheme of Delegation must be presented at a Planning Committee meeting.

4. Further to feedback from a number of planning agents and developers regarding the minor nature of such applications and the delay that this clause imposes, it is considered appropriate to amend the Scheme of Delegation to remove this requirement.

5. Those local development applications where an associated major development application is due to be or has been determined by the Planning Committee would be included on the weekly delegated list, with text to highlight to Planning Committee where a relationship occurs, to enable opportunity for call-in if required. Should the Head of Planning consider that such an application is pertinent for determination by Planning Committee, she has the power to refer to Planning Committee directly. Additionally, where such an application attracts the relevant level of objection contrary to an officer recommendation, the proposal will be presented to Planning Committee regardless.

6. Should this approval be forthcoming, prior to adoption, the Scheme of Delegation requires to be submitted to the Department for Infrastructure for approval, in line with Regulation 9 of The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council approves this amendment to the Scheme of Delegation.

Page 2 of 2

Scheme of Delegation for Ards and North Down Borough Council

Part A – Mandatory applications for determination by Planning Committee

By statute certain types of application must be determined by the Planning Committee and therefore cannot be delegated to officers:

• Applications which fall within the Major category of development as specified within the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015;

• Applications where the application is made by the Council or an elected member of the Council;

• Applications relating to land in which the Council has an estate.

Part B – Non-Mandatory applications for determination by Planning Committee

• A Local development application attracting six or more separate individual objections which are contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

In determining if the threshold of six or more separate individual objections is met the following clarification shall apply:

- Multiple letters of objection from one individual person (or body including any corporate entity) will constitute one objection for the purposes of the calculation as to whether the threshold is met; - Multiple letters of objection from one address (whether by one individual or more) will constitute one objection for the purposes of the calculation as to whether the threshold is met; and - Pro-forma objection letters or petitions will constitute one objection for the purposes of the calculation as to whether the threshold is met; - objections received after the expiration of the last deadline for the application to be “called-in”1 as set out in the Council’s Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee will be excluded for the purposes of the calculation as to whether the threshold is met.

• A Local development application which is a departure from the Development Plan and which is recommended for approval;

• A Local development application where an associated major application is due to be or has been determined by the Planning Committee – such association to be determined and recorded by the Head of Planning;

• A Local development application called-in to Planning Committee by the Head of Planning for the Council;

1 Paragraph 25 of The Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee

• A Local development application called-in to Planning Committee from the delegated list2 as set out in the Council’s Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee by a member of that Committee – a sound planning reason having been given for such a referral;

• A Local development application called-in by any Councillor within 25 working days3 of the application being validated – a sound planning reason having been given for such a referral (as set out in the Council’s Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee);

• A planning (legal) agreement is required;

• Modification to a planning agreement is required.

Part C – Delegated Applications

The appointed person is the Head of Planning within the Council and any officer nominated by the Head of Planning, who will be responsible for determining the following:

• All Local development applications whether for approval or refusal, with the exceptions listed at Part B above.

Part D – Enforcement and Determination of Other Planning Matters

In relation to other planning responsibilities, the following matters are delegated to the appointed officer:

• All enforcement of planning controls to include:

− Service of an Enforcement Notice; − Service of a Listed Building Enforcement Notice; − Service of Hazardous Substances Contravention Notice; − Service of a Stop Notice; − Service of a Temporary Stop Notice; − Service of a Breach of Condition Notice; − Service of Tree Replanting Notice; − Withdrawal/modification of any of the Notices specified above, as appropriate; − Service of Warning Letters and Planning Contravention Notices;

2 Paragraph 25 of the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee 3 Paragraph 24 of The Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee − Determination of applications for Certificates of Lawful Use or Development; − Service of a Fixed Penalty Notice, except in circumstances where the person appointed considers the breach of planning control could result in immediate public danger or development which may result in permanent damage to the environment. Examples include: the demolition of, or works to, a listed building; the felling of protected trees; the demolition of a building in a conservation area; or the commencement of building operations without permission; − Service of a Discontinuance Order; − The instigation of court proceedings e.g. prosecution for non-compliance with a statutory notice or injunction proceedings.

Other planning matters to include:

• The serving/affixing of a Building Preservation Notice; • The withdrawal of a Building Preservation Notice; • The making and serving of a provisional Tree Preservation Order; • The making and serving of a Tree Preservation Order; • Revocation of a Tree Preservation Order; • Determination of any application to carry out works to a protected tree (i.e. a tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order or within a Conservation Area); • Determination as to appropriate replanting in relation to tree(s) the subject of a Tree Preservation Order or within a Conservation Area; • Determination of non-material change applications to planning permissions; • Determination of any application for Conservation Area consent; • Determination of any application for advertisement consent; • Determination of any application for listed building consent; • Determination of any application for hazardous substances consent; • Revocation or modification of any of the above consents; • Issuance of Urgent Works Notice; • The screening of and determination decisions on development proposals required under the Environmental Impact Assessment or Habitats Regulations; • Discharge of planning conditions; • Determination of any application for variation or removal of condition(s) previously attached to permission to develop land; • Drafting of legal agreements.

Part E – Legal Challenge

The Council provides delegated authority to the Head of Planning to instigate or defend judicial review proceedings on behalf of the Council, and instruct such Counsel or experts in association with the Council’s solicitor deemed necessary to defend any decision of the Council, or a challenge to such a decision, the Head of Planning sees fit in the interests of the Council.

Part F – Publicity

The Council has made a copy of this Scheme of Delegation available on the Council’s website at www.ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk and it is also available on request at the Council’s offices at 2 Church Street, Newtownards, BT23 4AP.

Unclassified

ITEM 7b

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 18 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Outcome of DFI Planning visits to Planning Committees

Attachments Item 7b.i - Letter from Chief Planner Item 7b.ii - Judgment re Knox v Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council

1. Members may recall being made aware of the intention of the Department for Infrastructure’s Planning Division to paying visits to Planning Committee meetings as part of its oversight role in relation to the planning system.

2. A number of visits were made to Planning Committee during 2018, including three visits to Ards and North Down.

3. The Chief Planner for Northern Ireland, Angus Kerr, has now written in respect of DFI’s findings from this exercise, which is attached as Item 12a to this report.

4. Whilst there was recognition of good debate taking place around issues, strong chairs managing meetings, and competent and professional planning officials providing advice to members, there are a number of issues raised as follows:

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

• An apparent low level of understanding of planning policies, particularly in relation to housing in the countryside (PPS 21), and built heritage matters (PPS 6) leading to overturn of officer recommendations, and often lack of clear planning reasons being presented for decisions made; • Lack of clarity surrounding why certain applications had been called into Committee – raising concern around performance of the committee in terms of numbers being referred; • Prolonged drawn out discussion on non-planning related matters, and limited use of visual aids; • Lack of clarity regarding how conflicts of interest were handled.

5. The letter concludes by highlighting a recommendation made by the Local Government Commissioner for Standards under section 61 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 in respect of members being required to have attended mandatory training prior to taking part in decision making within the Planning Committee.

6. The Head of Planning will review each of the concerns raised in liaison with the Director.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the content of the Chief Planner’s letter and the judgment referred to and attached.

Page 2 of 2

Neutral Citation No: [2019] NIQB 34 Ref: McC10904

Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections)* Delivered: 08/03/19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)

______

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STUART KNOX FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

-v-

CAUSEWAY COAST AND GLENS BOROUGH COUNCIL

______

McCLOSKEY J

Introduction

[1] Stuart Knox (hereinafter “the Applicant”), a resident of Portballintrae, challenges the decision of Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council (“the Council”) dated 14 March 2018 whereby full planning permission was granted for a development described as the “conversion and alteration of historic vernacular building to provide new detached dwelling unit …” on a site adjacent to a public car park and some 10 metres to the east of the Applicant’s home (“the site”). I shall describe this as “the impugned decision”.

[2] The successful planning applicant (hereinafter “the developer”), who participated fully in these proceedings throughout, is one Seymour Sweeney with an address at Portballintrae. As an aside, the owner of the site is a person other than the developer.

The Challenge

[3] The three grounds of challenge promoted at the outset of the proceedings were:

(a) Error of law consisting of incompatibility with/breach of Policy C0U4 of the Local Development Plan (the “LDP”), thereby contravening the requirement enshrined in section 6(4) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011.

(b) A failure to have regard to paragraph 4.9 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (“SPPS”) which requires that the need for “adequate private, semi-private and public amenity space” be treated as “a prime consideration in all residential development”.

In the event, the Applicant did not pursue the first two grounds and leave to apply for judicial review, correctly unopposed, was granted on the reasons ground only.

Planning Policy Framework

[4] The statutory Local Development Plan (“LDP”) is the Northern Area Plan 2016. This encompasses the geographical areas of four pre- existing Councils (Ballymoney, Coleraine, Limavady and Moyle) which, with effect from 01 April 2015, merged to form the Respondent council. It was formally adopted by the former central government planning authority, the Department of the Environment (the “Department”). Such adoption was the culmination of a series of statutory steps and processes which, in their latter phase, included a public enquiry and a report of the Planning Appeals Commission. The effect of the new legislative arrangements is that this will remain the Council’s LDP unless and until the Council formally adopts a successor measure.

[5] The LDP has the following self-proclaimed aim:

“The aim of the Plan is to provide a framework for development throughout the Northern Plan Area in general conformity with the principles and policies of the Regional Development Strategy, facilitating sustainable growth, meeting the needs of communities and protecting environmental attributes.”

This is followed by a series of “Objectives”. In passing, none of these featured in the arguments of the three parties. The “Plan Strategy” has an assortment of components. One of these, notably, is:

“The Giants Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site and its distinctive setting will be protected from inappropriate development.”

[6] Volume 1 of the LDP (“Strategic Plan Framework”) contains inter alia three separate policies relating to “The Giants Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site” (the “WHS”). The third of these, Policy COU4, is germane in the context of this litigation:

“No development within the Distinctive Landscape setting outside of settlement development limits will be approved except:

(i) Exceptionally modest scale facilities, without landscape detriment, which are necessary to meet the direct needs of visitors to the World Heritage Site.

(ii) Extensions to buildings that are appropriate in scale and design and represent not more than 20% of the cubic content of existing buildings.

(iii) Replacements of existing occupied dwellings with not more than a 20% increase in the cubic content.

These allowances will be permitted once only.”

(I shall describe the “distinctive landscape setting” as the “DLS”.)

[7] The ensuing narrative in Policy COU4 includes the following:

“Development proposals within the [DLS] of the [WHS] will be subject to particular scrutiny …

The [DLS] is located within the Causeway Coast AONB, where sensitive development is required …

The relationship of this landscape to the [WHS] requires an even stricter approach to development proposals than elsewhere in the AONB, to ensure the balance between landscape and built form is not adversely affected with buildings appearing over-dominant and out of historic context. The Department, therefore, imposes restrictions on the scale of extensions and replacement dwellings to avoid this arising. The Department will seek improvements to the landscape setting where these are appropriate and are related to the development proposed.”

(“AONB” denotes “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”.)

[8] The second main planning policy which falls to be considered is Policy CTY4, one of the discrete policies within Planning Policy Statement 21 (“PPS21”), “Sustainable Development in the Countryside” (June 2010). Policy CTY4 is entitled “The Conversion and Reuse of Existing Buildings” and states:

“Planning permission will be granted to proposals for the sympathetic conversion, with adaptation if necessary, of a suitable building for a variety of alternative uses, including use as a single dwelling, where this would secure its upkeep and retention. Such proposals will be required to be of a

4 high design quality and to meet all of the following criteria:

(a) the building is of permanent construction;

(b) the reuse or conversion would maintain or enhance the form, character and architectural features, design and setting of the existing building and not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the locality;

(c) any new extensions are sympathetic to the scale, massing and architectural style and finishes of the existing building;

(d) the reuse or conversion would not unduly affect the amenities of nearby residents or adversely affect the continued agricultural use of adjoining land or buildings;

(e) the nature and scale of any proposed non- residential use is appropriate to a countryside location;

(f) all necessary services are available or can be provided without significant adverse impact on the environment or character of the locality; and

(g) access to the public road will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic.

Buildings of a temporary construction such as those designed and used for agricultural purposes, including sheds or stores will not however be eligible for conversion or re-use under this policy.

Exceptionally, consideration may be given to the sympathetic conversion of a traditional non-

residential building to provide more than one dwelling where the building is of sufficient size; the scheme of conversion involves minimal intervention; and the overall scale of the proposal and intensity of use is considered appropriate to the locality.

Listed Buildings

All proposals for the conversion or refurbishment of a building listed as being of special architectural or historic interest for residential purposes will be assessed against the policy provisions of PPS 6.”

Under the rubric “Justification and Amplification”, it is stated:

“5.20 Due to changing patterns of rural life there are a range of older buildings in the countryside, including some that have been listed, that are no longer needed for their original purpose. These can include former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings. The reuse and sympathetic conversion of these types of buildings can represent a sustainable approach to development in the countryside and for certain buildings may be the key to their preservation.

5.21 There is the potential for the reuse of an existing non-residential building as a dwelling and exceptionally, planning permission may be granted to conversion of a traditional building to more than one dwelling. There is also scope for the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings in the countryside for a variety of non-residential uses, including appropriate economic, tourism and recreational uses or as local community facilities. Retailing, unless small scale and ancillary to the main use, will not however be considered acceptable.

5.22 The Department would stress the importance of good design in all such cases and in particular care needs to be taken for proposals involving the conversion of traditional buildings to ensure that their character is not lost to the overall scheme of redevelopment.

5.23 In addition it should be noted that his policy relates only to schemes of sympathetic conversion. The Department would therefore stress that a grant of planning permission for conversion of a non-residential building to residential use will not in itself be considered sufficient grounds to subsequently permit the replacement of the building with a new dwelling, unless the proposal meets the requirements of Policy CTY 3.”

[9] The third component of the relevant planning policy equation is the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (the “SPPS”), published by the Department in September 2015. This contains a suite of specific so-called “Subject Policies”, one whereof is “Development in the Countryside”, wherein is found the following noteworthy passages:

“[4.10] The natural and heritage assets of the countryside and coast need to be recognised for the contribution they make to enhancing human health and wellbeing. Conserving and, where possible, enhancing these environments as well as promoting their appropriate use, accessibility and connectivity is key to ensuring their sustainable upkeep …”

Under the banner “Regional Strategic Policy” one finds, in the context of references to LDPs, the following:

“All development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character and be appropriately designed ….

……

New dwellings in existing clusters: provision should be made for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development which lies outside a farm provided it appears as a visual entity in the landscape; and is associated with a focal point; and the development can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside.”

(At paragraphs 6.70 and 6.73.)

Relevant Statutory Framework

[10] Land use and development in Northern Ireland are commonly described as “plan led” in the wake of the significant reforms effected by the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (the “Planning Act”). This is the effect of Part 2 of the statute the subject matter whereof is “Local Development Plans”. It contains the following key provision:

Section 6

Local development plan “6—(1) Any reference— (a) to a local development plan in this Act and in any other statutory provision relating to planning; and (b) to a development plan in any statutory provision relating to planning, is to be construed as a reference to the development plan documents (taken together) which have been adopted by the council or approved by the Department in accordance with section 16(6). (2) In this Part the development plan documents are—

(a) the plan strategy; (b) the local policies plan. (3) If to any extent a policy contained in a local development plan conflicts with another policy in that plan the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy which is contained in the last development plan document to be adopted or, as the case may be, approved. (4) Where, in making any determination under this Act, regard is to be had to the local development plan, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

The Planning Officers’ Advice

[11] In accordance with the formal Scheme of Delegation of the Council the subject planning application was transferred to the remit of its Planning Committee (“PC”), as a “delegated application”. The PC, in the usual way, received reports from the Council’s planning officers. It suffices to focus on the main report only, i.e. that dated 21 February 2018.

[12] The applicable planning policies are rehearsed in the main report to the PC. The planning officer also engages with the case in favour of development made by the developer’s agent in a written statement. The following are the salient passages in the officer’s assessment of Policy COU4:

“COU4 is very clear in prohibiting all development bar the three defined exceptions. Change of use is development. Conversions or change of use applications are not included within the three exceptions and as such are not acceptable …

While the visual impact of the conversion is limited, it is the intent of the policy to protect the

landscape setting from the ancillary works which would result as part of the change of use ….

The grant of planning permission would establish permitted development rights. Even if restricted it would be unreasonable to refuse permission for security lighting, car parking, garages, sheds, stores, bins etc. Although the footprint of the site is very restricted it is not unreasonable to consider an extension to the site over time …

As such it is misguided to consider that the change of use will have no impact upon the immediate or wider landscape. Nor is it [a] question of the material harm that would result. By establishing a presumption against all development bar the defined exceptions, it is the intent of the policy to protect the landscape from the cumulative impact of development and ancillary development, which individually may not result in material harm.”

(at paragraphs 8.6 and 8.9 – 8.11.)

[13] Next the officer addressed the SPPS in these terms:

“In relation to the conversion and re-use of existing buildings for residential use the SPPS states [that] provision should be made for the sympathetic conversion and re-use, with adaptation if necessary, of a locally important building (such as former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings) as a single dwelling where this would secure its upkeep and retention.”

(at paragraph 8.12.)

In passing, the nomenclature “locally important building” does not entail any formal designation process.

[14] The officer then addressed policy CTY4 (PPS21):

“… Policy CTY4 of PPS21 …… states [that] planning permission will be granted to proposals for the sympathetic conversion, with adaptation if necessary, of a suitable building for a variety of alternative uses subject to criteria …

In this respect, there is no objection to the principle of the conversion. However, the lack of curtilage and basic amenity space results in a building that is wholly unsuitable for conversion to residential use and would result in demonstrable harm to the character of the rural area.”

(at paragraphs 8.13 – 8.14.)

[15] The officer next dwelt on the topic of “amenity space”:

“paragraph 4.9 of the SPPS states [that] the need for adequate private, semi-private and public amenity space is a prime consideration in all residential development and contributes to mental and physical well-being and the strengthening of social cohesion ….

Given the location of the site it is highly likely that the purchaser will require reasonable space. Having regard to this location it is less then size of private amenity space but rather its practical value. It should offer a degree of private amenity to ensure that the property is fit for purpose and provides a positive design which promotes well- being …

The Agent has argued that paragraph 4.9 of the SPPS is not operational policy and cannot be

applied. However, its inclusion as a core principle outlines its significance as a fundamental requirement of sustainable development.”

(at paragraph 8.16 – 8.18.)

[16] Turning to the subject of “Integration and Character”, the planning officer continued:

“Paragraph 6.70 of the SPPS states that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character and be appropriately designed …

In this case, while it is accepted that the building is an established feature, the ancillary development of domestic paraphernalia which would likely and to some extent necessarily follow would fail to integrate. If planning permission was granted for the change of use, it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for such ancillary development as it would likely be argued essential to support/enable residential use …

The application site lacks any natural boundaries and is unable to provide any sense of enclosure to help ancillary development to integrate into the landscape. The building is somewhat divorced from the cluster of dwellings which exacerbates the integration issue, with the building standing in isolation within the corner of a car park …

Critical views of the site are from the adjacent public car park, pathways and golf course with longer views from the surrounding area. The failure to provide even a buffer of land around the building means that the site cannot introduce new planting to offer some degree of integration for ancillary development. It is evident from neighbouring dwellings how the provision of a 12

low level wall and moderate soft landscaping can help to soften the overall impact of a building and its ancillary development …

The inability of the site to integrate into the surroundings results in the building and its ancillary development being prominent. As such the proposed development would be contrary to paragraph 6.70 of the SPPS.”

(at paragraph 8.19 – 8.23.)

[17] The officer’s report concludes in these terms:

“The proposal is considered unacceptable in this location having regard to the Northern Area Plan and other material considerations. When considered in the context of the policies outlined above officials consider that the proposed development fails to meet with the permitted exceptions allowed in the Distinctive Landscape Setting of the Giants Causeway. The proposal fails to provide adequate private amenity space. In addition, ancillary development associated with the use of the building as a dwelling would fail to integrate. Refusal is recommended.”

This is followed by three proposed refusal reasons:

“10.1 The proposal is contrary to paragraph 6.73 of the [SPPS and Policy COU4 ….] in that the site lies within the Distinctive Landscape Setting of the Giants Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site. The proposal does not qualify as an exception and therefore does not justify a relaxation of the strict planning controls in this area.

10.2 The proposal is contrary to paragraph 4.9 of the [SPPS] in that the development as proposed fails to provide a quality residential environment by reason of inadequate private amenity space for a permanent residential unit.

10.3 The proposal is contrary to paragraph 6.70 of the [SPPS] in that the proposed building is a prominent feature in the landscape, lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.”

The Planning Committee Proceedings

[18] The PC, in the customary way, convened in public on 12 March 2019, at its monthly meeting. There were ten planning applications on its agenda. The PC consisted of a chairperson, four Aldermen and seven Councillors. The Council officers present included the author of the main report to the PC (supra), the Head of Planning and the two Council solicitors. There is no audio recording of the meeting. The evidence does, however, include the minutes compiled by a Council employee together with the notes made by the Head of Planning.

[19] The aforementioned minutes invite the following brief analysis:

(a) The Principal Planning Officer (“PPO”) concerned made a presentation which was, in effect, a summary of the above mentioned report, ending with a recommendation that the PC refuse the planning application for the reasons proposed.

(b) The PPO then responded to questions from PC members “in relation to land ownership”.

(c) The developer’s “Agent” made a presentation commending the planning application. He then responded to questions from PC members “… in relation to the impact a refusal would

have on the area; history of the building; amenity provision and land outlined in blue (viz the subject site)”.

(d) The PC then proceeded “in Committee” [i.e. in camera] for some five minutes during which members discussed the “legal consideration of” the subject site, ownership and an unspecified right of way issue.

(e) Upon reconvening in public mode, the developer’s Agent responded to further questions from PC members “in relation to amenity space; ownership, the car park and curtilage”.

(f) The PPO then responded to further queries from Members “in relation to designated landscape setting boundary; amenity and red line of application site”.

(g) The Head of Planning (“HOP”) reminded the PC of “the requirement to be consistent in the implementation of planning policy in decision making”.

[20] At this juncture the critical stage of the PC proceedings was reached. One of its members proposed:

“… that the Committee has taken into consideration and disagrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 9 and guidance in section 7 and 8 and resolves to APPROVE planning permission for the following reasons ….

• Consider that the conversation [sic] of the barn is acceptable in principle.

• No policy requirement for private amenity space.

• Proposed development would be an improvement to what currently on site [sic]”.

The highlighted words belong to the forefront of these proceedings, by some measure. Two footnotes are apt. First, the underlining has not been added by the court. Second, the references to “sections” 7, 8 and 9 clearly correspond to the numbered chapters and paragraphs of the PPO’s main report to the PC. Other Evidence

[21] I have considered other aspects of the assembled evidence, particularly those which featured in the submissions of the parties. These include, inexhaustively, various maps and photographs, the materials compiled by the developer’s Agent, certain letters of objection and consultation responses and the site visit report. I do not consider it necessary to dwell on any of these.

[22] There was a particular focus on the Council’s PAP response letter. It is appropriate to interpose at this juncture that this has two incarnations. The first is the original letter. The second is the letter as enlarged in response to the court’s initial case management direction that via the mechanism of expanding the letter the Council respond to the Applicant’s judicial review leave application. This contains a section entitled “Asserted Failure to Provide Reasons”, within which there are certain passages of note. First:

“The Planning Committee was informed regarding the provisions of Policy COU4 …

However, the Planning Committee resolved to give greater weight to other material considerations, central to which was the proposal not being considered detrimental to the character of the area, relative to the relevant policy provisions. While the foregoing is not stated expressly in the minutes … the minutes do not form a full transcript of deliberations by the Committee.”

[Emphasis added.]

Second:

“… the specified material considerations indicated that the provisions of the [LDP] should not be followed. Therefore while the Planning Committee were aware of the relevant provisions of the plan and that the proposal did not accord with them, it identified that the specified material considerations were of such weight to displace the statutory authority given to the plan.”

“While the Planning Committee did have regard to the presumption in favour of the plan as required by section 6(4) …, as material considerations indicated otherwise, it was resolved to approve the application.”

Followed by:

“Weight to be attached to material considerations is a matter for the decision maker alone to determine. In this case the Committee considered that the other material considerations, including that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the area, outweighed the provisions of Policy COU4. Therefore the conclusion was reached that the principle of the development was acceptable.”

And finally:

“… the Planning Committee acknowledged the policy provisions of the plan [ie the LDP] but resolved that other material considerations be given greater weight.”

[23] The passages reproduced immediately above are, of course, to be considered in their full context and I have done so. Some of them have in common the feature that they are not contained in either the minutes of the relevant PC meeting or in any other evidential source.

[24] Brief reference to the Council’s affidavit evidence is appropriate at this juncture. This consists of a single affidavit sworn by the Council’s HOP, to whom some reference has been made above. As already noted Ms Dickson was in attendance throughout the totality of the PC’s deliberations on the occasion of its monthly meeting on 12 March 2018, both private and public. Certain interventions are attributed to the HOP.

[25] The HOP deposes inter alia:

“The planning policy in COU4 was before the Planning Committee …

It was not challenged by the [planning applicant’s] representative that the proposal was contrary to COU4 …

However the regional policy was also presented to the Planning Committee … [which] … reached a different decision than the officers on the weight to be given to the respective policies and considered that compliance with the regional policy (CTY4), which meant that conversion of the bar was acceptable in principle, outweighed non-compliance with the area plan (policy COU4) in this case …

The Committee reached a different decision than the officers on the weight to be given to the respective policies and considered compliance with the regional policy (CTY4) which meant that conversion of the barn was acceptable in principle, the location of the site on the outer edge of the Distinctive Landscape setting, the public viewpoints of the building and the risk of the building falling into a state of dilapidation outweighed non-compliance with the area plan (COU4) in this case …

There is no specific policy requiring a set amenity area or space … and the Planning Committee regarded the proposal as satisfactory in that regard …

The Planning Committee also regarded the proposal as an improvement to what is on the site.”

These averments can be linked to both the minutes of the PC meeting and the PAC response.

[26] The Applicant’s planning consultant (Mr Rolston) avers in his affidavit inter alia:

“… I am respectfully of the view that the [PC] manifestly failed to adequately articulate their reasons for departing from the clear and strong recommendation of their officers …

The three reasons expressed by the [PC] in the resolution to approve the planning application are in my respectful view, not clear and logical reasons and do not represent proper planning reasons.”

The deponent elaborates on these views in a little detail.

[27] In the affidavit sworn by the person described throughout the evidence as the developer’s “Agent” (Mr Donaldson) one finds, unsurprisingly, a differing perspective:

“In my opinion the stated reasons for granting approval fairly summarise the substantial discussion which took place and the basis which I had advanced to the [PC] as to why they were not required to slavishly adhere to the Area Plan, but, as a matter of planning judgement, they could and should grant permission. In my view, the reasons are clear (albeit shortly stated).”

Appropriate elaboration follows. As noted above, I have also considered the other materials prepared by Mr Donaldson at separate stages of the planning application process.

[28] I consider it unnecessary to elaborate on the other evidence touching directly or indirectly on the reasons issue. It has all been considered.

Consideration and Conclusions

[29] While I consider that the first question to be determined by the court is whether the Council was subject to a legal obligation to provide reasons for the impugned decision, any suggestion in argument on behalf of the Council and the developer that there was no such obligation flickered rather than flourished.

[30] I consider that the Council did indeed have a duty of this kind, on two grounds. The first is found in its “Protocol for the Operation of the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council Planning Committee” (“the Protocol”), operative from 08 November 2017. This species of instrument was considered by this court, inexhaustively so, in Re Belfast City Council’s Application [2018] NIQB 17 at [66] – [70]. This topic also featured in Re Conlon’s Application [2018] NIQB 49 at [43] – [51].

[31] The Protocol is the kind of instrument which is not to be equated with statute, whether primary or subordinate. Notwithstanding, it has statutory parentage. Thus it is invested with a certain measure of solemnity and gravity. As its title indicates, it is concerned largely with matters of process and procedure. Some planning decisions are finely balanced and it is the prerogative of the Planning Committee to come to its conclusions and decision provided they are SUPPORTED by:

“7.1 …. sound, clear and logical planning reasons following an informed debate. The Committee Members can accept or give different weight to the various arguments and material considerations ….

7.2 The Planning Officers/Head of Planning/Legal advisor will have the opportunity to explain the implications of the Planning Committee’s decision prior to the vote. Consideration will need to be given to whether such decisions will be capable of being defended on appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission with the potential for award of costs against the Council. …

7.3 The reasons for any decision which are made contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation must be formally recorded in the minutes and a copy placed on file.”

Giving effect to the analysis in the immediately preceding paragraph and taking into account the absence of any suggestion in the evidence or in argument that the PC was entitled to do otherwise, the conclusion that the foregoing provisions of the Protocol subjected the PC to a legal obligation to provide reasons for the impugned decision seems to me irresistible.

[32] There is a second and separate route to the same conclusion. In R (CPRE Kent) v Dover District Council [2018] 1 WLR 108, a planning case in which the duty to provide reasons was embedded in statute, namely regulation 24(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the impugned grant of planning permission was vitiated by a failure to provide legally adequate reasons. Lord Carnwath JSC, giving the unanimous opinion of the court, conducted an extensive and illuminating review of the subject of reasons in the planning sphere. The following passage belongs to the specific context of his Lordship’s consideration of the common law and, in particular, the absence of any general duty to give reasons emanating from that source, at [59]:

“59. As to the charge of uncertainty, it would be wrong to be over-prescriptive, in a judgment on a single case and a single set of policies. However it

should not be difficult for councils and their officers to identify cases which call for a formulated statement of reasons, beyond the statutory requirements. Typically they will be cases where, as in Oakley and the present case, permission has been granted in the face of substantial public opposition and against the advice of officers, for projects which involve major departures from the development plan, or from other policies of recognised importance (such as the "specific policies" identified in the NPPF - para 22 above). Such decisions call for public explanation, not just because of their immediate impact; but also because, as Lord Bridge pointed out (para 45 above), they are likely to have lasting relevance for the application of policy in future cases.”

[33] The whole of Lord Carnwath’s erudite opinion repays careful and, indeed, repeated reading. Of particular note is his examination of the interaction of statute and the common law. Equally instructive is his identification of the nexus between a duty to give reasons (where same arises) and the common law principle of fairness, linked in turn to the constitutional principle of the right of access to a court. With particular reference to [59], reproduced above, the word “typically” stands out. It is at once to be contrasted with “exhaustively”, or kindred terms; and the shadow of obiter dictum might possibly apply. This last mentioned factor will be best resolved in a case where it has been the subject of considered argument (there was none in the present one). Obiter or not, Lord Carnwath’s observations, as a minimum, attract the highest respect.

[34] Mr William Orbinson QC (with Mr Simon Turbitt, of counsel), on behalf of the Applicant, placed appropriate emphasis on two matters. The first, which has mixed elements of law and fact, is that the Giant’s Causeway has the status of WHS. The second is that it is Northern Ireland’s only WHS. By its impugned decision (it was argued) the Council’s PC declined to give effect to one of three specific policies in its own LDP protecting this national jewel, preferring (apparently) to give precedence to another planning policy contained in a different code. This decision was, in the language of Lord Carnwath “against the advice of officers” and approved a project involving a “major departure from” the

Council’s LDP in the sense that it was in direct conflict with the discrete policy in question and did not fall within any of the (extremely limited) exceptions to the prohibition on development of this kind. In the judgement of this court, the conclusion that there was a duty at common law to provide reasons for the impugned decision follows inexorably.

[35] The second – and crucial - issue to be determined by the court is whether the Council (in effect its PC), in making the impugned decision, provided supporting reasons which accord with the applicable legal standard.

[36] On this issue there is no want of high authority. The Supreme Court and its predecessor have pronounced upon it thrice during the past two decades. I pay particular attention to what was said in City of Edinburgh Council – v – Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 3 PLR 71 and [1998] 1 All ER 174 since the statutory provision in play in that case, section 18A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, is a virtual mirror image of section 6(4) of the Planning Act. Section 18(a) provides:

“Status of development plans

Where, in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

This is replicated in the corresponding English statute, section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

[38] Lord Clyde, with whom all members of the House agreed, said the following, at 186):

“In the practical application of section 18A it will obviously be necessary for the decision maker to consider the development plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the question before him and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he

fails to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it. He will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the development plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will require to assess all of these and then decide whether in light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it. He will also have to identify all the other material considerations which are relevant to the application and to which he should have regard. He will then have to note which of them support the application and which of them do not, and he will have to assess the weight to be given to all of these considerations. He will have to decide whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given to it. And having weighed these considerations and determined these matters he will require to form his opinion on the disposal of the application. If he fails to take account of some material consideration or takes account of some consideration which is irrelevant to the application his decision will be open to challenge. But the assessment of the considerations can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse.”

The immediately succeeding passage is also material:

“Counsel for the Secretary of State suggested in the course of his submissions that in the practical application of the section, two distinct stages should be identified. In the first the decision maker should decide whether the development plan should or should not be accorded its statutory priority; and in the second, if he decides that it should not be given that priority it should be put

aside and attention concentrated upon the material factors which remain for consideration. But, in my view, it is undesirable to devise any universal prescription for the method to be adopted by the decision maker, provided always of course that he does not act outwith his powers. Different cases will invite different methods in the detail of the approach to be taken and it should be left to the good sense of the decision maker, acting within his powers, to decide how to go about the task before him in the particular circumstances of each case. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the ground on which the reporter decided to make an exception to the development plan was the existence of more recent policy statements which he considered had overtaken the policy in the plan. In such a case as that it may well be appropriate to adopt the two-stage approach suggested by counsel. But even there that should not be taken to be the only proper course. In many cases it would be perfectly proper for the decision maker to assemble all the relevant material including the provisions of the development plan and proceed at once to the process of assessment, paying of course all due regard to the priority of the latter, but reaching his decision after a general study of all the material before him. The precise procedure followed by any decision maker is so much a matter of personal preference or inclination in light of the nature and detail of the particular case that neither universal prescription nor even general guidance are useful or appropriate.”

[39] The theme readily identifiable in the latter passage resurfaces in a later one where Lord Clyde was addressing what was, in substance, an irrationality argument, at 190

“It is no part of the function of a reviewing court to re-examine the factual conclusions which [the decision maker] drew from the evidence in the absence of any suggestion that he acted 25

improperly or irrationally. Nor is it the duty of a reviewing court to engage in a detailed analytic study of the precise words and phrases which have been used. That kind of exercise is quite inappropriate to an understanding of a planning decision.”

Lord Clyde then turned to the argument that the decision maker had not provided adequate reasons, acknowledging the overlap with the irrationality challenge, stating at 191:

“… the pursuit of a full and detailed exposition of the [decision maker’s] whole process of reasoning is wholly inappropriate. It involves a misconception of the standards to be expected of a decision letter in a planning appeal of this kind.”

As Lord President Emslie observed in Wordie Property – v – Secretary of State for Scotland [1984] SLT 345 at 348 –

“The decision must, in short, leave the informed reader and the court in no real and substantial doubt as to what the reasons for it were and what were the material considerations which were taken into account in reaching it.”

Lord Clyde noted the following statement of Lord Lloyd in Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] P and CR 309, at 313:

“There is nothing in the statutory language which requires [the Secretary of State], in stating his reasons, to deal specifically with every material consideration …

His duty is to have regard to every material consideration; but he need not mention them all.”

[40] Lord Clyde also drew on the oft quoted formulation of Megaw J in Re Poyser and Mills Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 at 478:

“Parliament provided that reasons shall be given and in my view that must be read as meaning that proper, adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intelligible, but which deal with the substantial points that have been raised.”

Lord Clyde concluded at 191]:

“It is necessary that an account should be given of the reasoning on the main issues which were in dispute sufficient to enable the parties and the court to understand the reasoning. If that degree of explanation was not achieved the parties might well be prejudiced. But elaboration is not to be looked for and a detailed consideration of every point which was raised is not to be expected.”

[41] The content of a statutory duty to give reasons featured again in another decision of the House of Lords, South Bucks DC v Porter [2004] UKHL 33, where there was a single speech, that of Lord Brown, with whom all members of the House concurred. He stated at [36]:

“[36] The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision- maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the

dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”

I am alert to the cautionary words in the immediately preceding paragraph [35]: Lord Brown’s self-appointed task was “to attempt some broad summary of the authorities governing the proper approach to a reasons challenge in the planning context”, something which was not to be “regarded as definitive or exhaustive”.

[42] In R (CPRE Kent) v Dover District Council [2017] UKSC 79, the Supreme Court gave consideration to yet another statutory provision requiring the provision of reasons by the deciding authority, in this case belonging to the realm of EIA development. The statutory duty in play required a statement containing inter alia “The main reasons and considerations on which the decision is based …”. Lord Carnwath JSC, with whom all members of the court agreed, examined the topic of the “standard of reasons”, at [35]. Having noted Lord Brown’s “broad summary” (supra), he drew attention to the statement of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 66 P and CR 263, at [36], that the Secretary of State’s decision letters required “a straightforward down to earth reading … without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication”.

[43] Lord Carnwath, continuing, at [41], having drawn attention to the need for “a reasoned conclusion” relating to “a wide range of differing views and interests”, concluded:

“Where there is a legal requirement to give reasons, what is needed is an adequate explanation of the ultimate decision.”

The immediately following passage resonates in the present litigation context, at [42]:

“… the decision letter of the Secretary of State or a planning inspector is designed as a stand-alone document setting out all the relevant background material and policies, before reaching a reasoned conclusion. In the case of a decision of the local planning authority that function will normally be performed by the planning officer’s report. If their recommendation is accepted by the members, no further reasons may be needed. Even if it is not accepted, it may normally be enough for the committee’s statement of reasons to be limited to the points of difference. However the essence of the duty remains the same, as does the issue for the court: that is, in the words of Bingham MR … whether the information so provided by the authority leaves room for ‘genuine doubt …. as to what [it] has decided and why.’.”

[my emphasis]

[44] Further citation of authority on the content and scope of the duty to provide reasons, where this arises, in the world of planning decision making is unnecessary. I so observe having taken account of the several other sources over which the parties’ arguments ranged. It suffices to draw attention to one discrete, well settled line of authority, of general application, exemplified by the decision in R v Westminster Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302 at 315:

“The court can and, in appropriate cases, should admit evidence to elucidate or, exceptionally, correct or add to the reasons; but should … be very cautious about doing so. I have in mind cases where, for example, an error has been made in

transcription or expression, or a word or words inadvertently omitted, or where the language used may be in some way lacking in clarity. These examples are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to reflect my view that the function of such evidence should generally be elucidation, not fundamental alteration, confirmation, nor contradiction.”

Hutchison LJ added that neither reception, nor reliance upon, evidence which “indicates that the real reasons were wholly different from the stated reasons” would be appropriate.

[45] Mr Orbinson, appropriately, reminded the court of certain general contextual features of planning decision making in Northern Ireland at this point in time. These were identified in the decision of this court in Re Belfast City Council’s Application [2018] NIQB 17, first at [56]:

“[56] One feature of the decision making framework outlined above is that the planning decisions of Councils may sometimes be relatively inscrutable. One of the consequences of this is that the documents surrounding and pertaining to a planning decision assume considerable importance. In the event of a legal challenge one of the documents which will inevitably be scrutinised with some care is the case officer’s report to the PC. This engages certain familiar principles. In particular, reports of this nature are not to be equated with the judgment of a Court or other judicial decision. Nor are they to be construed as a statute, contract or other legal instrument. Rather they must be read and interpreted with a degree of latitude appropriate to the legal and factual context in which they are generated. I consider that none of these principles precludes a penetrating examination of the text which is reasonable, balanced and properly informed.”

Next, having considered the statement of Sullivan J in R v Mendip DC, ex parte Fabre [2000] 80 P and CR 500 at page 509, the court observed:

“Any temptation to apply this statement with a broad sweep should, in my judgement, be resisted, not least because the new planning decision making system in Northern Ireland is still in its infancy.”

Adding at [58]:

“While the statement of Sullivan J undoubtedly merits respect, it invites the following analysis. First, it was made in a first instance decision of the jurisdiction of England and Wales which, ipso facto, does not have precedent effect. Second, it was made in a legal context which differs from that prevailing in this jurisdiction. Third, I consider that it does not fall to be construed as a statement of immutable legal principle. Fourth, it may be considered an expression of judicial impression or opinion not readily related to an underlying evidential substratum. Fifth, it must inevitably be calibrated by reference to the Northern Ireland context highlighted in [51] – [54] above. In short, Councils in Northern Ireland became planning decision makers on 01 April 2015, reflecting a reform which was radical in nature. There is no evidential basis available to the court which warrants the generous degree of latitude and deference, based on presumed experience and expertise, espoused by Sullivan J in Fabre. This may of course change with the passage of time.”

In cases where a legal duty to provide reasons arises, this court described the standard required as that of “coherent and intelligible reasons” in the discharge of a legal obligation “of supreme importance”: see [110] (vi).

[46] The issue of the content of reasons for planning decisions, where required, was examined in greater detail in Re Sands Application [2018] NIQB 80, at [109] – [121]. The theme which probably emerges most strongly from these passages is that of considering all of the material evidence as a whole in the evaluation of a reasons challenge. At [112] this court stated:

e“All of th foregoing draws attention to the essentially prosaic reality that in a context where the decision maker is not a judicialised body subject to a common law duty to provide a properly reasoned, written judgment two considerations, in particular and inexhaustively, apply. The first is that the quest to ascertain a council’s reasons on key issues in a planning case will almost invariably require consideration of an amalgam of documentary sources, sometimes supplemented by affidavit evidence. The proposition that all such evidence must be considered in its entirety and not in isolated fragments is uncontroversial. The second main consideration is that the documents on which the glare of the spotlight is likely to be most intense – in particular Case Officers’ reports, notes of site visits and minutes of PC meetings – are not to be read and construed through the prism applicable to the decisions of a judicialised body. Rather a broader and more elastic approach is appropriate. This is nothing more and nothing less than the “fairly and in bonam partem” exhortation of Lord Wilberforce: see [50] supra. To summarise, the applicable legal framework is one in which excessive legalism and rigid prescription are intruders. ”

[47] As the submissions of Mr David Scoffield QC (with Mr Wayne Atchison of counsel) reminded the court, the context also includes one particular legal principle which was expressed pithily in Re Stewart’s Application [2003] NI 149 at [9]:

“Such planning policy statements are not, however, a straight jacket and do not have to be slavishly followed in all circumstances …. the determining body must have regard to the policy but need not necessarily follow it.”

Carswell LCJ added, tellingly:

“If it departs from it, it must give clear reasons so that persons affected may know why an exception is being made to the policy and the grounds for the decision. We would only add that those reasons must be material planning reasons.”

[48] There is a further aspect of the duty to give reasons (where this arises) which has not been the subject of detailed attention in the main decided cases. The provision of reasons is a facet of procedural fairness. It is readily linked to public law “buzz words” such as transparency, accountability and accessibility. This gives rise to an important consideration, jurisdictional in nature. In judicial review challenges based on a complaint of procedural unfairness, whether it be inadequate reasons or something else, the court is the arbiter. It forms its own view, unshackled by the constraints of, for example, the Wednesbury principle. The court does not ask itself whether the act or omission under scrutiny lay outwith the range of courses or responses rationally available to the public authority decision maker. Rather the question for the court is whether there was unfairness of the procedural, or due process, variety. In a reasons challenge the court determines this question by reference to the settled principles outlined above.

[49] One particular consequence of the foregoing, in my estimation, is that, typically, the court may not derive much assistance from the subjective protestations of planning experts, via affidavits, that the reasons proffered by the deciding authority for the impugned decision were – or, as the case may be, were not – adequate, intelligible or coherent. I am not suggesting that evidence of this kind is inadmissible and I intend no criticism whatever of the decisions of legal representatives to introduce it. But its utility may, in certain cases, be at best minimal and at worst non-existent.

[50] In the present case I consider that there are distinctly adversarial traits in the opinions which the two planning experts have, in their affidavits, expressed on the reasons recorded in the minutes of the key meeting of the Council’s PC. In my judgement, they strayed into the prohibited realm of advocacy, to be contrasted with balanced, detached and objective evaluation and assessment. I have derived no assistance from either of these evidential sources. The net result is a no scoring draw (to be contrasted with a scoring one).

[51] There is one further specific issue worthy of mention. The submissions of Mr Stewart Beattie QC (with Mr Philip McAteer of counsel) on behalf of the Council, in tandem with those advanced on behalf of the developer, were critical of the Applicant regarding the terms in which he had formulated his written objection to the planning application and his limited participation in the decision making process, including non-attendance at the PC’s public meeting, thereafter.

[52] Forensically, these submissions were well made. However, it is appropriate to draw attention to the following. First, the Applicant’s sufficiency of interest (or standing) to bring these proceedings is, correctly, not contested. Second, the legal duties of the Council had to be performed irrespective of the contributions made, or not made, by the Applicant. Third, the Applicant’s entitlement to the grant of leave to apply for judicial review - again correctly – was not disputed.

[53] Mr Beattie’s submissions do, however, highlight that the anterior conduct and participation of a judicial review litigant may be of some materiality. In this respect Mr Knox is to be contrasted with the hypothetical energetic, relentless and actively participating objector. This hypothetical person is likely to possess an insight and comprehension not shared by those such as Mr Knox. This, in the judicial review litigation scenario, may become a contextual factor which the court must weigh. Rephrased somewhat, there is no hierarchy of membership of the audience to which a planning authority’s decisions are directed. The planning authority must have regard to the totality of the audience. This will include those who have the benefit of skilled legal advice and representation during the decision making process and all others. The legal standard which the authority’s reasons must satisfy is immutable. It bears no relationship to the varying individual members of the audience of legitimately interested persons and groups. 34

Doctrinally, save for those few cases where the specific and personal knowledge and/or conduct of the challenging litigant is legally relevant, all members of the notional “audience” are to be treated equally.

[54] The foregoing moderately lengthy preamble leads to the main question to be determined by the court: do the reasons documented in the minutes of the public meeting of the Council’s PC on 12 March 2018 comply with the applicable legal standards viz the requirements contained in paragraphs 7.1 - 7.3 of the Council’s Protocol and the common law principles identified above?

[55] As a starting point the Applicant does not contend that the 29 words under scrutiny are not deserving of the appellation of “reasons”. This acknowledgement is properly made. Elaborating, considering all of the material evidence in its totality I am satisfied that the PC members were alert to all relevant planning policies and understood the import of section 6(4) of the Planning Act. In the statutory language, the fundamental question for them was whether there were “material considerations” which sufficed to “indicate” that their decision could lawfully be made other than “in accordance with” the LDP.

[56] Second, again bearing in mind the principles to be applied, I consider that to construe the three bullet points constituting the 29 words in question as the formulation of the three factors which the PC considered sufficient to displace the LDP involves no distortion of the language used or other impropriety. Third, each of the factors identified has the status of a material consideration in planning law. The contrary, correctly, was not argued. Furthermore, I consider that the language used is coherent and intelligible.

[57] What is there on the other side of the scales? Mr Orbinson highlighted, correctly, that there is no express formulation of the “material considerations” identified; there is no express balancing of the three factors in question vis-à-vis the LDP; there is no express indication of the quantum of weight being attributed to the three factors in question, either individually or cumulatively; and the bullet points were bare conclusions without accompanying elaboration. While Mr Orbinson’s critique was more extensive than this, I have identified what I consider to be its core elements.

[58] The foregoing criticisms are well made. The only documentary evidence of the reasons for the impugned decision does indeed have each of the features highlighted. The question for the court is whether this renders the impugned decision unsustainable in law on account of legally inadequate supporting reasons. I have not found this question easy to answer. This is so principally because the Council’s PC, with a little effort and at no additional cost, could have done so much better. This analysis follows inexorably from the terms of the minutes. It is reinforced by the Council’s need to provide a considerably more expansive exposition of its reasoning in both the PAP response letter and Ms Dickson’s affidavit.

[59] However, having regard to the full evidential context, I conclude, by an admittedly narrow margin, that the recorded reasons pass muster in law. I thus conclude because considered in their full evidential and juridical contexts they are imbued with sufficient clarity, coherence and intelligibility. I am bound to add, however, that the Council should not have found itself in the position of defending the legal sustainability of the reasons for its impugned decision before this court. These proceedings were pre-eminently avoidable. The recorded reasons have been found to satisfy the legal minima. However, the court trusts that every Council in Northern Ireland will not satisfy itself with the bare minimum. Judicial review is designed inter alia to encourage and promote the highest standards of decision making in the realm of public law. The net effect of the authorities by which this court is bound is to erect a relatively high threshold for judicial intervention in a judicial review reasons challenge. The Applicant has failed, narrowly, to overcome this threshold.

[60] Furthermore, the Council and its legal representatives should not have found themselves in the position of having to select its HOP as the appropriate deponent. Ms Dickson was neither the decision maker nor a member of the body – the Council’s PC – which made the impugned decision. Expressly eschewing any hard or fast rule, it is eminently foreseeable that in future cases the court will reflect carefully on why the author of the Council’s affidavit evidence is not the chairperson of the PC. This discrete factor in the judicial and public accountability mechanism, in my view, can only serve to improve the quality of contemporaneously documented reasons for Council planning decisions. 36

[61] As stated and re-emphasised in decisions of high authority, the public law duty to provide reasons, where same exists, has the supreme virtue of serving to focus the decision maker’s mind and, in so doing, reduces the risk of contamination via the intrusion of something alien or the disregard of something material or, in the worst case scenario, the simply irrational. Councils in Northern Ireland should, therefore, both welcome and embrace the legal duty to provide adequate, coherent and intelligible reasons for their decisions on planning applications and should, if necessary, revisit practices, procedures and cultures which are not conducive to the discharge of this solemn legal obligation.

[62] Finally, I have decided the central issue in this case without reliance on either the Council’s PAP response (as enlarged) or the corresponding parts of its affidavit evidence. Thus the Ex Parte Ermakov principles do not arise for consideration.

Omnibus conclusion

[63] For the reasons given, and not without some hesitation, the court dismisses the application for judicial review.

Costs

[64] Having expressed a provisional view and considered the parties’ submissions on costs, following an adjournment for this purpose, I approve the consensual proposal that each party bear its own costs.

Unclassified

ITEM 7c

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 24 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Publication of, and background to, the first publication of the Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework

Attachments Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework

The first publication of the Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework 2018/2019 has just been published by the Analysis, Statistics & Research Branch of the Department for Infrastructure.

Background

Since 2016 the Department for Infrastructure (the Department) has been working with local councils to develop a planning performance management framework. To assist in this, in July 2016, the Department commissioned Mark Hand, Head of Planning at Monmouthshire Council, to work with the 11 planning authorities to devise and agree a set of indicators for planning.

The framework has been formulated following discussions and a workshop with DfI, Heads of Planning and relevant senior local government officers; as well as consideration of good practice in other regions (primarily Wales and Scotland); a customer survey asking planning agents / developers what is important to them in terms of an effective planning system; and feedback from Council’s and DfI officials on the draft report issued in January 2017.

Page 1 of 6

Unclassified

The purpose of the framework is to measure performance in a proportionate and meaningful way and to use the collected data to help drive service improvements. The desired outcome is a positive, efficient and effective planning system for Northern Ireland. Any performance management framework will evolve with time, as lessons are learnt or as circumstances, challenges or priorities change.

The outcomes of the framework will be of benefit to councils in helping them to identify best practice and to drive forward continuous improvement. It will also help central and local government to demonstrate planning’s contribution to delivering the draft Programme for Government (PfG) outcome-based indicators. These include a strong, competitive, regionally balanced economy; protection of the environment; a healthier and more equal society; and a society where people are connected with opportunities through infrastructure. This requires central government to work with local government, private sector, voluntary and community sectors to maximise what can be achieved collectively.

While there are currently three statutory planning indicators, it is widely recognised that these do not cover all the work carried out by the local planning authorities (LPAs). This framework will help to address this by capturing data on other planning-related activities.

Reports were previously presented to Planning Committee on this ongoing work in June 2017 and February 2018.

Planning Activity Statistics

It is important to highlight to Members that since the transfer of planning powers to councils in April 2015, the quarterly bulletins published by the Analysis, Statistics and Research Branch of DFI present a summary of provisional Northern Ireland planning volumes and processing performance for the new district councils, and the Department.

The provisional quarterly releases are then replaced by a final annual publication, which contains finalised figures on the volume of applications received and decided, including geographic detail at the district council level, and detail on areas of high public interest (including information on residential development in urban and rural areas), renewable energy and enforcement activity.

Those planning activity statistics can be viewed at https://www.infrastructure- ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity-statistics.

The Head of Planning reports to Planning Committee after the publication of each quarterly release, and also at year end, providing commentary on the data as published.

Page 2 of 6

Unclassified

It should be noted that the planning activity statistics also include information on the additional activity which the Planning Department undertakes which is not fee producing, which consists of the following:

• Processing of Discharge of Conditions • Processing applications for Certificates of Lawfulness (Existing and Proposed) • Facilitating Pre-Application Discussions • Review of Proposal of Application Notices • Assessment of Non-Material Change applications • Processing applications for Tree Preservation Orders and applications for consent to carry out works to protected trees and trees within Conservation Areas.

Indicators 1, 2, 3 and 8, as detailed below, replicate the information, in terms of the average processing times for major and local development applications and enforcement conclusion times, that is contained within the quarterly statistics.

Planning Monitoring Framework Indicators

The list of indicators under the new framework includes the three existing statutory indicators and an existing departmental indicator, in addition to five new indicators. These are detailed as follows:

Indicator 1 Average processing time taken to determine major applications Indicator 1.1 Average time taken to determine major applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Indicator 2 Average time taken to determine local applications Indicator 2.1 Average time taken to determine local applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Indicator 3 Proportion of enforcement cases progressed to the target conclusion within 39 weeks Indicator 4 Percentage of applications determined under delegated powers Indicator 5 Number of applications decided by Planning Committee and percentage of Committee decisions made against officer recommendation Indicator 6 Percentage of appeals against refusals of planning permission that are dismissed Indicator 7 Number of claims for costs received by Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) and number of claims awarded Indicator 8 Percentage of regionally significant planning applications processed to a Ministerial recommendation within 30 weeks Indicator 9 Number of applications notified to the Department and the number of these processed within the period of 28 days

In respect of Indicators 6 and 7, the Planning Appeals Commission did not provide the required information to the Department and therefore no data has been included in the 18/19 published framework report.

Page 3 of 6

Unclassified

Associated Commentary

It is advised against using the data as a ‘league table’ as there is a wide range of inconsistencies across the councils in respect of each’s individual procedures and processes. This includes; the number and type of planning applications received; the servicing by statutory consultees in different divisional offices; resourcing within individual Councils and within central government departments; and ‘Schemes of Delegation’.

One of the new indicators is the percentage of applications determined by Planning Committee contrary to officer recommendation. It should be noted that this figure only relates to the number of planning applications referred to a Planning Committee by individually tailored ‘Schemes of Delegation’. This information should also be read in the context of the Chief Planner’s letter regarding visits by DFI to Planning Committee meetings across the eleven councils, which is detailed at Item 7b.

Members are referred to the Table below which has been prepared by the Head of Planning in relation to the number of applications determined per year over the first four years since transfer, against those decided by Committee and those overturned.

Year Total No. No. % Delegated No. of Percentage of determined determined decisions decisions against by contrary to officer Committee officer recommendation recommendation 15/16 925 40 95.68% 2 5% 16/17 906 73 91.95% 1 1.4% 17/18 985 60 93.91% 4 6.7% 18/19 947 60 93.67% 3 5% Total 3763 233 93.81% 10 4.29%

The majority of applications within ANDBC are determined through the ‘Scheme of Delegation’. Of those overturns in the 2015/16 year, both applications were overturned from approval to refusal and both appealed. One was upheld at appeal (permission granted) and the other was deemed invalid and remitted back to the Planning Department for consideration and was subsequently refused due to lack of submission of information relating to bats.

In the 2016/17-year one application was overturned from a refusal to an approval, which had been recommended for refusal on the basis of Rivers Agency comments relating to a 1 in 100 flood event.

In 2017/18 four applications recommended for refusal were overturned, and in 2018/19, three applications recommended for refusal were approved.

Appeal Decisions and Costs Awards

In respect of the indicators whereby Planning Appeals Commission did not provide the relevant information, the Head of Planning previously reported on appeals Page 4 of 6

Unclassified performance to Planning Committee in June 2019 (Item 6 of that date), and previously confirmed (in March 2019) that the PAC awarded costs against the Council in respect of one appeal against a planning condition relating to trees. This was the only costs award made against the Council in the 2018/2019 period.

Determination Time for Major Applications

Focusing on the particular time period for major applications, it is pertinent to note, as detailed in the previous report to Committee of June 2019, that Council determined five major development applications as follows:

• A 2015 application relating to a retrospective application for Ballystockart quarry – this required further submission of information for assessment by NIEA and DFI Road;

• A 2015 application comprising 353no. dwellings at Donaghadee Road, Newtownards (Reserved Matters) – processing time took account of need for detailed design changes and submission of further detailed information for assessment by a number of statutory consultees;

• A 2016 application comprising 390 dwellings at Cannyreagh Road, Donaghadee (Reserved Matters) – which involved receipt of further drawings in 2018 and additional consultation as a result thereof

• A 2017 application for 185 dwellings at Movilla Road, Newtownards, with requirement for an accompanying legal agreement, which then had to be returned to Committee due to inability of developer to garner landowner support for legal agreement

• A 2017 application for 43 dwellings at Manse Road, Newtownards, which required detailed consideration by Rivers Agency, and an accompanying Article 122 Roads agreement drawn up and executed prior to issuance of decision.

Whilst the statutory performance indicator in relation to major applications is an average of 30 weeks, the figures for 2018/2019 for Ards and North Down were affected by the time frame for those applications as detailed above; however it is important to note that the Planning Department does negotiate to effect a positive outcome, and a number of the applications above required submission of further detailed plans, supporting information or assessments in order to satisfy statutory consultees and Planning.

Determination Time for Local Applications

The introduction of the householder development team has by far assisted in reducing the average processing time for local development applications down over the four years from 21.2 weeks to 15.6 weeks. Quarter 1 figures for 2019/2020 report an average processing time of 13.4 weeks.

Page 5 of 6

Unclassified

Enforcement Cases

The Council has consistently met the statutory performance indicator of conclusion of >70% of cases within 39 weeks. It should be noted that this Council has consistently been within the top three Councils in receipt of the highest number of reports of alleged breaches of planning control, with the exception of 2016/17 (fifth highest).

Continuous Review of Procedures and Practice

The proposed introduction of a Good Practice Guide and Application Checklist, akin to that recently introduced by Belfast City Council, will seek to assist applicants and developers in submitting the correct detailed information at the outset of the process.

In addition to this, the Planning Department would welcome the Council’s support in terms of advocating straight refusals without convoluted negotiation on those applications which are non-policy compliant from the outset or which do not have the requisite information submitted despite, often repeated, requests by the Planning Department.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council notes this report and the attached Planning Monitoring Framework.

Page 6 of 6

HERN IR

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

Introduction ...... 4

Future Releases ...... 5

Indicator summaries ...... 6

Northern Ireland ...... 6

Antrim and Newtownabbey ...... 8

Ards and North Down ...... 10

Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon ...... 12

Belfast ...... 14

Causeway Coast and Glens ...... 16

Derry City and Strabane ...... 18

Fermanagh and Omagh ...... 20

Lisburn and Castlereagh ...... 22

Mid and East Antrim ...... 24

Mid Ulster ...... 26

Newry Mourne and Down...... 28

Appendix 1 – Notes and Definitions ...... 30

Notes on data sources...... 30

Hierarchy of development ...... 31

Processing times ...... 31

Enforcement activity ...... 32

Scheme of delegation ...... 32

Notes on exclusions ...... 32

Notes on indicators ...... 32

Reader information ...... 36

Introduction

The planning system in Northern Ireland has undergone a period of considerable change in recent years. Under the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, from 1st April 2015 the majority of planning functions were devolved from the former Department of the Environment1 to 11 newly re-organised councils2. While there are currently three statutory planning indicators, it is considered that these do not reflect all the work carried out by planning authorities. This framework aims to address this by presenting data on other planning-related activity. The bulletin presents a summary of the indicators for Northern Ireland, as well as relevant indicator data for each local planning authority. As this is the first year these data are being reported, the statistical bulletin and accompanying tables present data for 2018/193 only. This framework has been developed by the Department for Infrastructure (the ‘Department’) in collaboration with local planning authorities, and has been informed by best practice in other jurisdictions. The agreed list of indicators under the new framework include the three existing statutory indicators and an existing departmental indicator. These indicators4 are:

Indicator 1 Average processing time taken to determine major applications5 Indicator 1.1 Average time taken to determine major applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Indicator 2 Average processing time taken to determine local applications5 Indicator 2.1 Average time taken to determine local applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Indicator 3 Proportion of enforcement cases progressed to the target conclusion within 39 weeks5 Indicator 4 Percentage of applications determined under delegated powers Indicator 5 Number of applications decided by planning committee and percentage of committee decisions made against officer recommendation Indicator 6 Percentage of appeals against refusals of planning permission that are dismissed6 Indicator 7 Number of claims for costs received by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) and number of claims awarded6 Indicator 8 Percentage of regionally significant planning applications processed to a Ministerial recommendation within 30 weeks7 Indicator 9 Number of applications notified to the Department and the number of these processed within the period of 28 days

1 Note that from 8th May 2016, Ministerial responsibility for planning transferred from the former Department of the Environment to the newly-formed Department for Infrastructure following departmental re-organisation. 2 There are currently 12 planning authorities in Northern Ireland – the Department for Infrastructure and the 11 councils (local planning authorities). 3 For the purposes of this bulletin, 2018/19 refers to the period 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019, unless otherwise stated. 4 For more detailed information on each of the indicators, please see Appendix 1: Notes on indicators. 5 This is an existing statutory indicator. 6 Data are under development for this indicator but were not yet available at time of publication. 7 Subject to pre-application discussions having taken place and meeting the requirements of relevant Environmental Legislation. This is an existing Departmental indicator. This indicator will be revised from 2019/20. Please see Appendix 1: Notes on indicators for further information.

The Department also retains responsibility for production and publication of quarterly Official Statistics bulletins relating to the volume of planning and enforcement activity for the planning authorities and Northern Ireland as a whole. These bulletins are available via the following link: https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity-statistics These bulletins also report on local planning authorities’ and overall NI performance against the three existing statutory indicators, mentioned above, as set out in Schedules 3 and 4 of The Local Government (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015:  Major applications to be processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 30 weeks;  Local applications to be processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 15 weeks;  70% of all enforcement cases dealt with by councils are progressed to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint.

Future Releases

The next update of the Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework is due to be published in September 2020. The Department, in conjunction with local planning authorities will review indicators and definitions based on lessons learnt, trends, priorities and aspirations. As such, it is envisaged that this framework will evolve over time. See GOV.UK Release Calendar for release dates of future publications.

Indicator summaries

Northern Ireland

Antrim and Newtownabbey

Ards and North Down

Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon

Belfast

Causeway Coast and Glens

Derry City and Strabane

Fermanagh and Omagh

Lisburn and Castlereagh

Mid and East Antrim

Mid Ulster

Newry Mourne and Down

Appendix 1 – Notes and Definitions

Notes on data sources The data presented in this report have been collected from a number of different sources. The Notes on Indicators section below describes each individual indicator and its data source.

Source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal Informing: Indicators 1, 1.1, 2, 2.1, 3, 4, 8 Data presented in this publication sourced from the Northern Ireland Planning Portal are consistent with the Northern Ireland Planning Statistics 2018/19 Official Statistics bulletin, published in June 2019 (https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-planning-statistics-april-2018-march- 2019). The records of all planning applications from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 were transferred in April 2019 from a live database. This included all live planning applications in the Planning Portal. The data were validated by Analysis, Statistics and Research Branch (ASRB) which involved quality checks and inspection of coding of classifications in the Planning Portal. Local councils were provided with their own headline planning statistics as part of the quality assurance process for the Northern Ireland Planning Statistics 2018/19 bulletin. On completion of ASRB and council validation, a final extract was taken in May 2019. In advance of the publication of the Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework bulletin, local councils were again provided with data for their council for each of the relevant indicators sourced from the Northern Ireland Planning Portal, as part of the quality assurance process.

Source: Department for Infrastructure, Planning Applications to Committee database Informing: Indicators 4, 5 This database records all decisions on planning applications taken by planning committees, sourced from published committee meeting minutes. An extract of all records taken to planning committee from 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 was taken by ASRB in July 2019. The data were validated by ASRB, which involved quality checks and the removal of duplicate decisions. In advance of this publication, local councils were provided with their own data for the relevant indicators sourced from the Planning Applications to Committee database, as part of the quality assurance process. On completion of ASRB and council validation, a final extract was taken in September 2019.

Source: Planning Appeals Commission Informing: Indicators 6, 7 Data are under development for these indicators but were not available at time of publication. Once the data have been received, a revised Northern Ireland Planning Monitoring Framework 2018/19 bulletin will be published.

Source: Department for Infrastructure, Planning Records - Regionally Significant Applications Informing: Indicator 8 Data for this indicator were sourced from internal Departmental records. The data were then validated by ASRB prior to analysis. Staff within the Department were provided with the indicator data, as part of the quality assurance process.

Source: Department for Infrastructure, Applications Notified to the Department – Case Management system Informing: Indicator 9 Data for this indicator were sourced from internal Departmental records. The data were then validated by ASRB prior to analysis. Staff within the Department were provided with the indicator data, as part of the quality assurance process. Please note: the recording of notifications to meet the requirements of this indicator began in August 2018, and therefore data for 2018/19 refer to the period 1st August 2018 to 31st March 2019 (inclusive).

Hierarchy of development The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 provide for a hierarchy of development based on a three-tier classification consisting of regionally significant, major and local. Regionally significant developments (RSD) in effect form the top slice of the major development category and are similar to former Article 31 applications in that they will be determined by the Department. These developments have a critical contribution to make to the economic and social success of Northern Ireland as a whole, or a substantial part of the region. They also include developments which have significant effects beyond Northern Ireland or involve a substantial departure from a local development plan. Applications for these development proposals will be submitted to and determined by the Department. However, the thresholds for RSD may mean that applications which may have previously been dealt with by the Department will now be classified as major development and thus determined by the relevant council. RSD proposals will be subject to pre-application consultation with the community. Major developments have important economic, social and environmental implications. Applications for major developments will primarily be dealt with by councils under the new planning system and will be subject to pre-application consultation with the community. Local developments will comprise of all other developments (other than permitted development) that do not fall within the classes described for major or for regionally significant developments. They comprise of the vast majority of residential and minor commercial applications to be received and determined by a council.

Processing times 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 (where applicable). The average processing time is the median. The median is determined by sorting data from its lowest to

highest values and then taking the data point in the middle of the sequence. The median is used because some planning applications can take several years to reach a decision. As a consequence, these extreme cases (outliers) can inflate the mean to the extent that the mean may not be considered as ‘typical’. Therefore the median may be taken to better represent the ‘average’ or ‘typical’ processing time.

Enforcement activity Compliance and enforcement are important functions of the planning system. An enforcement case is opened when there has been an alleged breach of planning control. An enforcement case is concluded when one of the following occurs: a notice is issued; legal proceedings commence; a planning application is received; or the case is closed.

Scheme of delegation In accordance with the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014 and Section 31 of The Planning Act (NI) 2011, each local planning authority has a Scheme of Delegation which sets out:  the types of planning application to be delegated to a planning officer for a decision; and  the types of planning application to be presented to the Council Planning Committee for a decision. As each council has an individual scheme of delegation the types of applications that are delegated to planning officers for decision may differ across councils. This should be borne in mind in relation to ‘Indicator 4: Percentage of applications determined under delegated powers’.

Notes on exclusions Certificates of Lawful Use or Development, Tree Preservation Orders, Non Material Changes, Pre-Application Discussions, Proposal of Application Notices and Discharge of Conditions have been excluded from all application figures presented in this bulletin.

Notes on indicators Indicator 1: Average processing time taken to determine major applications Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal Description: This measures the average (median) time taken to process major applications to a decision or withdrawal. It is an existing statutory target for each council that their major development planning applications will be processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 30 weeks. This indicator excludes departmental applications.

Indicator 1.1: Average time taken to determine major applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal

Description: This measures the average (median) time taken to process major applications to a decision. This indicator excludes departmental applications and applications withdrawn prior to the decision notice being issued.

Indicator 2: Average processing time taken to determine local applications Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal Description: This measures the average (median) time taken to process local applications to a decision or withdrawal. It is an existing statutory target for each council that their local development planning applications will be processed from the date valid to decision issued or withdrawal date within an average of 15 weeks. This indicator excludes departmental applications.

Indicator 2.1: Average time taken to determine local applications (excluding withdrawn applications) Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal Description: This measures the average (median) time taken to process local applications to a decision. This indicator excludes departmental applications and applications withdrawn prior to the decision notice being issued.

Indicator 3: Proportion of enforcement cases progressed to the target conclusion within 39 weeks Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal Description: 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; legal proceedings commence; a planning application is received; or the case is closed. It is an existing statutory target that 70% of all enforcement cases dealt with by councils are progressed to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint. This indicator excludes departmental enforcement cases.

Indicator 4: Percentage of applications determined under delegated powers Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal and Department for Infrastructure, Planning Applications to Committee database Description: To calculate this indicator, the numerator is the number of applications decided under delegated powers, i.e. those made by a planning officer under the council’s Scheme of Delegation, during the reference period. The denominator is the total number of decisions issued on planning applications by the council during the reference period. The total number of decisions issued during the reference period is sourced from the Northern Ireland Planning Portal, in line with figures on decisions issued as published in the Northern Ireland Planning Statistics Official Statistics bulletin (https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity- statistics).

The number of applications decided under delegated powers is calculated by first identifying those applications determined by planning committee, sourced from the Planning Applications to Committee database. Once planning committee decisions have been identified, by default the remainder are marked as delegated decisions. Only applications with a decision issued date within the reference period entered on the Northern Ireland Planning Portal are included in the calculation of this indicator. Therefore committee decisions made during an earlier period but with a decision issued date within the reference period will be included in the calculations. Similarly, committee decisions made during the reference period without a decision issued date within the same period will be excluded. This indicator also excludes departmental applications.

Indicator 5: Number of applications decided by planning committee and percentage of committee decisions made against officer recommendation Data source: Department for Infrastructure, Planning Applications to Committee database Description: This measures the number of decisions (i.e. approvals or refusals) made by a council’s planning committee within the reference period, and the percentage of these decisions that were contrary to the planning officer recommendation. The indicator includes all applications decided by planning committee within the reference period, including those that do not have a decision issued date entered on the Northern Ireland Planning Portal within the same period, and those applications which were subsequently withdrawn following a planning committee decision. Departmental applications are excluded.

Indicator 6: Percentage of appeals against refusals of planning permission that are dismissed Data source: Planning Appeals Commission Description: Data are under development for this indicator but were not yet available at time of publication.

Indicator 7: Number of claims for costs received by the PAC and number of claims awarded Data source: Planning Appeals Commission Description: Data are under development for this indicator but were not yet available at time of publication.

Indicator 8: Percentage of regionally significant planning applications processed to a ministerial recommendation within 30 weeks (subject to pre-application discussions having taken place and meeting the requirements of relevant Environmental Legislation) Data source: Northern Ireland Planning Portal and Department for Infrastructure, Planning Records - Regionally Significant Applications

Description: To calculate this indicator, the numerator is the number of regionally significant planning applications processed to ministerial8 recommendation within 30 weeks during the reference period. The denominator is the total number of regionally significant planning applications processed to ministerial8 recommendation during the reference period. The 30 week period is measured from the date the application was received or, where applicable, the date that further environmental information was received, to the date the application was processed to ministerial8 recommendation. Applications that were not subject to pre-application discussion are excluded from this indicator. It is an existing departmental target for the Department to contribute to sustainable economic growth by processing 50% of Regionally Significant Planning Applications to a Ministerial Recommendation within 30 weeks, subject to pre-application discussions having taken place and meeting the requirements of relevant Environmental Legislation. Note: From 2019/20 onwards, Indicator 8 will be revised to: The Department to progress regionally significant planning applications (RSD) from date valid to a ministerial recommendation or withdrawal within an average of 30 weeks The time to progress to ministerial8 recommendation will be measured from the date the application was made valid. All regionally significant applications will be within the scope of the revised indicator. 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". Reporting on this will commence in the Quarter 1 2019/20 Northern Ireland Planning Statistics Official Statistics bulletin, to be published on 26th September 2019 (https://www.infrastructure- ni.gov.uk/articles/planning-activity-statistics).

Indicator 9: Number of applications notified to the Department and the number of these processed within the period of 28 days Data source: Department for Infrastructure, Applications Notified to the Department – Case Management system Description: Under the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and subsequent legislative directions, councils have a duty to notify the Department for particular categories of applications and circumstances before they can grant planning permission or consent. This indicator measures the number of applications notified to the Department within the reference period and the number of these processed within 28 calendar days. The 28 day period is measured from the date the Department receives the notification or, where applicable, the date where all required information from the council is received. In the context of this indicator, a notification is considered processed on the earliest date of the following: the Department has issued a direction to the council requiring unlimited further time to consider whether to refer the application or not; the Department has issued a letter of notification to the council stating that a referral is not required; or the Department has issued a direction to the council referring the application to

8 Or Permanent Secretary in the absence of a Minister

35 the Department. Where the 28th day falls on a Sunday or Public Holiday, the next working day is treated as the 28th day. Only notifications received by the Department during the reference period are included in the calculations for this indicator, regardless of what date they are processed. Note: The data reported for 2018/19 for this indicator cover the period 1st August 2018 to 31st March 2019 only.

Reader information This document may be made available in alternative formats, please contact us to discuss your requirements.

ITEM 8

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 12 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011; The Planning (Statement of Community Inolvement) Regulations 2015; The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Governance Arrangements for Local Development Plan (LDP)

Attachments Item 8a - draft Terms of Reference - Steering Group Item 8b - draft Terms of Reference - Project Management Group

1.0 Background

1.1 Members shall be aware of the preparation of the Local Development Plan (LDP) and work undertaken to date in terms of LDP workshops in 2017-2018, and publication of the Preferred Options Paper in March 2019.

1.2 Following the beginning of the second term of the Council, and in light of new members to the Planning Committee, it is timely to clarify the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Steering Group and Project Management Group in relation to the preparation of the Local Development Plan for Ards and North Down.

Page 1 of 3

1.3 The Council is tasked with publishing a Statement of Community Involvement in line with the Planning (Statement of Community Involvement) Regulations (NI) 2015 which sets out details of the Development Plan preparation process and identifying key consultees and the stages of the LDP process at which they will be involved.

1.4 It is important to clarify the TOR, as the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out details of the Steering Group and Project Management Group.

2.0 Establishment of LDP Steering Group

2.1 The purpose of the Steering Group is to act as a high-level co-ordinating body to ensure strategic overview and input, on behalf of the whole community, into the new Local Development Plan for the borough.

2.2 In amplification to the Council’s SCI, it is proposed that the group will include:

• Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning; • Head of Planning • Planning Committee; and • The Chief Executive – as required.

2.4 This group will receive regular updates on the LDP progress and provide oversight in respect of meeting key milestones as set out in the LDP timetable.

2.5 The group will play a key role in agreeing the content and publication of the following documents:

• Preferred Options Paper (POP); • Plan Strategy; and • Local Policies Plan

2.6 Draft Terms of Reference are set out at Item 8a for consideration.

3.0 Establishment of Project Management Group

3.1 In order to oversee the implementation and publication of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (including SEA) and in line with the SCI, a Project Management Group will be established, comprising of senior officers from the Council and invited representatives from the key statutory/government departments and adjoining councils where appropriate.

3.2 The purpose of the Group is to ensure engagement and cooperation by key consultees in the plan-making process by assisting in setting an objective evidence based assessment in relation to the Council’s LDP Growth Strategy in the context of the strategic direction set out in the draft Programme for Government and regional planning policy. The Project Management team will

Page 2 of 3

be consulted on and act as the scoping group for the SA, incorporating SEA, and Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).

3.3 It is considered appropriate that the following body is also invited: • Shared Environmental Service (SES) - as the consultative body preparing the SA, incorporating the SEA.

3.4 Key consultees (as stated above) will be invited to participate by providing information on key strategic issues that the LDP should address. An invite will also extend internally to other Council officers as appropriate.

3.5 It is envisaged that this Group would meet quarterly (or otherwise as may be required) to ensure that the deadlines set out in Council’s LDP timetable are met.

3.8 The draft Terms of Reference are set out at Item 8b for consideration.

4.0 LDP Consultation Group

4.1 Members will be aware from previous reports to Committee of the programme of engagement sessions planned in relation to the review of existing regional planning policies moving toward publication of the Draft Plan Strategy.

4.2 All 40 elected members of the Council, alongside the Corporate Leadership Team, Heads of Service, the LDP Planning team, and other relevant officers, are invited to workshops to ensure cross-council engagement and input into the planning policy review aspect of the LDP process.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the content of the report and agrees:

a) the updated Terms of Reference for the LDP Steering Group; and

b) the Terms of Reference for the LDP Project Management Group.

Page 3 of 3

Item 8a LDP Steering Group Terms of Reference

NAME

The name of Steering Group will be the ‘Ards and North Down Borough Council Local Development Plan (LDP) Steering Group’.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Steering Group is to oversee and co-ordinate the delivery of the Local Development Plan (LDP).

OBJECTIVES

• To secure the necessary input from Council officers to deliver the LDP in accordance with the LDP Timetable agreed with the Department for Infrastructure (DfI), whilst meeting statutory requirements and various tests of ‘soundness’; • To ensure that the public and key stakeholders are engaged in the Plan process as provided for in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI); • To secure the engagement of elected members in the LDP process, particularly at key stages where a corporate Council view needs to be identified and presented to the public (e.g. Preferred Options Paper); and • To take appropriate action to address any policy and resource gaps, identified through the Head of Planning.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE STEERING GROUP

In line with Council’s published “Statement of Community Involvement in Planning” (SCI) the LDP Steering Group will comprise of:-

• The Planning Committee • Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning; • Head of Planning; and • The Chief Executive – as required.

The Planning Committee Chair or Vice Chair will chair the Group, and the LDP Manager will act as Secretary to the Group.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Members of the Steering Group shall take responsibility to declare proactively any potential conflict of interest arising out of business undertaken by the Group.

Members of the Steering Group shall declare any personal interest that may exist or may be perceived to exist, in relation to any decisions or recommendation made by the Group. Item 8a CONFIDENTIALITY

Confidentiality must be maintained at all times.

In the conduct of their duties, members of this group will be privy to material that is confidential, or which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential and commercial nature. This material must not be distributed outside of the group.

MEETING ARRANGEMENTS

The Chair of Planning Committee will chair the group. In absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair of Planning Committee will chair the group. If both are not present the meeting will nominate a Chair from those present.

The Steering Group does not have decision making powers - it makes recommendations only. Recommendations requiring decision will be tabled at the Council’s Planning Committee, for approval and ratification/resolution by full Council.

The Steering Group does not operate to any quorum and meetings will proceed regardless of numbers in attendance.

The Steering Group will normally meet on a quarterly basis (prior to Planning Committee as previously agreed) or otherwise as may be agreed or required.

Meetings of the Steering Group will be convened by the Head of Planning via Democratic Services.

The Steering Group shall take minutes of all meetings. These may be open to public scrutiny.

Minutes of the meeting will be circulated to the group following each meeting.

Press and Public

Meetings of the Steering Group will not be open to the press or public.

REPORTING STRUCTURES

The Group will supply an annual monitoring report to inform Council on progress in meeting the Plan Timetable and identifying the causes of any significant delay.

Item 8b

Local Development Plan Project Management Group

Terms of Reference

NAME

The name of the group will be the Local Development Plan Project Management Group.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Project Management Group, in line with the Council’s published ‘Statement of Community Involvement in Planning’ (SCI), is to facilitate key consultee co-operation in the plan-making process. This team shall assist in setting objective evidence-based direction in relation to the Council’s Growth Strategy in the context of the strategic direction set in the draft Programme for Government and regional planning policy. It will be consulted upon and act as the scoping group for the LDP Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and any other necessary assessments and appraisals.

OBJECTIVES

• Engagement by each competent authority as key stakeholders (in an advisory role) into the Council’s draft Plan documents • To secure the necessary expert input into the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) process.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP

In line with Council’s published Statement of Community Involvement in Planning’ (SCI) the LDP Project Management Group will comprise of:-

• The Head of Planning; • The LDP Manager and other planning staff as appropriate; and • Key government departments

The Corporate Leadership Team will be invited to participate in the Project Management Group meetings as appropriate.

The Head of Planning will chair the Group.

The LDP Manager will act as Secretary to the Group.

Item 8b DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Members of the Project Management Group should declare any personal interest that may exist, or may be perceived to exist, in relation to any decisions or recommendations made by the group.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Confidentiality must be maintained at all times.

In the conduct of their duties, members of this group will be privy to material that is confidential, or which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature. This material must not be distributed outside of the group.

MEETING ARRANGEMENTS

The Project Management Group will normally meet on a quarterly basis. However, there may be occasions when an ad hoc meeting is required to seek adherence to the published LDP Timetable. In this instance at least one week’s notice will be given (via e-mail).

The Project Management Group shall take minutes of all meetings. These may be open to public scrutiny.

Minutes of the meeting will be circulated to all attendees within one week of the meeting being held.

PRESS/PUBLIC

The meetings are not open to press or public.

REPORTING STRUCTURES

The Group (through the secretary) will supply an annual monitoring report to inform Council on its progress in meeting the Plan timetable and identifying the causes of any significant delay.

The Group will be required to complete its objectives within the timescale for the preparation of the Plan, as per the Plan Timetable.

Unclassified

ITEM 9

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 12 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern ireland) 2015

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council Consultation and Engagement Strategy

Attachments Item 9a Invitation Item 9b Minutes LCCC Engagement Workshops June 2019

Background 1.1 One of the ‘Consistency’ tests for establishing ‘soundness’ of a Local Development Plan (LDP) relates to a Plan having had regard to ‘other relevant plans, policies and strategies relating to the council’s district or to any adjoining council’s district’.

1.2 DFI’s Development Plan Practice Note 6 in relation to soundness specifies that the linkage to relevant plans, policies and strategies will be particularly important in helping to justify policies and proposals which reflect local circumstances pertaining to a council and its adjoining area. It states that in order to demonstrate that a council has had regard to this information, it may wish to provide evidence of consultations with adjoining councils and / or

Page 1 of 2

Background

protocols for working together to ensure that any issues which need to be taken into account have been duly considered in the preparation of the development plan documents.

1.3 In respect of this Practice Note, and ahead of publishing its Draft Plan Strategy, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council invited senior planning staff from its adjoining council areas to attend a meeting on its ‘Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils’. The meeting took place 18 April 2019 in the Civic Headquarters, Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn. Further to that meeting LCCC held two engagement sessions, on 21 June and 28 June 2019, to which planning staff were invited alongside planning officers from the Department for Infrastructure’s Plan Scrutiny team.

Detail

2.1 The workshops took place at officer level on the basis of understanding that any views expressed were not a formal response from each respective council. That position is reserved for Councils to make formal comment through the public consultation process following publication of the Draft Plan document and comments offered by officers at the workshops were on a ‘without prejudice’ basis.

2.2 Items were discussed using a thematic approach as set out below:

21 June 2019: • Councils’ growth Strategies, Housing Growth, • Economic Growth, • Town Centres and Retailing, • Tourism and Open Space

28 June 2019 • Transport • Other Infrastructure • Historic and Natural Environment • Minerals • Cemetery Provision.

2.3 Minutes of both workshops are attached for information at Item 9b. The Council’s LDP Section shall take account of the experience from this format of officer engagement prior to preparation and publication of its draft Plan Strategy. While the engagement did not have the purpose of seeking views it enabled proactive discussion regarding themes of commonality.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the report and attached minutes.

Page 2 of 2

Item 9a lttt Civic Headquarters Lagan Valley Island Lisburn & .Lisburn BT27 4RL

Castlereagh Tel: 028 9250 9250 City Council www.llsburncastlereagh.gov.uk

1 st March 2019 Invite as per Email

Your Ref: LCCC/LDP Dear Ann Re: Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Local Development Plan - Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils As part of the ongoing preparation of our Local Development Plan, draft Plan Strategy, we wish to invite you to a meeting to discuss our draft 'Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils'. The intention set out in the Strategy, is to provide opportunity for meaningful and constructive engagement on areas of mutual interest, which goes beyond the current arrangements for consultation by seeking feedback from our neighbouring Councils in advance of public consultation of the draft Plan Strategy.

Following this initial meeting, we would intend to host topic based Workshops with officialson a range of issues identified, such as housing, transport, retailing, tourism and the environment. Departmental officials will also be invited to attend (if required) where relevant to the topic area, for example, the Department for Infrastructure (Oft) in relation to transportation or the Department for Communities in relation to affordable housing.

You are invited to attend a meeting at 10am on the 19th April 2019 in the Civic Headquarters, Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn, BT27 4RL.

I would be grateful if you could respond by email to [email protected] to confirm if you are available on this date.

Yours sincerely

Conor Hughes Head of Planning and Capital Programme Cc Leona Maginn Civic Headquarters c.c.c. Lagan Valley Island Lisburn & Lisburn BT27 4RL Castlereagh Tel: 028 9250 9250 City Council www.llsburncastlereagh.gov.uk

Invite as per Email

Date: 3rd May 2019 Your Ref: LCCC/LDP

Dear Consultee Re: Local Development Plan Consultation Strategy Workshop

Further to our initial meeting to discuss the draft 'Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils,' the LOP team would like to invite you to the following workshops to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest, such as housing, transport, retailing, tourism and the environment. The workshops are to be held in Civic Headquarters, Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn, BT27 4RL on the following dates:-

Workshop 1 - Friday 21st June 2019 9.30am (10am start) to 4.00pm

Issues to be discussed Morning Session (10am to 12.30pm) Council Growth Strategies Housing Growth Employment Growth

12.30pm -1.30 :>m Lunch (provided) Afternoon Session (1 :30 to 4.00pm) Retailing & Offices Tourism & Open Space

Workshop 2 - Friday 28th June 2019 9.30am (10am start) to 4.00pm

Issues to be discussed Morning Session (1 Oam to 12.30pm) Transport Other Infrastructure (including Flooding, Renewable Energy & Waste Management) 12.30pm -1.30 pm Lunch (provided) Afternoon Session (1 :30 to 4.00pm) Historic & Natural Environment Minerals CemeteryProvision Following the workshops, comments will be sought with an 8 week timeframe and a report on all issues will be circulated.

Dfl Strategic Planning have also been invited to the workshops in their oversight and scrutiny role.

I have attached a copy of Part 2 of the draft document in advance of the workshops. We welcome your participation in all sessions but recognise that some of the topic areas may be of less relevance to your Council. However, it would be appreciated if attendance on these two dates is represented by a maximum of 3 no. delegates from your Council and would be grateful if you could confirm the relevant names of attendees at each session at [email protected]. uk.

Yours sincerely

Head of Planning and Capital Programme Item 9b

LISBURN AND CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL (LCCC) LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORKSHOP WITH NEIGHBOURING COUNCILS FRIDAY 21 JUNE 2019

ATTENDEES: Frank McGlone (FMcG) - Facilitator Helen Stoops (HS) - ABC Conor Hughes (CH)- LCCC Colm Gallagher (CG) - ABC Lois Jackson (LJ) - LCCC Robert Newell (RN) - DFI Adam Smyth (AS) - LCCC Danielle Rush (DR) - DFI Peter McFadden (PMcF) - LCCC Keith Sutherland (KS) - BCC Joanne Doran (JD) - LCCC Dermot O’Kane (DO’K) - BCC Michael McGrath (MMCG) - LCCC Ann McCullough (AMcC) - ANDBC Stephen Kennedy (SK) - LCCC Leona Maginn (LM) - ANDBC Michael McQuiston (MMcQ) - NMD Nuala McAlister (NMcA) - LCCC Maria Fitzpatrick (MF) - NMD Amanda Herron (AH) - LCCC Andrew Hay (AH) - NMD

No Item Action 1. INTRODUCTION

2FMcG introduced himself as the facilitator for the meeting and . outlined his role and general proceedings for the Workshop.

CH welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave an overview of the purpose of the workshop.

2. Council Growth Strategies

LJ discussed the Council’s growth strategy making reference to settlements, infrastructure, regional policy growth, development limits and sustainable travel. Comments: • CG - queried the timeframe of the Plan (2017-2032). LJ – advised that it is aligned to the Council’s Community Plan. • RN – asked should there be detail in this section where the growth is going LJ–advised this forms the basis of the next 6 chapters that follow on. • DO’K – questioned how does West Lisburn sit with sequential approach LJ –explained that this is set in the Housing Growth chapter. It is currently within the existing settlement limits.. Housing will support employment zoning already on that site. Only area for strategic housing growth outside existing settlement hierarchy identified in Plan

Item 9b

Strategy. Identified as strategic housing and employment. • CG – queried why housing was needed here if already meeting HGI LJ – Explained that having assessed the growth strategy this provides a measured approach to housing growth and ensuring that sufficient land supply over 15 years. • DO’K – queried whether it would be subject to phasing LJ –advised that we needed to look at how the site will be delivered over the lifetime of the plan. PMcF commented this may not be delivered in first 5 years of the plan. • DO’K – queried how the Knockmore Road will be delivered and if it will be through a Section 76 Agreement? LJ – The road is subject to a current planning application and due process. • AMcC raised concerns from ANDBC members regarding the impact of transport/road links within their council area at Millmount, Dundonald. AH also expressed concerns that infrastructure tended to be directed largely towards Belfast. PMcF– re Millmount the road is going to be provided as part of the Article 40 Agreement. Public transport has improved ie the Glider service and the Park and Ride. There are ongoing discussions with Translink to examine the possibility of another Park and Ride around Cairnshill / Carryduff (Local Policies Plan). • AMcC– stated that there are issues with different DfI Roads divisions who do not join up. This should be taken up with DfI. LJ – agreed that as a way forward we need to explore our joint relationship with DfI. • AH – stated that the upgrade of Saintfield to town status may have implications on roads. PMcF – suggested a joint meeting with DFI Roads would be beneficial. RN and DR also said a meeting with DFI Roads would be beneficial for all councils and also confirmed that the Local Transport Study for each Council was complete. ACTION: Meeting to be arranged between Councils and CH to raise DfI Roads with DfI

Item 9b

3. Housing Growth PMcF gave an overview of housing growth regarding housing, employment, modes of transport, good design in city centres to encourage people to live there and rural towns staying vibrant. He also said there would be minimal changes to PPS 21 or how it would be delivered. Comments: • HS – Commented that parking issues at Moira train station is a constant issue raised by ABC Members. PMcF – advised that discussion would be required with Translink as the operator. CH – advised ongoing discussions were taking place with Translink regarding providing Park and Share facilities at Moira. • DO’K – Queried approach regarding single housing in the countryside . PMcF – Policy going forward has not changed, (minor amendments). Expected that the number of new builds in the countryside may drop, however the 2nd tranche of farm dwellings post implementation of PPS21 may now be coming forward. We have worked with Members in defining countryside policies. No departure from PPS, no further opportunity for extra countryside dwellings. • HS – Queried the housing windfall figures. PMcF – explained that it depends on how windfall is considered, we have tried to predict windfall based on past trends to be as precise as possible. LJ – There is no guidance in NI but we are looking at the mainland and considering how this is factored. • AH queried if 50% of all housing will be focused on Lisburn City. PMcF advised this is the case and many units have still to be delivered or are ongoing. AH queried if this figure should be shared throughout the hierarchy. LJ advised that Lisburn City is at the top of our hierarchy and most of our sites are already committed. PMcF said there were no drastic changes to housing policy. The emphasis would be on sustainable development in urban and rural areas and all policies would be to help drive growth in the city council area.

4. Economic Growth As discussed economic growth in LCCC and how it would be brought forward. The Local Development Plan would encourage people to stay in town centres through providing leisure , recreation, offices, cafes, restaurants opening late also utilising shop space by developing apartments above shops.

Item 9b

Online shopping and its increase was discussed as well as the need to maintain primary retail frontages to encourage people into city centres. Comments: • HS – queried details of employment land AS– explained that zoned sites as set in the draft BMAP would be retained through transitional arrangements - over 30 sites currently being assessed through an Employment Land Review. From the BMAP zoned sites, approximately 240 ha remain undeveloped (includes 50% of the Blaris site and Purdysburn). • AMcC– queried the position with the old Rolls Royce factory AS– it is defined as employment land (previous planning application has now expired). Other application for mostly housing has been withdrawn. Currently awaiting assessment within the Employment Land Review. • KS– Queried whether the Maze was included within the Employment Land Review? LJ – advised that this sits out with the study however would be retained as a Strategic Land Reserve as per existing Plan. • HS – Queried whether there were any plans to improve roads at the Maze • AS advised of current planning application for Knockmore Link road which would enable a spur to the Maze.

5. Town Centres, Retailing & Offices

LJ gave an overview of the retailing hierarchy including Lisburn City Centre, the town centres of Hillsborough, Moira and Carryduff, the District Centre at Forestside and Local Centre at Dundonald. Comments: • HS – advised that they would need to know more detail around proposals for Sprucefield before commenting. • AMcC– ANDBC have similar issues re retailing in Bangor with Bloomfield impacting on town centre. LJ – Currently looking at BMAP designations and considering how to improve connectivity in Lisburn, and identify where improvements can be made, e.g. Carryduff where there is a lack of sense of place. It is hoped that the new shopping centre development will address this.

Item 9b

• DO’K– Asked how the vitality of Lisburn City Centre would be ensured. LJ advised we need to look at getting people back living in the City Centre. By creating more offices it is hoped that people will be encouraged to come back in. AS advised the Council has utilised the shopfront scheme and a public realm scheme. • AH – stated that Newry has similar issues and queried how we would address Living Over the Shops LJ – acknowledged the need to explore funding with the relevant Department (DFC) to get them to re- open a grant programme. It would be difficult to implement through retro-fitting (e.g. issues retaining access to top floor above shops which did not have a separate entrance). • KS – queried if LCCC is using existing boundaries with possible mixed use policies? LJ – Confirmed that this was the case through transitional arrangements for town centre boundaries within the hierarchy. • AH– Questioned what was LCCC’s approach to Primary Retail Core LJ– Explained that this was considered for Lisburn City Centre and there are no plans to change it at Plan Strategy Stage, however it may be considered at the Local Policies Plan Stage. PMcF– explained policy was trying to retain frontage to strengthen city centre • AMcC – advised they were looking at flexible working / hot desking to stop people having to travel. • AH – outlined that rural Broadband is an issue to enable people to work at home. • KS– queried if Sprucefield falls outside of the hierarchy LJ– advised the Council was taking advice if this sits within or outside hierarchy. PMcF commented that Sprucefield was recognised as a Regional Shopping Centre having evolved over time, SPPS is silent on Sprucefield and it may be a matter for the RDS to define. • AH queried with ABC Council the situation at The Outlet at Banbridge. HS responded that leisure has been included to encourage mixed use at the site, however Members want employment to be also considered. • KS queried if the Office Study identified office development at West Lisburn. LJ confirmed that additional high quality and density office space is required - study identified current limitations re what can be provided in the City Centre. DO’K queried how

Item 9b

this sits with the SPPS – LJ advised this was supported by the evidence base.

6. Tourism & Open Space AS gave an overview about Tourism within the Council area and the opportunities that existed for expanding the existing tourism base, such as Historic Royal Palaces at Hillsborough. The Council benefited from the Major asset of the Lagan Valley Regional Park and was looking at addressing Strategic Greenways. Comments: • HS – advised that ABC Greenways are not as advanced as LCCC but looking to protect land for Greenways. Representations were received to the POP re: using disused railway land. Heritage Tourism is being considered in Armagh. ABC will be retaining the policy direction with an exception to open space within NIHE estates that may attract anti-social behaviour. • CG – advised that Strategic greenways at Aghalee within the ABC Council area. LJ advised that the team had met with Sustrans regarding carrying out a feasibility study but would like to meet with ABC council to discuss further especially at the LPP stage. • DO’K – BCC has a new OS Strategy which would be published that week, looking at connectivity and would like to discuss with surrounding councils. • MMCQ advised that NM&D Council would welcome further discussion on greenways and connectivity. • AMcC– advised that ANDBC have a Green and Blue Strategy and are trying to link this to tourism. Current policy is restrictive but the Council wish to provide for further development at Strangford Lough. • CG – queried if LCCC had any specific policy in relation to Lough Neagh LJ– explained that there was only a small section of the Lough in the Council area with 2 landing sites on it. We intend to keep the AOHSV designation in order to protect it. • KS– queried if the Council would protect land for Strategic Greenways through policy LJ– advised that this would form part of the policy for protecting disused transport routes for the future but may need to look at this further at LPP stage.

Item 9b

7. Summary/Conclusion re LCCC Approach (Without Prejudice*) • LCCC Growth Strategy Group did not raise any major issues with approach outlined. • Housing Growth Group acknowledged that there had been no detailed discussion around affordable housing. This is a complex and detailed policy area with many issues between NIHE, DfC and the Housing Associations as to how this should be addressed. Affordable Housing Seminar on Wednesday 26/06/2019. It was agreed that no singular policy will fit every council, and evidence would be required tailored for each Council area. • Employment Growth Group did not raise any major issues with approach outlined and there was broad support for the Employment Land Review. • Retailing & Offices Group advised that more information on the approach to Sprucefield would be useful. Group acknowledged proposal for further office space provision within West Lisburn/Blaris • Tourism / Open Spaces Group did not raise any major issues re tourism or open space. Group welcomed the opportunity for working together on key initiatives, such as the Strategic Greenways and LVRP

8. CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting ended with no further questions. It was agreed the minutes would be shared with attendees. Further Workshop to be convened on Friday 28th June 2019.

*Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council would like to thank attendees for their active participation in the Workshop. It us acknowledged that all comments are made without prejudice. Councils and attendees reserve the right to comment on detailed aspects of the Plan as part of formal publication on the Plan Strategy. No comment should be taken to mean a formal response from the respective Council.

Item 9b

LCCC LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORKSHOP 28 JUNE 2019

ATTENDEES: Frank McGlone (FMcG) – Facilitator Damien Mulligan (DM) – ABC Conor Hughes (CH) - LCCC Catherine McKinney (CMcK) – DfI Lois Jackson (LJ) - LCCC Ann McCullough (AMcC) – ANDBC Adam Smyth (AS) - LCCC Sinead Boyle (SB) – ANDBC Peter McFadden (PMcF) - LCCC Mark Whittaker (MW) – BCC Joanne Doran (JD) - LCCC Anne Doherty (AD) – BCC Michael McGrath (MMcG) - LCCC Tony Rafferty (TR) – DfI Michael McQuiston (MMcQ) - NMD Danielle Rush (DR) – DfI Maria Fitzpatrick (MF) - NMD Stephen Casey (SC) - LCCC Andrew Hay (AH) - NMD Amanda Herron (AH) - LCCC Julie Brown (JB) – ABC

No Item Action 9. INTRODUCTION

2FMcG introduced himself as the facilitator for the meeting and . introduced LJ from LCCC Planning who welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave a brief overview of the purpose of the workshop.

10. Transport LJ discussed the area challenges, local transport Study, sustainable travel and greenways. Comments: • LJ – expecting a draft of the Local Transport Study at the end of August 2019. • TR - advised Hillsborough is being surveyed next week. Information of the study will be transferred into wider Transport Strategy. • LJ – issues to be ironed out regarding Dundonald, also 3 strategic sites not modelled. • AH – queried if trans-boundary transport issues had been considered? LJ – No, just within council boundaries. ANDBC have identified new strategic sites in their Plan Strategy that have never been modelled, ours have come from extant plan. • TR – further evidence base on Lisburn developed which should be available next week. BMA Transport Plan should be available by August / September 2019. • LJ – Gordon Clarke, SUSTRANS looking at greenway from Belfast to Lough Neagh. Advised it would be useful to

Item 9b

look at this jointly with ABC and BCC. We can only look at an indicative line at the minute but would need to join up to look at an overall route. BCC agreed but said detail needs to be considered at local policies stage, ensuring development is not permitted in the wrong place. • AH – asked who was responsible for protected routes? DR, advised all to follow guidance issued from DFI (re: restricting access onto Protected Routes). LJ – there are no updated maps of protected routes. DR– said she will take this back but it would be useful to meet with DFI Roads (Operational) and all councils as advice is inconsistent. • AH – Park & Ride is intended for Ballynahinch as part of the by-pass project, it should be ready but no funding is in place yet. • TR - even if all projects come on board, due to growth aspirations of all Councils, Belfast is only going to become even more congested. PMcF– this has been queried, growth aspirations, which is high in Belfast and the resultant impact on congestion. • AD – lots of proposals in Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan not initiated, people are still driving and there is a need to put measures in place. AMcC – people are still driving into Belfast on their commute because they can. • AH – queried what is happening with the Park and Ride Super Route. LJ advised this is being queried with DFI. • AD – West to East Belfast has been put in place, South Belfast route is the 2nd stage. PMcF advised the Super Route may go down Lisburn / Malone Road which is a different route from the original proposal. • LJ - evidence is needed to support these new routes. • AH – Although the Super Route is in Belfast, it does impact on NMD council area. There is another major trans-boundary issue - are there any plans to upgrade A1? • TR – Not aware of anything as part of Transport Study. DM, advised that ABC had discussions with DFI Roads and an upgrade is on the radar. • JB – queried current situation with Moira Train Station proposal for Park & Ride. This has been raised by ABC Members as their residents would use this. AS advised a PAN is in but no further discussion. LJ added there may be a land ownership issue. • AS – possible high speed railway link identified for the old Lisburn/Banbridge railway line but that this has been identified as part of the greenway network – this is a conflict that needs resolved.

Item 9b

• MW – queried that it was not in the LCCC Objectives about reducing need to travel. LJ responded that this is considered through housing/employment locations.

11. Other Infrastructure AS gave an overview on Infrastructure, including flooding, renewable energy, water and waste water, telecommunications and utilities.

• AH – will be adopting a similar approach to LCCC however there are concerns over waste water and whether it can take additional capacity. Saintfield WWTW failed as pipes could not take capacity, despite being given green light. • LJ – NI Water advised their system was not taking account of the Planning system. Moira is being used as an example looking at the housing monitor, to be aware of areas of pressure. Housing Monitor information is now available online for NI Water to see where houses are being built. DR responded that NI Water are now surveying Saintfield to see where it went wrong, looking at being more reactive and modelling rather than the traffic light system. • AH queried management of soft SUDS in housing schemes? LJ advised DfI working on Guidance. This needs to be a top down approach and it is not appropriate for councils to be responsible. DM – responsibility for maintenance should fall with developers. MW, – BCC now requiring SUDS as part of all new development unless there is a good reason as to why it is not possible.

12. Historic & Natural Environment PMcF gave an overview of both Policy areas and the main change having been the amount of wind turbines in rural locations, which have had an impact on the natural and historic environment. The potential impact goes beyond this policy area and can impact on tourism and open spare provisions. • AH – This is an area of focus for NMD. LCCC have a bit of NMD inherited. MMcG, said with the super councils, boundaries were moved so there’s a small sliver of land north of Castlewellan Road inherited by LCCC. Discussion took place as to whether some of the Mournes AONB was within LCCC. AH added that the majority of the Magheraknock AOHSV is in LCCC but we need to be consistent between the two councils. LJ responded that there is no change to existing policy.

Item 9b

• MW – BCC policies are consistent with LCCC, relying on current designations renewed at LPP stage, emphasising green and blue importance, recognising the functional as well as the aesthetic benefits of these areas.

13. Minerals

LJ gave an overview and said there would be an informal meeting coming up soon between LCCC and the Quarry Industry. Policies will be in the Plan Strategy but no designations until LPP due to lack of information on industry over the region. Need to consider regional picture not just LCCC. • MMcQ - NMD has already had informal discussion with the industry, operators are still reluctant to provide information and relations need to be built. Areas of constraint is an additional layer of protection on environmental designations and must be backed up with evidence - maybe buffer zones would be better. • AMcC – ANDBC have operators that are not represented by QPANI and there are ongoing issues with historical approvals. SB advised we need to consider regional picture for demand to meet other councils growth strategies.

14. Cemetery Provision

PMcF gave an overview, LCCC was unique in having both a crematorium (owned by another Council) and cemeteries in its area. • LJ advised a letter has been issued from LCCC Chief Executive to Chief Executives in neighbouring councils regarding a recent Environmental Health meeting to consider the future crematorium / cemetery need. • CH, – BCC is the only council with a licence to cremate and this may have to be looked at with co-operation between councils. • AH queried if this is a regional issue. Conor responded that this responsibility falls with local government. • AMcC – a lot of cemeteries need to expand and ANDBC are looking at ‘living paths’ through cemeteries for health and well-being.

15. Overall Conclusions

• AD– BCC is dependent on our neighbouring councils for sustainable travel, Park & Rides etc. LJ – this is why BMATP is important.

Item 9b

• AH – issues regarding electric cars and charge points, this is a big concern for the future. TR advised that the charge structure is one of the best in UK as we are joined up with the Republic of Ireland. • AD – there is a need to stop people commuting alone in cars to reduce congestion problems with free parking in and around Belfast city. BCC don’t have control over on- street parking. • TR – DfI are considering charges to encourage people to use public transport. Park & Ride can generate local parking problems when trying to alleviate traffic issues in Belfast and presents much wider complications that need considered.

16. CLOSE OF MEETING

• LJ thanked everyone for attending the workshop. • CH reiterated LJs thanks for attending. This is a useful forum to discuss issues and share professional experience.

The meeting ended with no further questions. It was agreed the minutes would be shared with attendees.

Unclassified

ITEM 10

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 12 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011; The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Update from Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group MASWG (Local Development Plan)

Attachments Item 10a - MASWG agenda and agreed minutes from March 2019 and June 2019. Item 10b - MASWG Agenda and draft Minutes September 2019 Item 10c - MASWG Written update from DFI Planning and TPMU Item 10d - Copy of presentation provided by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council in relation to its Draft Plan Strategy

1.0 Background

1.1 Members shall be aware that the Council participates in a joint working group entitled the Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group (MASWG) linked to the

Page 1 of 5

preparation of LDPs. The purpose of this group being formed was to facilitate engagement across the relevant councils within the Belfast Metropolitan area (Belfast City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Ards and North Down Borough Council). Aldermen Gibson and McDowell were nominated to serve on the working group.

1.2 The MASWG provides a liaison forum on spatial planning and includes cross boundary aspects of economic development, housing, transport and general infrastructure issues arising at regional and sub-regional level.

2.0 Update from meetings held March and June 2019

2.1 The MASWG met on 11 March and 12 June 2019 in Belfast City Council and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council respectively. This report sets some of the main issues that were discussed. Agenda and minutes from these meetings which have received agreement are attached at Item 10a.

2.2 The main issues discussed on 11 March 2019 are set out below.

• Belfast City Council (BCC) advised of recent meeting with DfI and PAC regarding process and next stage of plan development. Revision to timetable discussed and the publication of responses following engagement on the DPS. • Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council (LCCC) and Mid and East Antrim (MEA) intend to publish draft Plan Strategies in the autumn. • Antrim and Newtownabbey (AN) seeking clearance to move towards publication of draft Plan Strategy. • ANDBC advised that it will be publishing its POP imminently (now published).

• DFI Planning advised that the EFDF Act and legislation at the end of March and it is anticipated that there will be an extension for a further 5 months. • DFI had met with PAC and queried options and potential further information to be introduced in response to representations received and the need for amendments. It was confirmed that once DfI clarifies, it will meet with the councils. • DFI cited an example of the approach in Wales where additional information may be required without the need for another consultation, and if the steps are not necessary the process can keep moving forward.

• DFI Transport - Strategy Publication date is still to be confirmed. BMTS Modelling Report – due end of July 2019; Draft BMTS – end of September 2019. Acknowledgement that some timescales are not completely workable in terms of their relationship to the emerging plans and offered individual face to face meetings to clarify and minimise risks. SRO (Tom Reid) had agreed to contact LCCC and Belfast. DFI TPMU indicated the governance and the

Page 2 of 5

process of consulting and moving the proposed strategies to adoption was still to be confirmed.

Terms of Reference and Role of the Group

2.3 Concerns were raised about the nature of the Working Group and also about engagement. This was previously tabled at meeting in December 2018. Action point noted to table any amendments in June 2019.

MASWG 12 June 2019 hosted by LCCC

2.4 Updates from Councils in terms of timetable progress • LCCC are working toward publishing Draft Plan Strategy during the third calendar quarter. • BCC to submit plan to Department shortly. • ANDBC consultation on the Preferred Options Paper (POP) is ongoing and is due to finish on 9 August 2019. • MEABC - launch of the Draft Plan Strategy will take place in September 2019. • ANBC - Due to publish dPS on 28 June 2019.

2.5 Update from Consultees

• DFI Planning - A new Practice Note to be published setting out arrangement for submission of development plan documents to the Department. Councils will be able to assess and feedback to DfI; • DfI has considered the Welsh process and advised once feedback is received from Councils changes may be required. These may be in the form of text changes but may be more fundamental; • DFI advised Statistics Branch are in the process of a refresh of Housing Growth Indicator (HGI), on course for completion over the summer and the Department will write to Councils with the completed information.

• DFI Transport Planning Modelling Unit - Belfast Metropolitan Project Board met and was advised that the Belfast Metropolitan Plan Study is proceeding and the DfI modelling report is due beginning of August. DfI will write up study at the end of August. Modelling is related to aggregated growth plan of all Councils to 2030. The growth rate all Councils put forward as aspirations was used for report. Main message coming out would appear to be that whilst sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling can keep a network moving there will be a requirement for substantial demand management measures within city i.e. parking charges, cordon tolls. • DFI will be writing to the project board at the end of this week to keep the study going forward. • Draft Local Transport Studies for four Councils were provided and DfI invite meetings with each of the Councils with a view to finalising these taking into account Plan Strategies.

Page 3 of 5

• NIHE - Legal advice obtained on EU procurement and sent to Department for Communities last August, NIHE still awaiting a response. While it is currently illegal to have early engagement between the developer and housing association, 3 legal opinions are indicating it is legal; • A draft consultation guide has been produced and is ready to share; however, this would be subject to change depending on the response from Department for Communities.

• Invest NI - No update but keen to work with Councils on LDP matters.

Other matters

2.6 LCCC are in the process of consulting with neighbouring Councils' Planning Officers regardimg policies and includes two Councils to the south of LCCC - Armagh Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) and Newry Mourne & Down (NMD). The Consultation and Engagement will consider how LCCC can do things and engage in a more enhanced way.

3.0 MASWG hosted by Ards and North Down Borough Council September 2019

3.1 Copies of the MASWG minutes are usually presented to Committee once agreed but a draft copy is available for Members as prepared by this Council as host of the recent meeting (attached at Item 10b).

Main outcomes of the meeting

3.2 Action points were recorded regarding concern expressed by Council Officers about the quality and content of the Transport Studies prepared by DFI. These concerns will be raised through the Heads of Planning group and also at the Project Board.

3.3 Concerns were raised regarding the content and treatment of the DFI-prepared Plan Practice Note 10 which members shall be aware of (detail provided at September 2019 Planning Committee). Issues were discussed regarding the consistency of DFI agreeing to meet with some Councils and declining others. The working Group noted how statutory consultees present were not aware of the circulation of the Practice Note nor its existence.

3.4 BCC advised it has now lodged Draft Plan Strategy with DFI.

3.5 Consultees gave updates as follows:

• DFI Planning and Transport Modelling Unit Personnel gave apologies for non- attendance due to work diary commitments. The two sections of DFI provided a written update to the group - attached at Item 10c.

• NIHE – no specific update further to previous comments in June 2019.

Page 4 of 5

• Invest NI - happy to engage with Councils on any relevant matters as required. Raised matter of INI mezzanine funding scheme (now closed).

Presentation of Antrim Newtownabbey Draft Plan Strategy

4.0 The Principal Planner from Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council gave an overview presentation on the content of its recently published Draft Plan Strategy. This is attached at Item 10d.

5.0 Next meeting

5.1 A further meeting is to be arranged in early December 2019, to be hosted by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council.

5.2 Usefulness of this Group to be discussed at Heads of Planning Group.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the content of this report in terms of update from the MASWG.

Page 5 of 5

Item 10a

Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group Meeting

Monday 11th March 2019 10am to 12.30pm

Belfast City Council 9 Adelaide, Adelaide Street, BT2 8DJ

AGENDA

1. Apologies

2. Previous Minutes

3. Update from Councils

4. Update from Consultees

5. Role of Group

6. Transport Plans

7. Timetables

8. AOB METROPOLITAN AREA SPATIAL WORKING GROUP MEETING (MASWG)

Monday 11th March 2019 10am – 12:30pm Venue: 9 Adelaide, Belfast City Council

Minutes

Attending: Cllr Matt Garrett Chair (BCC), Keith Sutherland (BCC), Dermot O’Kane (BCC) Una Lappin Minutes (BCC), Leona Maginn (Ards & NDBC), Sharon Mossman (ANBC), Lois Jackson (LCCC), Conor Hughes (LCCC), Donal Rogan (LCCC), Michael Francey (MEABC), Mark Latimer (DfE), Paul Tinney (DfE), Catherine Blease (NIHE), Stephen Semple (NIHE), Suzanne Bagnall (DfI), Alistair Beggs (DfI), Susan Wilkin (DfI), Stephen Wood (SWT) (DfI-Roads) and Robin Totten (Translink). Apologies: Cllr Cushinan (ANBC), Alderman Leathem (LCCC), Graham Cardwell (Invest NI), Alan McDowell (Ards & NDBC), Alderman Gibson (Ards & NDBC) and Ann McCullough (Ards & NDBC). No. Minutes Action 1 The Chair, Cllr Matt Garett welcomed everyone and noted the apologies. 2 Minutes of the previous meeting on 3rd of December 2018 were noted and agreed.

Action Points from Previous Meeting 1. DfI draft BMTS – exact date for publication of the draft BMTS to be determined SWT discussed the Strategy Publication date is still to be confirmed. He highlighted a number of key elements of the strategy approach and suggested potential dates for different elements with dates; Individual Town Plans – April 2019, BMTS Modelling Report – end of July 2019; Draft BMTS – end of September 2019. He acknowledged some timescales are not completely workable in terms of their relationship to the emerging plans and offered individual face to face meetings to clarify and minimise risks. He indicated that Tom Reid had agreed to contact LCCC and Belfast. KS enquired regarding the governance and the process of consulting and moving the proposed strategies to adoption, In response SWT indicated that there was still to be confirmed and SWT then left the meeting. 2. MASWG ToR – Governance arrangements to be reviewed. Any recommended amendment/update to be tabled for discussion at the next MASWG meeting in March 2019 An item on the Agenda to be discussed later. 3. NIHE (a) DfC response to NIHE position on Affordable Housing, once received, to be provided to the group (b) Outworking’s of the Householder Statistics research paper to be distributed to the group once published CB outlined that the statistics had not changed significantly. The Practice Note was discussed and the group was informed that a draft had been sent to DfC. CB discussed whether it would be useful for the Council to contact DfC for clarity on behalf of the group. 4. DfI – Each Council to provide DfI with a copy of their LDP ‘working timetable’ An item on the Agenda to be discussed later.

3 Updates Ufrom Councils BCC p d KS outlineda the approach to publication of the comments on the draft Plan Strategy with a standardt form, which is ongoing with the website publication and Citizenspace. He updated that BCC is summarisinge the responses and preparing the necessary papers to submit to DfI and PAC as the nexts stage in the LDP process. He noted the summaries are all now complete but the more complexo initial responses to Housing and other submissions are ongoing. He confirmed the numbern of submissions being 109 with DfI and others comprising of different elements and the breakdownL of the type of reference with 50% online. SM queried the time and resource implicationsD and questioned whether it was a major piece of work to respond to comments and the PAC Pinfluence on the format of the information to be provided. DO’K confirmed, the PAC 1

approvalp emphasised their guidance and requirements in regulations. It was confirmed that there wouldr be 5 months of PAC consideration before the process will move forward. MF queried theo number of site specific submissions and was informed there were 3. LCCC g r LJ confirmede LCCC are having a final planning policy workshop with elected members, are meeting swith key consultees and have had pre-engagement with neighbouring councils. It was noted theys have drafted a Consultation and Engagement Strategy (CES) in light of a Sustainable Assessmentf and it is hoped the Draft Plan Strategy would be published at the end of September. It was furtherr discussed that the CES has been based in engagement with various stakeholders and theyo would like to engage with DfI as they see a role for joint engagement with key consultees.m A workshop has been arranged to discuss the approach and plan process as a part of the LDPC . ANDBC o LM statedu their position is still the same. Their Preferred Options Paper sits within the latter half of then time table and they will be publishing soon and bringing forward a new timetable working cwith PAC and DfI. i Ards & NDBCl SM confirmeds they are working with members to get agreement then assessments. The date has not been confirmed yet for Draft Plan Strategy launch but if necessary and, there will need to be a new timetable. MEABC MF highlighted the impact of the elections. He mentioned they will be engaging with consultees at the end of the month and propose third quarter of 2019.

4 Updates Ufrom Consultees NIHE p d It was highlighteda that one team in NIHE looking at all of the plans across NI. They are currently working ton the response to Mid-Ulster. Their priority is to look at the Practice Note once they get the information from DfC. e DfI s

SW updatedo a number of issues: n (1) - The EFDF Act and legislation at the end of March and it is anticipated that there will be an P extensionr for a further 5 (2) - There waso a meeting with the PAC to discuss the programme and process prior to the IE and were awaitingg a response to a letter that was seeking some clarification. It was noted that once DfI receiver any information/documents they will be circulated for clarification (3) - PAC havee offered to hold information sessions for individual councils on general processes. DfI internals ly are mapping the whole process to ensure all parties have the same understanding of the approachs to consideration of the Plan documents. SM then fclarified that the letter to PAC queried the options and potential further information to be introducedr in response to representations received and the need for amendments. It was confirmedo that once DfI clarify, they will meet with the councils. DO’K addedm that the PAC on their role and their focus on the existing guidance for the process. In relationC to the DfI role SW added there ongoing consideration of how it might work and once there is clarity,o it will be shared. n SB then spokes of the general procedure – submission and IE stage, time for hearing/write up and exploringu flexibility. The example of the approach in Wales where additional information may be requiredl without the need for another consultation, and if the steps are not necessary the processt can keep moving forward. SM posede a question regarding the potential for streamlining the process of involving PAC at the start eof the submission as PAC report back to DfI and Councils. s 2

DfE – Invest NI ML outlined the DfE continue to engage and had no specific updates at this stage. Translink RT spoke of the Regional Transport Strategy being Translink’s main focus at the moment. He added the Park and Ride, Rail Link and Goldline and connectivity to major towns and Belfast. He highlighted their aim, this side of the summer, is BMTS however the impact of Brexit and pressure on resource was a challenge. 5 Role of Group There was a detailed discussion of the Terms of Reference of the Group, covering a number of points:  KS summarised the process leading up to, the plan going out and the limited scope for change and thematic areas presently within a set process. He added what will be driving the change going forward will be the need to focus the LDP site specific issues and overlapping designations.  DfI queried the role of the group in terms of securing co-operation and agreed areas;  CH spoke of the number of groups being set up and being invited to, including Belfast, in LCCC but the boundaries go further. He highlighted the importance regarding site specific stage and

going forward.  DO’K said that the TOR was now in place for over two years and we had received any request to amend them despite them being on the agenda at the previous meeting. He suggested that the TOR were aligned to the statutory requirements but would be happy to discuss any areas

where the group feel that they could be improved. He reminded the group that it does not have decision making authority and any changes of significance would need committee approval by each respective authority.  LJ suggested it had become more of a liaison forum with a less formal approach to joint work through issues rather than informing agreements DR spoke of it being a framework for collaboration and Belfast being best placed to comment on its success KS added there is a duty/aim to engage to identify common issues with transparency which was the basis for setting up the group. Furthermore there is no decision making role within the group but solely for engagement purposes, which may be possible later for site specific issues crossing many boundaries.  It was noted that all Councils are at different stages and some have more strategic issues from Community Plans to adopt which needs to be reflected and form an important basis for future DfI consideration.  SW referred to soundness and levels of engagement and the requirements to consult on a practical level and what can be demonstrated on a practical level when at an IE in front of the PAC.  LM suggested another form of engagement not just an update forum

 DO’K spoke of the duty to cooperate in England and Wales where authorities are often tasked with producing statements of common ground. Very often these document administratively highlight areas were there is no dispute but very often they also highlight large areas of disagreement but are helpful procedurally to identify areas for debate at respective examinations. He advised that this goes over and beyond the requirement in Northern Ireland. He added that individually all teams engage informally at officers level in different councils. The Chair highlighted that the Committee supported engagement with other Councils. He outlined the group has the ability of show that it is working in collaboration with each other and if it sees gaps there is scope to and make recommendations. SW suggested the DfI could host a session to move this forward. CH suggested it could be dealt with at the SPG as all Councils are all at different stages and it is hard to get agreement. He added the aim and objectives are key. (The next SPG meeting is 21st March.) The capacity of PAC was discussed and the challenge of what was becoming an ever evolving process for the development of new LDPs 6 Transport Plans SWT provided an update of the BMTS at the beginning of the meeting.

KS highlighted the challenges of the continual slippage of the time frames and his concern on the governance side as the BMTS Board have not met in January 2019, as planned. It was noted that Fermanagh had intended to include the Transport Strategy as part of their LDP but this had not been possible.

DR stated he is keen and anxious to see an Engagement Strategy coming forward with the Transport Strategy and to have this tabled as soon as possible with realistic timetables. The group discussed the Guidance DfI paper for Transport within the LDP and whether it was draft or not with the option of providing feedback. LJ queried whether comments can be added and if this is a final document. KS also queried the guidance and the feedback process for engagement before publication. SB confirmed it was the DfI’s understanding that it is the final version with a purpose to assist/advise council. 7 Timetables All KS spoke of the timetable being increasingly beyond Council control. He highlighted the cost implications to all council’s in relation to the formal changes of timetables. 8 AOB A Nothing Oadded B Action Points Based on discussions- - Timetable for different Transport Strategy element, the governance arrangements and proposals for consultations to be confirmed by DfI. - Update from DfI in relation to the request to PAC for clarification on IE process. - Councils to confirm Timetables to DfI - Joint working group to be raised at SPG. The Chair closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance. The next meeting will be in LCCC at the end of June – date to be arranged.

METROPOLITAN AREA SPATIAL WORKING GROUP

A G E N D A

10AM – Wednesday 12th June 2019

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council, Lagan Valley Island, Cherry Room

No. Agenda Item

1.0 Introductions / Apologies

2.0 Minutes of previous meeting held on 11th March 2019 Action points arising: 1. Timetable for different Transport Strategy element, the governance arrangements and proposals for consultations to be confirmed by DfI. 2. Update from DfI in relation to the request to PAC for clarification on IE process. 3. Councils to confirm Timetables to DfI. 4. Joint working group to be raised at SPG.

3.0 Updates from councils • LCCC • BCC • ANBC • Ards & NDBC • MEABC

4.0 Updates from consultees • DFI Strategic Planning • DFI Transport Planning & Modelling Unit • NIHE • DfE • Translink

DfI Strategic Planning 5.0 • Update in relation to the request to PAC for clarification on IE process

DfI Transport Planning & Modelling Unit 6.0 • Timetable for Local Transport Study and relationship with BMTS, governance arrangements and proposals for consultations to be confirmed by DfI. • Other transport issues of importance.

7.0 LCCC Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils

8.0 Action Points

9.0 AOB / Next meeting

METROPOLITAN AREA SPATIAL WORKING GROUP MEETING (MASWG) Wednesday 12 June 2019 10.00am – 12.30pm Venue: Cherry Room, Lagan Valley Island, Lisburn

Minutes

Attending: Cllr Jonathan Craig (Chair) (LCCC), Conor Hughes (LCCC), Lois Jackson (LCCC), Cllr Bobby Hadden (MEABC), Cllr Robert Logan (MEABC), Paul Duffy (MEABC), Suzanne Bagnall (DfI), Susan Wilkin (DfI), Stephen Wood (DfI Roads), Catherine Blease (NIHE), Stephen Semple (NIHE), Simon Thompson (ANBC), Leona Maginn (ANDBC), Dermot O’Kane (BCC), Keith Sutherland (BCC), Cllr Arder Carson (BCC), Graham Cardwell (In- vest NI), Adam Smyth (LCCC), Peter McFadden (LCCC), Cllr Uel Mackin (LCCC), Caro- line Beattie (Minutes) (LCCC)

Apologies: Susanna Allen (SES MEABC), Deirdre Watson (Translink), Ald Phillip Brett (ANBC), Cllr Allan Ewart (LCCC), Ald John Smyth (ANBC), Robin Totten (Translink)

No Minutes Action 1 The Chair, Cllr Jonathan Craig welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted the apologies. 2 Minutes of the previous meeting on 11 March 2019. Following 2 amendments requested:- • LM requested to note under updates from Councils that the information from Ards & NDBC is in fact the update from Antrim and Newtownabbey. • Noted that Invest NI are not DfE. Minutes noted and agreed.

Agreed the 4 action points from the previous meeting would be covered under the relevant main agenda item. 3 Updates from Councils

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council (LCCC)

LJ advised LCCC are working toward publishing Draft Plan Strategy during the third calendar quarter. Rounds of stakeholder and member engagement have been ongoing. Noted that it is a busy 4-5 months ahead in the lead up to publishing the Draft Plan Strategy. Continuing to refine policies.

Belfast City Council (BCC)

DO’K advised the Draft Plan Strategy was published in August last year and 109 representations were received. The submissions were published beginning of this year. 63 counter representations were received and BCC are due to publish these. Summary of representations and response to them has been prepared. BCC to submit plan to Department shortly. A report went to Committee last night for approval to look at housing and to work with Ulster University and Turley with a view to bring figures up to date.

Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council (ANBC)

ST advised they are working on finalising the Draft Plan Strategy and that it will publish on 28 June 2019. A launch event will also be held on this date. The 8 week consultation period will follow this.

Ards and North Down Borough Council (ANDBC)

LM advised consultation on the Preferred Options Paper (POP) is ongoing and is due to finish on 9 August 2019.

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (MEABC)

PD advised they are finalising their Draft Plan Strategy. Draft SMT to be completed by the end of this month and will go to Members in July. It is anticipated the launch of the Draft Plan Strategy will take place in September 2019. PD further advised they will be working on the Sustainability Ap- praisal over the next few weeks and will be engaging with Members. Fol- lowing on from that the Countryside Strategy and review of PPS’.

4 Updates from Consultees

DfI Strategic Planning (including agenda item 5)

AP2 SW advised the letter from DfI to PAC for clarification on the IE process was shared with Councils early May 2019. Views are due back from PAC this Friday 14 June 2019 and these will be shared with Councils. It will cover requirements of Council prior to IE. The Department’sPractice notes set out the process for plan preparation to give greater explantion to the provision of the Act and Regulations. The new Practice note will set out arrangement for submission of development plan documents to the Department. Coun- cils will be able to assess and feedback to DfI.

KS queried under which part of legislation and SW confirmed as per the RPI event. DfI have considered the Welsh process and advised once feedback is received from Councils changes may be required. These may be in the form of text changes but may be more fundamental. KS further queried what is required in terms of additional consultation. SW advised it would depend on Council views as to how to make Plan sound following consideration of representation received and taking into account best practice and if Council feels it necessary to consult. . DO’K commented on the tight timescale in terms of BCC intention to submit plan within next number of weeks. SW confirmed that it is the the Council to consider the steps it needs to take before submitting the document to the Department.

SW confirmed DfI are keen to ensure the process keeps moving and advised that DfI continue to sustain a good working relationship with PAC.

Agreed to discuss further at the Working Group.

AP4 CH advised he raised Joint Working Group at SPG in March however not developed any further by DfI. There is SPG on 21 June so it may come up again and will remain a point. SW advised that the issue was discussed at SPG at the request of the Councils following the previous meeting of this grouop and the Department was keen to hear views of Councils as to how this issue could be developed as this is an issue that will be considered at IE. .

SW advised statistics branch are in the process of a refresh of Housing Growth Indicator (HGI), on course for completion over the summer and the Department will write to Councils with the completed information. CH advised the question of HGI was raised yesterday at the Belfast Metropolitan Project Board meeting, in the event there are to be revisions what is the timescale as all Councils are at key stages and this is a critical piece of work, a more specific update regard receipt of information is required. SW advised statistics branch had indicated summer however DfI will request a more specific date.

DfI Transport Planning & Modelling Unit (including agenda item 6)

S Woods advised the Belfast Metropolitan Project Board (BMPB) meeting was held yesterday and all Councils were represented. The Belfast Metro- politan Plan Study is proceeding to timetable and the DfI modelling report is due the first week in August. DfI will write up study at the end of August. Modelling is related to aggregated growth plan of all Councils to 2030. The growth rate all Councils put forward as aspirations was used for report. Main message coming out would appear to be that whilst sustainable modes of transport such as walking and cycling can keep a network moving there will be a requirement for substantial demand management measures within city ie parking charges, cordon tolls.

Pace of work is moving quickly and DfI will be writing to the project board at the end of this week to keep the study going forward.

Draft Local Transport Studies for 4 Councils were provided on 10 May and DfI invite meetings with each of the Councils with a view to finalising these taking into account Plan Strategies.

DO’K questioned a requirement for tolling cordons around Belfast City Cen- tre. SWoods advised that the demand for car travel is so strong a lot of people will still drive, likelihood to come off motorway to avoid tolls therefore congesting other roads therefore a range of different management options are being considered. Programme board meeting due to take place 4 July for sign off.

SWoods confirmed a Transport Strategy cannot go ahead as there is no Minister in place therefore the option is for a Transport Study. Clarified the Study does not require the statutory assessments that go with a Strategy.

There will be engagement with Councils over the next few weeks.

Chair requested timeline for publishing study. SWoods advised a Consult- ants report would be available first week of August and DfI will use the information to write a report. LM asked if it would be in the public domain and if it would be agreed to host on the DfI website. CH advised a commitment was given at BMPB yesterday to clarify this point and this would feed back to the next meeting. Further discussion regard when transport plans would be available and CH advised this is an action from the BMPB yesterday.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

CB advised there is currently a gap between policy and implementation. Legal advice was obtained on EU procurement and sent to Department for Communities last October, NIHE are still awaiting a response. A draft consultation guide has been produced and is ready to share however this would be subject to change depending on the response from Department for Communities.

SS clarified the information was in fact sent to DfC in August 2018 and while it is currently illegal to have early engagement between the developer and housing association, 3 legal opinions are indicating it is legal.

Updates will be shared with Councils.

Invest NI

GC confirmed Invest NI do not have any current updates and are happy to engage with Councils on any relevant matters as required.

7 LCCC Consultation and Engagement Strategy with Neighbouring Councils

LJ advised LCCC are in the process of consulting with neighbouring Coun- cils regard policies and includes 2 Councils to the South, ABC and NM&D. The Consultation and Engagement will consider how LCCC can do things and engage in a more enhanced way. The plan process in the Council area is very complex and technical for example Lagan Valley Regional Park and Greenways. Consideration will be given to how Councils can share work- load, work together on procurement, discuss and explore these and other issues. This is a new process and LCCC hope the workshops will have a positive outcome. The 2 workshops are being held on 21 and 28 June 2019 and LCCC look forward to seeing all the Councils who attend the MASWG there along with invitees from 2 other Councils and the Department.

8 Action Points

1 HGI from Statistics – DfI Strategic Planning

2 Sharing of draft guidance for IE from PAC – DfI Strategic Planning

3 Advice document – NIHE

4 Further discussion at next DPWG on permitted focus changes prior to submission to DfI

5 Follow up on transport through Action Point at BMPB

6 Meetings to be arranged between Councils and DfI to finalise Draft Local Transport Studies

9 AOB / Next Meeting

AOB – nothing raised within group.

LM advised Ards and North Down Borough Council (ANDBC) are happy to host the next meeting which will take place early September 2019. Date to be confirmed.

Chair thanked group for attending and for participation.

Item 10b

Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group Londonderry Park Pavilion, Newtownards

Monday 9 September 2019

9.30-11.30 am

Agenda:

1. Apologies 2. Previous Minutes 3. Update from Councils 4. Antrim Newtownabbey Borough Council draft Plan Strategy - overview 5. Update from Consultees 6. Transport ‘Studies’ 7. Timetables 8. AOB METROPOLITAN AREA SPATIAL WORKING GROUP MEETING (MASWG) Monday 9 September 2019 9.30am – 12.30pm Venue: Londonderry Park Pavilion, Portaferry Road, Newtownards

Drat Minutes - to be agreed

Attending: Ald. Alan McDowell (ANDBC Ann McCullough (ANDBC) Leona Maginn (ANDBC), Sinead Boyle (ANDBC) Heather Graham (ANDBC) Conor Hughes (LCCC), Cllr Uel Mackin (LCCC), Cllr Robert Logan (MEABC), Michael Francey (MEABC), Sharon Mossman (ANBC), Dermot O’Kane (BCC), Keith Sutherland (BCC) Catherine Blease (NIHE), David Brown (NIHE), Graham Cardwell (Invest NI), Apologies: Suzanne Bagnall (DfI), Susan Wilkin (DfI), Stephen Wood (DfI Roads), Ald Phillip Brett (ANBC), Cllr Lynch (ANBC) Cllr Carson (BCC) Cllr Brooks (BCC) Cllr Bobby Hadden (MEABC) No Minutes Action 1 Welcome note made to all attendees. Introductions made and apologies recorded. 2 Minutes of the previous meeting taken by LCCC on 12 June 2019 amended by Suzanne Bagnall - Department for Infrastructure. Minutes were not circulated back to Lisburn Castlereagh City Council but to the Working Group as an e-mail on Wednesday 4 September along with apologies from the Department (for Infrastructure – Planning) in relation to lack of availability of any personnel to attend due to other work and diary commitments. (Copy of amends made by Suzanne Bagnall DFI to be noted by LCCC as recorded minutes taken by and issued through that Council)

Action Points from previous meeting AP1- Councils noted the HGI update from DFI Planning. DFI Planning expectation that HGI would be released before Strategic Planning Group (SPG) on 19 September 2019.

AP2 & 4 Draft Plan Practice Note KS noted that BCC provided feedback and requested attendance by DFI to September Committee. DFI declined to attend.

MF (M&EA) noted similar fashion of response to that of BCC.

SM (ANBC) requested extension to timeframe for response. DFI has agreed to attend a meeting with all Elected Members at ANBC.

Group noted difference of approach with various Councils. Some Councils had received note that extension for comment was acceptable to DFI and that others had had meetings declined.

Consultees confirmed that no circulation of the Draft Plan Practice Note has taken place to those present. Action Point requested to be noted by officers from Councils comprising the AP1 MASWG that the issues of concern that all councils have, are raised again through Heads of Planning and subsequent Strategic Planning Group

AP 5 & 6 Update provided in Stephen Wood e-mail of 5 September (circulated in hard copy for attendees of working group) Comment raised by Cllr Logan (M&EA) regarding lack of co-ordination of public transportation citing difficulties with a particular bus and rail connection.

Concern raised by Council officers regarding the quality of the studies and the evidence as presented. Call for further Action Point that the matter of AP2 content and quality assurance is raised again through the Project Board, HOP and SPG.

3 Updates from Councils

Belfast City Council (BCC)

KS advised that documentation had been submitted to DFI Planning and an acknowledgement received. Referred to a range of documents for submission and challenge in itself to transfer. DFI not able to handle a digital submission or electronic transfer. Paper copy provided of all – 16 volumes Updates to committee regarding DPPN 10 and Affordable Housing.

Review of Timetable to take place. (pending any account required from content of final DPPN)

DO’K advised the 16 volumes contained: Draft Plan Strategy, Supporting EQIA, SA SEA, HRA, a series of Technical supplements and mapping (some from previous BMAP ) Other information - Housing Market Analysis, Housing Need, Residential density study, Urban Capacity Study

Series of appendices. Summary Spreadsheet Housing Monitor Baseline studies Rural needs

D O’K made reference to a ‘plethora of documents and supporting text’. Representations database. Original reps and redacted. Work on baseline data and elucidating on extant approvals.

BCC estimate the submission amounts to almost 13,000 pages.

Timescale for turnaround by DFI - BCC indicated that DFI gave estimate of 2 months to let Council know if the information provided was satisfactory.

BCC taking forward work on a joint basis with DFC regarding Affordable and Social Housing and viability.

SPG documents being prepared. E.g. – SPG on Retail Assessments for Belfast, Urban Design and Tall Buildings.

Re-examination of baseline for Employment and Housing.

KS and D O’K updated group in relation to a study visit to Wrexham to observe IE. (noted other Councils and DFI Planning also in attendance). Council officers were afforded a separate session with the Independent Examiners. (2 Examiners have been appointed for Wrexham IE) Opening sessions consisted of Strategy. Delegated authority existed for Director to report back to Inspectors. Reflected on implications for Councils e.g. Schemes of Delegation. Welsh officers had delegated authority on minor matters. Referred to mature system of IE in Wales.

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council (LCCC) CH – LCCC due to publish dPS 11 October 2019 4 week intro/soft launch and LCCC will accept representations during this time, followed by the 8 week consultation and counter representation timeframes.

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council (MEABC) MF advised launch of the Draft Plan Strategy will take place 17 September. Soft launch 4 week timeframe. Not accepting representations during this time. Formal consultation 16 October – 11 December

Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council (ANBC) SM – dPS launched with soft intro 4 weeks. Followed by 8 week reps and 8 week counter rep timeframes.

SM also reflected on attendance at Wrexham IE: Inspectors at start of IE clarified it was not for purpose of making plan better but addressing soundness. What evidence existed that made it unsound, what evidence presented that could result in it being sound. Papers produced ahead of IE and circulated. Statements of Common Ground.

D O’K (BCC) referred the group to other IE due to take place in Durham, Oxford and Northumberland.

Ards and North Down Borough Council (ANDBC) LM advised consultation on the Preferred Options Paper (POP) had closed in August. Responses required analysis and would be presented to Committee at a later date. Programme of engagement with Elected Members in relation to the topic areas for extant operational planning policy to be replaced in the new ANDBC dPS due to commence September 2019 and run through to May 2020. Timetable to be reviewed.

4 Antrim Newtownabbey Borough Council – draft Plan Strategy SM provided presentation of dPS.

Overview of document arrangement (across 3 pillars of sustainability). Use of a Strategic Policy approach and then operational planning policy sitting below. Strategic Employment Locations identified. Some new – on smaller sites. 21 Evidence papers updated Illustrative maps are used in the dPS to show general areas of Strategic Employment Locations, Strategic landscape areas etc. Housing allocations shown. Legacy commitments result in figures in excess of HGI. No detailed boundaries or limits shown – all to be presented at later stage in LPP.

Ald. McDowell (ANDBC) queried the nature of reserving the lines on map to later stage and lack of awareness. Officers addressed 2 stage nature of new LDP process and that is how the new system is legislated for.

5 Updates from Consultees

DfI Strategic Planning – Not in attendance. Update issued to group via e- mail on Wednesday 4 September. DfI Transport Planning & Modelling Unit – Not in attendance. Update issued to group via e-mail on Friday 6 September. (Hard copies circulated to attendees)

Northern Ireland Housing Executive No substantive update. Affordable Housing new definitions – query on delivery body. (information on new products) Guidance not shared to date on engagement – need agreement from DFC

NIHE expressed opinion that engagement with M&EA Council ahead of dPS production had worked well.

Invest NI

GC reiterated that Invest NI happy to engage with Councils on any relevant matters as required. Raised matter of INI mezzanine funding scheme. (now closed) 14 applications across councils received. Refresh/refurbishment – not for new spaces.

6 Transport ‘Studies’ Councils discussed that no Transport Study had received sign off to publication point. AP2 Councils had received drafts of which there were numerous omissions and mistakes. Noted earlier as an Action Point for Councils in relation to the ongoing concern regarding content. (previously discussed at the review of previous AP for DFI Transportation and Modelling) To be further addressed through BMTP board. Noted by group that the BMTP project board meeting is to take place 12 Sep. Noted SRO for this work area in DFI was due to change 9 September.

7 Timetables Comment noted from DFI e-mail circular regarding need to update timetables.

General comment from Councils with regard to time and expense to update timetables. Councils in particular may have to adjust on foot of further guidance issuing from DFI.

Action Point – Ann McCullough to raise at HOS meeting re impact on AP3 timetables

8 AOB / Next Meeting

AOB – KS (BCC) CH (LCCC) commented on recent meeting with NIE. Aware all councils approached for similar engagement meeting. Indicated best dealt with in regional capacity with all of HOP/SPG level.

ICNN Airports Review also raised by KS (BCC).

MF (M&EA) noted issue with polygon share from DFI. Action for SDWG. AP 4

Next meeting MF – M&EA to host in early December 2019. Date to be confirmed.

Close of meeting – Thanks expressed to group for attending and for participation. 9 Action Points

AP 1 Concerns voiced by Council officers to be raised regarding the Draft PPN 10 at HOP and SPG AP2 Concern re Quality and content of transport studies to be raised at BMTP and through SPG. AP 3 Timetables AP4 Query re polygons for SDWG

Item 10c

FOR METROPOLITIAN AREA SPATIAL WORKING GROUP 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

Minutes have been amended - apologies these are late.

Actions for DfI are as follows:

AP1 – HGI refresh information will be provided before the SPG takes place on the 19th September. A presentation will be given by DfI Stats Branch at the SPG.

AP2 – Draft DPPN10 has issued. We have received comments back from a number of Councils, however are aware that some Councils will not be in a position to respond formally until the end of September. DfI will await this as a new deadline for receiving comments.

AGENDA ITEMS

UPDATE FROM DfI PLANNING

DfI continue to engage with PAC and have shared and discussed the draft DPPN with them. PAC are content with the approach, however are aware that the Department are awaiting comments from Councils until the end September.

Councils are encouraged to keep timetables up to date.

An invitation will shortly be issued to Councils to attend an afternoon event in the Crumlin Road Gaol where speakers will provide an insight into the established practice of Independent Examinations in Wales. The event will take place on the 30th September. DfI Transport Plan Update Metropolitan Area Spatial Working Group

1. Action Point 6 from Meeting of 12th June

DfI TPMU held separate meetings in July with Antrim & Newtownabbey, Mid & East Antrim, Ards & North Down and Lisburn & Castleraegh City to discuss their respective Draft Local Transport Study documents.

Senior representatives of DfI and Belfast City Council met in August to discuss the transport implications of the BCC Draft Plan Strategy.

2. Agenda Item 6 Transport ‘Studies’

Project Board Meeting

DfI held a Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan Project Board meeting on 13th August. The Project Board was attended by representatives of all of the Metropolitan Area Councils.

The principal item was the discussion of the results of the Belfast Metropolitan Transport Study Modelling Report. The Draft Report prepared by Atkins was circulated to members of the Project Board following the meeting.

DfI gave a commitment to complete the Draft BMTS Report by end of August and circulate to Councils in the first week of September, in advance of the next Project Board Meeting.

The next Project Board has been arranged for 12th September 2019.

Belfast Metropolitan Transport Study (BMTS) Report

DfI are continuing to work on this report. A Draft Report will be provided to the Project Board for discussion at 12th September and for subsequent comments. This Draft version will be provided in advance of Departmental clearance and therefore will be subject to change; however the Evidence Base will not change.

Prepared by TPMU 6th September 2019 Page 1

Item 10d

Antrim and Newtownabbey Local Development Plan | 2030

Metropolitan Spatial Working Group Structure of the Plan Strategy

• Overarching Plan Vision • Strategic Objectives • Strategic Policies including strategic designations • Detailed Policies – replaces Departmental Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) • Monitoring How we got there

• Regional Development Strategy 2035 & other Government Strategies/guidance • Strategic Planning Policy Statement • Corporate Plan & Community Plan • Legacy Plans • Neighbouring Councils • Evidence Base 21 Papers & 4 Assessments

Draft Plan Strategy

• Pre-consultation period 28 June – 25 July • Consultation period 26 July – 20 September (5pm) • 21 Evidence Papers • 4 Assessments • POP Consultation Report

SP 1 Sustainable Development Strategic Policy 1 – Sustainable Development • Overarching policy • Sustainable Development • Development Impact Assessments • Spatial Growth Strategy • Places of our Borough

Spatial Growth Strategy A PLACE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY SP 2 Employment SP 2 Employment

• 9000 new jobs • Strategic Employment Locations (existing and proposed) • Local Employment Sites • Agricultural • Town Centres and Retailing • Sustainable Tourism • Home Working MAPS

SP 3 Transportation and Infrastructure SP 3 Transportation and Infrastructure

• Transportation Schemes • Integration of Transport and Land Use • Active Travel (Walking and Cycling) • Transport Assessments and Travel Plans • Access and Parking • Car Parks • Belfast International Airport – Operation • Telecommunications and Digital Services • Public Utilities and Infrastructure SP 3 Transportation and Infrastructure

Preferred Transportation Schemes A VIBRANT & LIVEABLE PLACE SP 4 Homes

To provide for a sustainable level of housing growth and an adequate choice of housing the Council will seek to facilitate the delivery of at least 9,750 new homes across the Borough over the Plan period 2015-2030. Housing Allocation

Housing Allocation MAP SP 5 Community Infrastructure SP 5 Community Infrastructure

The Council, working with its statutory health and education partners and other stakeholders, including the community and voluntary sector, will seek to ensure that all communities in our Borough have access to health, education, community and recreational facilities as well as parks and other open spaces that meet the needs of the community they serve.

Inc: GP surgeries, schools, colleges, libraries, community centres, youth clubs, places of worship, halls and cemeteries and recreation and open space facilities such as leisure centres, playing pitches, sports grounds, parks and gardens, community allotments and children’s play areas. SP 6 Placemaking and Good Design SP 6 Placemaking and Good Design

• Encouraging high quality new development

• 10+ dwellings or more / 500m2 or greater non-residential development to be accompanied by a Design and Access Statement

• Detailed Policies for new proposals – urban and rural design SP 7 Historic Environment SP7 Historic Environment

Protect, conserve and promote the enhancement of the following assets and their settings:

• Archaeological remains; • Registered Historic Parks, Gardens and Demesnes • Listed Buildings; • Conservation Areas; and • Areas of Townscape Character

A PLACE WITH A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE SP 8 – SP 10 Natural Heritage, Natural Resources & Environmental Resilience/Protection

• Habitats, Species and Biodiversity, Landscape and Coast, Strategic Landscape Policy Areas, Local Landscape Policy Areas & Coastal Policy Areas • Minerals & Renewables • Environmental Resilience eg flooding, waste etc.

Soundness

• Procedural Tests • Consistency Tests • Coherence and Effectiveness Tests Procedural Consistency Coherence and Effectiveness Independent Examination Next Stages

• Deadline – 20th September 2019 5 pm • Counter Representations (8 weeks) • Consideration of all responses • Ask Department for Infrastructure for an Independent Examination • Person appointed (PAC) • IE – 9 to 12 months • Report • DfI • Adopted

ITEM 11

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Meeting 01 October 2019

Responsible Director Director of Regeneration, Development and Planning

Responsible Head of Head of Planning Service

Date of Report 18 September 2019

File Reference

Legislation

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Proposed Good Practice Guide

Attachments Item 11a - draft Guide Item 11b - Application Checklist Item 11c - BCC Appendix 3 - further requirements

1.0 Background

1.1 Members are aware from the Planning Service Unit Plan, of the intention to prepare and publish a Good Practice Guide to assist in setting out the planning application process in detail, and to garner support for frontloading of the development management process, i.e. submission of the correct information at the correct time in the planning application process.

1.2 Detailed review has taken place of other guide and practice notes from GB planning jurisdictions, and most recently, that published by Belfast City Council.

1.3 A draft has been prepared, copy attached at Item 11a, which takes readers through the planning process, relevant to the procedures and processes adopted by Ards and North Down. An Application Checklist (Item 11b) is being prepared to identify the full range of information that may be required for submission with an application, depending on scale, type and impact. A full list

Page 1 of 2

of the types of assessments that may be required is being prepared similar to that of Belfast City Council’s – a copy of whose is attached as Item 11bc.

1.4 The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (NI) 2015 sets out the minimum information for submission with a planning application to be ‘valid’ and without which the Planning Department is unable to legally deal with the application. The basics required generally relate to submission of the following:

• Application Form • Ownership Certificate • Site Location Plan • Plans and drawings • Pre-Application Community Consultation Report (if a major proposal) • Design and Access Statement • Planning Fee.

1.5 However, the ‘regional’ validation rules only apply to the most basic of information required to make an application ‘valid’ and in the majority of proposals we require a plethora of other information in the form of assessments/studies/reports in order to be able to properly assess the application and for consultees to advise appropriately. Examples include a Noise Impact Assessment, Retail Impact Assessment, Bat Survey, Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Assessment etc.

1.6 It is proposed to introduce a system whereby we identify what information is required and if not included with the submission, we will write to the applicant/agent to advise what is missing and provide them with the opportunity of submitting within 14 days, and we will hold the application and fee until submitted. If the applicant opts to proceed without this information there is a possibility that the application will be refused without this data, or otherwise delayed.

1.7 Senior administrative officers are meeting with colleagues in Belfast City Council to assess how this system is currently working within that Planning Department. It is proposed to write to planning agents and publish this guidance and Application Checklist on our website to draw this to people’s attention ahead of formal introduction in the new year. Additionally, it is proposed to include a short item in the Autumn/Winter edition of the Borough Magazine regarding this Practice Guide and Checklist.

1.8 A request for introduction of legislation to enable Councils to publish their own ‘local’ validation lists has been made to DFI. Such introduction would put a legislative requirement on applicants to submit the requisite information at the point of submission.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council notes the content of this report and the draft attachments.

Page 2 of 2

Guide to the Planning Application Process

September 2019

Ards and North Down Planning Service

A guide to the planning application process

Our aim: to guide appropriate development developments; to the right places in our borough whilst preventing developments that • Making Tree Preservation Orders and assessing are not acceptable. applications for consent for works to protected trees and trees within the Conservation Areas of Introduction Donaghadee, Holywood, and Portaferry;

The overall objective of the planning system is to • Investigating alleged breaches of planning control further sustainable development and improve well- and enforcing where appropriate; being for the people of our Borough. The planning • system can unlock development potential, support Providing advice to customers on the planning job creation and aid economic recovery, but should service, process and pre-application discussion on not do so at the expense of compromising larger schemes. environmental standards. Our aim is to provide a professional service that that

Whilst the planning process may not always be able is understandable, clear and transparent to all to reconcile competing interests, transparency, affected by the planning system. fairness and accountable decision-taking are Our Statement of Community Involvement sets out fundamental to ensuring all interests are taken into our policy as to the involvement, in the exercise of account. our planning functions, of persons who appear to a

council to have an interest in the matters relating to The Planning system is instrumental in helping us development in Ards and North Down. It explains realise our purpose – ‘To make Ards and North Down how the community and stakeholders will be the best place to live, work, visit and invest. It will involved in the planning application process as well also give the spatial realisation to the Council’s first as the preparation of the local development plan. Community Plan – ‘The Big Plan – Creating Positive ______Outcomes for everyone’. Legislative and Policy Context Ards and North Down has responsibility for the The Planning Act (NI) 2011 sets out the legislative majority of planning functions that affect our framework for the planning system in Northern borough, including: Ireland. It requires that planning applications are • Preparation of a new Local Development Plan determined in accordance with the Local which will apply regional planning policies at the Development Plan for the area, unless material local level and inform the general public, statutory considerations indicate otherwise. Until we adopt authorities, developers and other interested our Local Development Plan the extant development bodies of the policy framework and land use plans for our Borough are the Ards and Down Area proposal that will guide development decisions Plan 2015, the North Down and Ards Area Plan 1984- within our Borough. 1995, with the draft Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 being a material consideration. • Making decisions on planning applications ranging Please refer to the planning pages of our website for from small householder extensions up to large more information on the preparation of our Local residential developments or retailing/industrial

Ards and North Down Borough Council 0300 013 3333 Stephen Reid Town Hall, The Castle [email protected] Chief Executive Bangor, BT20 4BT www.ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk Development Plan, including our Preferred Options affect its character as a building of special Paper, and for guidance on what constitutes a architectural or historical interest. It is important material consideration. to note that you may also be required to apply for planning permission for external and substantial The Department for Infrastructure (DFI) is works. responsible for planning at the regional level and has published a series of planning policy documents that • Conservation Area Consent: for the demolition of are important material considerations in the whether in whole or in part, unlisted buildings decision-making process. These include: within a conservation area. ‘Building’ includes any structure or erection and any part of a building. • The Regional Development Strategy for Northern This means items such as walls, fences, gates, Ireland 2035 (RDS); railings, flights of steps are buildings for the • Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern purposes of Conservation Area Consent. Ireland (SPPS) • Planning Policy Statements • Works to a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or to any tree within a Conservation Area DFI also publishes Development Management ______Practice Notes (DMPN) to assist in understanding the When is planning permission not required? planning process. ______Certain types of development do not require Who can apply for planning permission? planning permission. The Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) Anyone can apply for planning permission to develop 2015 sets out the rules for ‘permitted development’ land. You do not need to have any legal interest in for certain small-scale development. If you wish to the land to which the application relates when you confirm whether your proposal requires permission, apply for planning permission, nor do you require the you may apply to us for a Certificate of Lawfulness for consent of the owner. However, if you apply for a Proposed Use or Development. planning permission your application must be accompanied by a Certificate of Ownership which Deemed Advertisement Consent states an applicant’s legal interest in the land. If you Certain advertisements and signage can be erected do not own the land to which the application relates, without the need for express consent from the you are legally required to give notice of the Council. The rules for this ‘deemed consent’ is set making of the planning application to the owner of out in the Planning (Control of Advertisements) the land. Regulations (NI) 2015 under Schedules 2 and 3. ______Do I need planning permission? ______How do I submit a planning application? You may need to apply for the following types of development: Whilst Planning legislation sets out the statutory minimum information that must be provided with • Planning permission: for building works (including any application, our Application Checklist sets out new buildings, structures and external alterations, the range of information which may also be required change to ground levels, mining operations, and to support your application, dependant on the type changes of use of land or buildings) of proposal.

• Advertising Consent: for new signage It is vital that we receive the correct information at the start of the process in order that we can assess • Listed Building Consent: for the carrying out of the proposal properly, otherwise if we don’t have the any work for demolition, alteration or extension of information your application may be refused, or if we a listed building (including internal works or have to ask for it later in the process your application objects attached to the structure), which would will be delayed. It is therefore recommended that you refer to the we will return your application (including your fee) so Application Checklist before submitting your that you can submit it again when all the information planning application. we need is provided. ______Pre-Application Discussion (PAD) If you elect to proceed without the requested information, there is a risk your application will be By facilitating effective and meaningful pre- refused and your fee will not be returned. application discussions we can ensure opportunity to When you submit a complete application will all the work collaboratively with applicants and to improve appropriate information, you will receive an the quality of developments are maximised. We will acknowledgement which will include the Case operate a proportionate approach in light of the Officer’s name and contact details, normally within nature, scale and benefits of the application. For seven days. The Case Officer will be responsible for instance, if the query is of a more general nature, a managing your planning application and will be your simple discussion between the Duty Planner and the point of contact throughout the process. prospective applicant may be sufficient to address If you have appointed a planning agent to act on your any concerns, or referral to existing advice and behalf, we will carry out all communication relating guidance already available on the Council’s or DFI’s to your application with your agent. website may be adequate to alleviate any concerns that a prospective applicant may have. Consultation

For smaller scale proposals we advise that it can be Once we have all the information we need we will beneficial for you to discuss your proposal with any carry out consultations on the application in neighbour who may be affected before making your accordance with the legislative requirements. We planning application. will:

For larger applications please refer to DFI’s DMPN 10 • Publish notice of the application in the local press for detail of what you should submit for a PAD. (Newtownards Chronicle and Bangor Spectator); ______Duty Planner • Notify neighbours of the application by letter;

We operate a Planning Appointment System on • Publish notice of the application on the Planning weekday afternoons in our offices at 2 Church Street, pages of the Council website; Newtownards, at which you can get advice on submitting an application. You can also phone the • Notify relevant statutory consultees, such as office and get speaking to a Duty Planner who will be government departments (Roads, Rivers, Natural able to offer advice on the planning system. Please Heritage etc); contact our Planning Administrative Office on 0300 • Notify relevant non-statutory consultees such as 013 3333 or 028 91824006. ______the Council’s own Environmental Health Department or Tree Officer. The Planning Application Process • Legislation prohibits a decision being issued until Receipt of your application the expiry of 14 days from the date an application When we receive your application, we will check if is advertised or neighbour notified, whichever is you have submitted the appropriate information the later. We also cannot issue a decision until at using our Application Checklist. least 21 days after we have consulted a statutory consultee. (Please note that applications requiring If we determine that information is missing, we will an Environmental Statement under the Planning ‘park’ your application and write to you requesting (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations submission of the missing information within 14 days. (NI) 2017 have a longer consultation period. If you are unable to provide the information in time, Site Visits In addition, we have introduced an internal In the vast majority of cases the Case Officer will visit performance target of 8 weeks for decisions on the site to assist in the assessment of the impact of householder3 applications. the proposal in the wider context. It is not possible These indicators are an average processing time and to advise you of when a visit may take place, as the we will not always be able to decide all applications Case officer will normally visit several sites on the within these time periods. same day; however, if we need to gain access, the Case officer will make contact to arrange access in If there is a problem with your application we will let advance. you know as early as possible, but if it is not possible to resolve the issue within the above timeframes, we Feedback on your application may invite you to withdraw your application and

We will normally only contact you if we have a submit a new application that addresses our problem with your application, for instance, if a concerns to avoid your original application being consultee has raised an issue or has requested refused. further information. Please note it may not always Our Pre-Application Discussion and Planning be possible to address the concerns under the Appointments/Duty Planner advice are aimed at current application and sometimes a new application identifying issues early and to assist you in submitting may be required. a better application.

We normally expect you or your planning agent to Case Officer Report keep track of consultation responses whereby additional information is required. For all applications, the Case Officer will write a report that sets out their recommendation as to If we consider your application should be refused, we whether the planning applications should be will notify you before any formal decision is made. approved or refused. The report is a professional Applications that have fundamental problems will assessment of the relevant issues and only material be refused straightaway without prolonged planning considerations may be considered as part of negotiation. the assessment. The Case Officer Report is always countersigned by at least one other officer. You can track the progress of a planning application through the Public Access system on the Planning In the interests of transparency, the Case Officer Portal website. This includes the option of Report will be made publicly available on the registering for email notifications about ‘tracked’ Planning Portal once the recommendation has been applications. made. In the case of the delegated list, on the day the delegated list is circulated to the Planning Timely decision-making Committee for perusal, and for applications being discussed by Planning Committee, five working days 1 We aim to decide local applications within an prior to the Committee meeting. average processing time of 15 weeks and major applications 2within an average processing time of 30 How we make decisions weeks, in accordance with the statutory performance indicators set out in The Local Government The majority of planning applications are determined (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (NI) in accordance with the officer recommendation 2015. under ‘delegated powers’. Our Scheme of

1 All other development that does not fall within the definition 3 Householder applications are for domestic proposals such as of major development. an extension, garage, outbuilding, shed, satellite dish, fence, 2 The definition of a ‘major’ development is provided within The alterations to an access or driveway and other home Planning (Development Management) Regulations (NI) 2015 improvements Delegation sets out in detail when decisions are Commenting on a Planning Application delegated to officers and when they must be made Anyone can submit comments on a planning by the Planning Committee. application. Comments must be made in writing and

Delegated Applications can be made online via the Planning Portal website, or by post to The Planning Office, 2 Church Street, AND operates a weekly delegated list whereby Newtownards, BT23 4AP, or by email to applications for which a recommendation has been [email protected]. made by officers, but for which a decision has not yet Please note, in line with our Scheme of Delegation, issued, is circulated to members of the Planning petitions or pro-forma letters will only count as one Committee. Those members then have a period of representation. In respect of petitions we will only 48 hours in which they can request an application be correspond with whoever submitted the petition and ‘called in’ for discussion and determination at a NOT with all other signatories. subsequent Planning Committee meeting. Representations are subject to the provisions of the Planning Committee Meetings Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data

The Planning Committee meets on the first Tuesday Protection Regulations (GDPR). Any personal or of each month (unless otherwise advertised) and sensitive information contained in your determines all applications for major development, representation or any information considered to be those in which the Council has an interest, and of a derogatory or offensive nature will be redacted certain other applications as set out in the Council’s from your representation.

Scheme of Delegation for Planning. In assessing a planning application, we can only take

If you would like to speak at Planning Committee account of material planning considerations. Any regarding an application which is going to be comments you make should be restricted to material discussed, you must apply for speaking rights. Details planning considerations only. For example, we of how to apply are set out in Protocol for the cannot consider civil disputes or issues regulated by Operation of the Planning Committee and in our other non-planning legislation. guidance on the Planning pages of the Council The Case Officer will take account of the material website. Late requests for speaking will not be planning issues raised within your representation. accepted. Given the large volume of correspondence received

Please note we will not notify you of when an in relation to planning applications, we are unable to application is going to be heard by the Planning respond on individual comments submitted.

Committee. You can check the agenda which is Please note – we will not notify objectors or published on our website each month ten working supporters of an application when an application is days before the Planning Committee meeting. going to heard by Planning Committee or when it is

Regionally Significant Proposals being included on the delegated list. You can check the agenda for upcoming Planning Committees or The Department for Infrastructure is responsible for decisions made on delegated applications on the determining planning applications which are Council website. regionally significant. Please refer all queries to the Department in After a Decision is Made respect of such applications. Call 0300 200 7830 or The making of a decision on a planning application is email [email protected]. not always the end of the planning process. ______As an applicant you must ensure that you carry out the proposal is accordance with the approved plans. We also check applications made to the Council’s Building Control Department to ensure what is Enforcement of Planning Controls proposed matches what you have planning approval We investigate all complaints about alleged for. unauthorised works or use of land. Please refer to our Enforcement Strategy for details of how we carry You will also have to ensure that you comply with any out this service and how to make a complaint about condition(s) specified on your planning permission. an alleged breach. Failure to do so may result in a breach of planning control and could incur formal enforcement action. Right of Appeal

Discharging Planning Conditions As an applicant you have the right to lodge an appeal with the Planning Appeals Commission, an We prefer all information to be submitted at the start independent appellate body, in respect of the of a planning application for detailed assessment; following: however, dependent on circumstances, we often • Refusal of planning permission/consent; impose planning conditions that require submission • Imposition of a condition(s) on a planning of further details to the Council for our approval prior permission. to certain works being carried out or uses You should note that the appeal is limited to the commencing. You should allow at least eight weeks applicant only and an appeal must be lodged within for this information to be assessed following its four months of the decision. There is no third-party submission and you should take account of this in right of appeal in Northern Ireland. your project timeline. More complex information may take longer to process as we may need to Judicial Review consult with other statutory bodies. Failure to As a third party you can challenge a planning comply with these conditions could make your approval on a point of law by applying to the High proposal unauthorised and liable to enforcement Court for a judicial review. This must be done within action. three months of the decision. The court has a "supervisory" role - making sure the Council has Monitoring Conditions and Planning acted lawfully. It is important to understand that a JR Agreements is not a re-run on the merits of the decision but a In the interest of compliance and identifying challenge to the lawfulness of the decision that was breaches of planning control, we actively monitor made. Anyone considering such a course will need planning agreements made under Section 76 of the legal advice.

Planning Act to ensure they are complied with. We may also monitor certain planning conditions to Complaints make sure they are complied with. We want you to help develop and improve our service. In any organisation, things can sometimes go Other non-planning consents wrong and there is room for improvement. We may It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure not have noticed. That is why we encourage all of our compliance with any relevant non-planning customers to contact us, as feedback will help us legislation when they implement their planning improve. If you feel something could have been permission/consent, such as licensing, roads, improved or wish to complain about something you drainage, water and other environmental permits. think we have done wrong, you can make a We do not attach specific informatives to any complaint which will be dealt with in accordance with planning permission decisions, therefore applicants our Complaints Procedure. We promise to take your may find it useful to refer to any standing comments and complaints seriously. We will find out advice/informatives referred to by consultees as part where our service has disappointed you, where of the planning process. possible provide an explanation and take steps to ______improve our service.

Contacting the Planning Service Planning Application Process

You can contact our Planning Service in the following Is Planning Permission Required? ways:

Email: [email protected] Refer to Tel: 0300 013 3333 or 028 91824006 ‘Your Home and Planning Permission’

Post: Ards and North Down Planning Service Make appointment with Duty 2 Church Street Planner Newtownards or Submit an Enquiry BT23 4AP

For more complex proposals request a Pre-Application Discussion

Submit Planning Application including correct information as per our Application Checklist

www.ardsandnorthdown.gov.uk Process Planning Application • Consultation • Officer Site Visit • Feedback on application

• Negotiate (by exception)

• Case Officer Report &

Recommendation

• Delegated

Decision/Planning

Committee

• Issue Decision

Post Decision Comply with any conditions/Discharge any conditions and implement in accordance with approved plans

Enforcement

Investigate any alleged breach of

condition(s) or non-compliance with

approved plans

Appeal (applicant only)

Option to appeal refusal or

conditions of approval within 4 months of decision

Planning Service Application Checklist

Guide to submitting a planning application

To help us process your planning application in a timely manner you can assist us by ensuring that your planning application is accompanied by the correct information at the start of the process – commonly referred to as ‘front loading’.

Having all the relevant information at the outset enables us to assess applications comprehensively. Applications with missing information are inevitably delayed or could result in refusal.

Our Application Checklist provides guidance on the information you need to submit with your application. Such application will fall into one of two categories: • Basic requirements – this information is required by law and without it we cannot make your application ‘valid’ (see Appendix 2); • Other supporting information – additional information that we consider is necessary for us to fully assess your application in a timely manner and which will assist you in getting a positive determination (see Appendix 3).

Basic Requirements (See Appendix 2)

The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (NI) 2015 sets out the minimum information that must be submitted with a planning application to make it ‘valid’. If not submitted we cannot legally deal with your application. Our Application Checklist sets out the basic information required.

Summary of types ofBasic basi cRequirement information that may be required with your planning application:

• Application Form • Ownership Certificate • Site Location Plan • Plans and drawings • Pre-Application Community Consultation Report • Design and Access Statement • Planning Fee Other Supporting Information (see Appendix 3) In addition to the basic requirements for validation we Table 2 below lists the types of other supporting often require other supporting information to fully information you may require to provide. Appendix 3 assess your proposal. The level of supporting provides detailed guidance on what is required and when. information will depend on the specific circumstances This does not apply to Householder or Advertisement of the proposal, in terms of its scale, use and location. Consent applications. Table 2: Other Supporting Information (see Appendix 3) Air Quality Assessment Lighting Assessment Archaeological Assessment Market Testing Report Archaeological Field Evaluation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Biodiversity Checklist Odour Abatement Strategy Biodiversity Survey Parking Strategy Concept Statement or Concept Masterplan Phasing Plan Construction Environmental Management Plan Planning Agreement (Heads of Terms for) Contaminated Land Report Planning Statement Contextual Design Information Retail Impact Assessment Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment Sequential Survey (Main Town Centre Uses) Demolition Justification Report Structural Survey Drainage Assessment Student Accommodation Need Statement Economic Statement Transport Assessment Event Management Plan Travel Plan Environmental Statement (EIA) Tree Survey Flood Risk Assessment Viability Appraisal Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Waste Management Plan Pre-Application Discussions (PAD) We will adopt a proportionate approach to what supporting information we require and will only ask for You can request a PAD or make an appointment with a it when it is reasonable and necessary to enable us to duty planner to assist you with your proposal prior to assess your proposal. submission of an application. This can help identify issues If we believe any information in the above Table is at an early stage and help clarify what information is required and it has not been provided in the initial required to be submitted submission, we will ask you to provide it within 14 days. If you are unable to provide the information in time we How do I submit an application to the Council? will arrange for return of your application alongside the You need to provide four hard copies of your application fee so you can re-submit once all information required including the application form, plans and drawings and is ready. other documentation.

If you choose to proceed without submission of the Amended Plans and Supporting Information requested information there is a risk your application will be refused and you will lose your fee. If you are submitting amended plans and supporting information, please explain in a covering letter what Information Checklist changes are being made and why. We recommend you label the drawing with a revision number (e.g. Revision A, B Our Information Checklist at Appendix 1 is a useful tool C D etc.) and include a Revision Schedule on the drawing to help you identify what information you need to that shows the revision number, description of change and provide. We ask you to complete it in all cases and date it was made. submit it with your application as missing information can lead to delays or refusal. Use Appendices 2 and 3 Planning Application Process – see our guidance for to assist you. how we process planning applications.

Submit your application to Ards & North Down Planning Service, 2 Church Street, Newtownards, BT23 4AP

Appendix 3

Other supporting information

1. Air Quality AQIA is a process for determining the significance of the impact of new development on ambient air quality, or Impact determining the significance of the impact of local ambient air quality on new development. These impacts Assessment (AQIA) need to be quantified and evaluated in the context of existing air quality, air quality objectives or limits.

Policy When is it required? SPPS Para. 4.11- An AQIA may be required if a proposed development: 4.12 - is to be located in an existing area of poor air quality such as in the case of a residential development; Belfast Air Quality Action Plan 2015- - will cause a significant increase in road traffic flows or changes the proximity to receptors, e.g. car parks, 2020 realigned roads, junctions etc; - introduces one or more substantial combustion processes, e.g. centralised boilers, CHP plant or biomass, where there is a risk of impact at relevant receptors; or - gives rise to potentially unacceptable air pollution impacts (such as dust) at nearby sensitive locations during demolition or construction processes.

Guidance In determining whether new development requires an AQIA, we will refer to best practice guidance such as Environmental Protection UK and the Institute of Air Quality Management, Land-use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air Quality (January 2017)

Where an AQIA is required, it should be undertaken with reference to the Government’s local air quality management technical guidance (LAQM.TG (16)) and associated air quality screening and assessment tools. The AQIA may take the form of either a simple or detailed assessment but it must be sufficient to determine the significance of air quality impacts.

Where the AQIA predicts that new development may give rise to, or experience a significant air quality impact, the assessment should set out the measures to avoid, reduce and, where appropriate, offset the impact.

All information about current pollution levels, Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and the City Council’s air quality reports can be found at: www.airqualityni.co.uk

The Belfast City Council Air Quality Action Plan for the city for 2015 – 2020 can be found at: Air Quality Action Plan

2. Archaeological An archaeological assessment normally entails a desk based study, by a qualified archaeologist, of existing Assessment information including records of previous discoveries, historic maps or geophysical surveys.

Policy When is it required? SPPS Policy BH3 of PPS 6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage requires developers to provide an PPS 6 archaeological assessment where the impact of a development proposal on important archaeological remains Draft BMAP 2015 is unclear, or the relative importance of such remains is uncertain.

Guidance Prospective developers need to take into account archaeological considerations and should deal with them from the beginning of the development management process. The needs of archaeology and development can often be reconciled, and potential conflict avoided or much reduced, if applicants discuss their proposals early. The first step is for applicants to consult the Department for Communities’ Historic environment map viewer for known archaeological sites and monuments. Further advice on archaeological requirements can be found on the Department for Communities’ website and its Historic Environment Division.

3. Archaeological An archaeological field evaluation involves ground surveys and limited and targeted licensed excavation which Field Evaluation is quite distinct from full archaeological excavation. Evaluations of this kind help to define the importance, character and extent of the archaeological remains that may exist in the area of a proposed development, and Policy thus indicate the weight which should be attached to their preservation. They may also provide information SPPS useful for identifying potential options for minimising or avoiding damage. PPS 6 Draft BMAP 2015 When is it required? Policy BH 3 of PPS6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage requires developers to provide an archaeological field evaluation where the impact of a development proposal on important archaeological remains is unclear, or the relative importance of such remains is uncertain.

4. Biodiversity The Biodiversity Checklist is a ‘step by step’ tool which should be used by applicants to help identify if a Checklist development proposal is likely to adversely affect any biodiversity and natural heritage interests and whether further ecological assessments/surveys are required. Policy SPPS Par. 6.168- When is it required? 198 The Biodiversity Checklist should be used for all applications where another biodiversity or ecological survey PPS 2 has not already been completed. Draft BMAP 2015 Guidance The Biodiversity Checklist can be found on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs website. The Department also provides standing advice on the development of land that may affect natural heritage assets

In establishing whether a biodiversity survey is needed, the applicant or agent is advised to seek independent advice from an ecologist or suitably qualified person.

5. Biodiversity A Biodiversity Survey (or ecological or wildlife survey) assesses the specific impacts of development proposals Survey on natural heritage, including designated sites and priority habitats; and protected and priority species.

Policy When is it required? SPPS Par. 6.168- A Biodiversity Survey is required where: 198 - the need for a survey is identified as part of the completion of the Biodiversity Checklist (see above) PPS 2 Draft BMAP 2015 - the proposal would impact or have the potential to impact on natural heritage, including designated sites and priority habitats; or protected and priority species.

Guidance Standing advice on the development of land that may affect natural heritage assets can be found on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs website

In establishing whether a biodiversity survey is needed, the applicant or agent is advised to seek independent advice from an ecologist or suitably qualified person.

6. Concept A Design Concept Statement demonstrates how a proposed residential scheme has taken account of the Statement or main features of the site and its context and how it will meet the criteria set out in Policy QD1, thereby Concept contributing to the promotion of a quality residential environment. Masterplan Where a Concept Masterplan is required, this will need to indicate in graphic form a scheme for the Policy comprehensive development of the whole area, and include a written statement, detailed appraisals, PPS 7 QD2 sketches, plans and other illustrative materials to address all of the relevant matters set out in this Statement and its associated supplementary planning guidance. The Concept Masterplan should also clearly demonstrate how it is intended to implement the scheme.

A Design Concept Statement demonstrates how a proposed residential scheme has taken account of the main features of the site and its context and how it will meet the criteria set out in Policy QD1, thereby contributing to the promotion of a quality residential environment.

Where a Concept Masterplan is required, this will need to indicate in graphic form a scheme for the comprehensive development of the whole area, and include a written statement, detailed appraisals, sketches, plans and other illustrative materials to address all of the relevant matters set out in this Statement and its associated supplementary planning guidance. The Concept Masterplan should also clearly demonstrate how it is intended to implement the scheme.

When is it required? A Design Concept Statement is required to support: - all applications for residential development

A Concept Master Plan will be required for planning applications involving: - 300 dwellings or more; or - the development, in part or full, of sites of 15 hectares or more zoned for housing in development plans; or - housing development on any other site of 15 hectares or more. In the case of proposals for the partial development of a site zoned for housing the Concept Master Plan will be expected to demonstrate how the comprehensive planning of the entire zoned area is to be undertaken.

Guidance The Design Concept Statement should outline in writing the overall design concept and objectives for the site and include an indicative concept plan, based on the appraisal of the site and its context. The amount of information and level of detail required will depend on the nature, scale and location of the proposed development. Where necessary the Statement should also address any local design considerations identified in Development Plans or Supplementary Planning Guidance and provide information on any improvements to infrastructure required to facilitate the proposed development.

For a large scheme or a site in a sensitive location, such as a Conservation Area, Area of Townscape Character or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the type of information and detail required for the Design Concept Statement will include some or all of the detail highlighted at Para 4.46 of PPS 7.

For small housing schemes outside sensitive locations, involving the development of a site of up to 0.25 of a hectare or 5 dwellings or less, a short written statement and a diagrammatic layout will generally suffice.

Further guidance is contained within Policy QD 2 of PPS 7 Quality Residential Development.

7. Construction A Construction Environmental Management Plan is a plan developed to avoid, minimise or mitigate any Environmental construction effects on the environment. Management Plan (CEMP) When is it required? A Construction Management Plan is required to support applications for Major development in sensitive Policy coastal and harbour areas, within or in close proximity to protected designated sites such as Special SPPS Para. 4.11- Protection Areas (SPA), RAMSAR sites and Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI). 4.12 PPS2 Guidance The Construction Management Plan should generally include: - details of all proposed excavations and construction; - details of all areas to be used for the storage of substrate/spoil including a suitable buffer between location for storage of excavated spoil and construction materials and any watercourses or surface drain present on site or adjacent to site; - details of the pollution prevention measures to be employed during construction and operation; - detailed drawing plans, demonstrating a suitable buffer between locations for refueling, storage of oil/fuel, concrete mixing and washing areas and any watercourses or surface drain present on site or adjacent to the site; and - a proposed storm drainage plan designed to the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in order to minimise the polluting effects of storm water on waterways. Construction of SuDS should comply with the design and construction standards as set out in The SuDS Manual - Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Report C753 (2015).

Guidance on the content of Construction Environmental Management Plans is available on the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs website.

8. Contaminated A Contamination Land Report assesses the suitability of contaminated land for new development. It sets out Land Report the nature of contaminants, the level of risk to future occupants, users of land or environment, and mitigation measures to reduce any risks to an acceptable level. Policy SPPS When is it required? A Contaminated Land Report is required whenever new development is to be located on, or adjacent to land, where the presence of natural sources or historical uses of the land may have given rise to land contamination. Brownfield land may encompass vacant or derelict lands, infill sites, land occupied by redundant or underused buildings or a piece of industrial or commercial property that is abandoned or underused. Such land is often contaminated and applications for its redevelopment will normally need to be accompanied by a Contaminated Land Report.

Examples of potentially contaminated land include: - former industrial land - petrol filling stations - commercial premises - residential estates - land fill sites

Guidance Contaminated land may present a risk to a range of receptors including humans, ecosystems, water quality and property.

Land contamination reports should be completed in accordance with the risk-based framework established via the Environment Agency publication, ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination. Contaminated Land Report 11’. This should include a preliminary risk assessment followed, where necessary, by a generic or detailed quantitative risk assessment, a remediation strategy and verification. Risk assessments, remediation and verification should be undertaken having regard to relevant British Standards and industry best practice.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) Land Use Database contains a record of approximately 14,000 sites across Northern Ireland that have had previous industrial land use(s). This database is available via the Land & Property Services at: Spatial NI Geoportal

9. Contextual Contextual Design Information is visual material, such as a drawing or CGI, which accurately reflects the Design Information proposal in its immediate and local context, usually the existing street scene into which the development is to be placed. Planning policy requires careful consideration of the local context, urban character, the needs Policy of residents and the local economy. New development should bring about an improvement of the area SPPS Para. 4.23- and sit comfortably within the area in which it is proposed. 4.40 PPS 6 When is it required? PPS 7 Contextual Design Information will be required for:

- applications for Major development, particularly within the city centre; - proposals that impact on heritage assets including Listed Buildings, historic monuments/gardens, Conservation Areas and Areas of Townscape Character; or - proposals that may significantly impact on the street-scene or townscape.

Guidance The type of Contextual Design Information that is required will depend on the nature of the proposals, its location, scale and the expected impacts.

Design and the impact of proposals on the urban and rural environment are very important planning considerations. Contextual Design Information demonstrates how a proposal is placed within the established area and accordingly how it fits into its visual context and may include:

- extended scaled elevations, both existing and proposed, which illustrate the existing context and how the proposal responds to this context in relation to neighbouring buildings and the wider street scene; - photomontages showing existing and proposed key views; - axonometric drawings; and - 3D modelling including use of VU.CITY: Belfast (an accurate 3D model of the City)

Specific requirements can be discussed as part of a Pre-Application Discussion.

10. Daylight, A Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment is used to assess the impact of new development on Sunlight and existing surrounding properties and open spaces in terms of daylight and sunlight, as well as the Overshadowing performance of the development for future occupants. New development should maximize sunlight and Assessment daylight, both within the new development and to neighbouring properties. Development should seek to minimize overshadowing or blocking of light to adjoining properties. Policy SPPS Para. 4.23- When is it required? 4.40 An assessment will be required in support of all applications involving: PPS 6 - buildings exceeding four storeys in height where adjoining other developed land or public open PPS 7 spaces;

- where proposed buildings or extensions could lead to overshadowing of adjacent or other proposed buildings or spaces within the same development site; or - where the proposed development would itself be subject to significant shading from adjoining buildings or trees.

Guidance To assess the impact of proposals on adjoining properties, including associated gardens or amenity space in respect of loss of daylight and sunlight, it is recommended that a “daylight, vertical sky component, sunlight availability and shadow study” is undertaken and assessed against the criteria set out in: Building Research Establishment Site Layout Planning for Sunlight and Daylight: A Guide to Good Practice (2011) and the British Standard BS8206-2:2008 Lighting for buildings – Part 2: Code of Practice for Daylighting.

The information included in the assessment should be sufficient to determine the existing and expected levels of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing on neighbouring properties and the measures that will be taken to mitigate the expected impact of the proposed development.

11. Demolition A Demolition Justification Report is a combined report which should include a condition and Structural Survey Justification Report (section 27), Market Testing Report (section 19) and assessment of alternative proposals for where demolition is proposed for a building of heritage importance.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Demolition Justification Report is required where the proposal involves: PPS 6 Draft BMAP 2015 - demolition of all or a significant part of a Listed Building; or - demolition of all or a significant part of a building which makes a material contribution to a Conservation Area or an Area of Townscape Character (ATC).

Guidance There is a presumption in favour of the retention of both Listed Buildings, and buildings within Conservation Areas and ATCs that make a material contribution to those areas. Policy BH 10 of PPS 6 relates to proposals to demolish, either whole or part, these buildings.

Where demolition is proposed, the application will need to address the following: - the condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use; - the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and - the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

Further explanation is provided by Policy BH 10, of PPS 6 Planning, Archaeology, and the Built Heritage. The Demolition Justification Report should also refer to the general criteria set out at Para 6.5 of PPS 6. Guidance on whether a building makes a material contribution to a Conservation Area or an Area of Townscape Character can be provided through the Pre-Application Discussion process.

12. Drainage A Drainage Assessment (or drainage impact assessment) sets out the drainage issues relevant to new Assessment development and the measures to provide the appropriate standard of drainage. The detail of the assessment will be proportionate to the nature of the proposal. Policy SPPS When is it required? PPS 15 FLD 3 A Drainage Assessment is required where the thresholds set out in Policy FLD 3 of PPS15: Planning and Flood Risk are met or exceeded: - new residential development comprising 10 or more residential units; or - a development site in excess of 1 hectare; or change of use involving new buildings and/or hardstanding surface exceeding 1,000 sqm in area

A Drainage Assessment will also be required for any development proposal, except for minor development, where: - the proposed development is located in an area where there is evidence of a history of surface water flooding; or - surface water run-off from the development may adversely impact upon other development or features of importance to nature conservation, archaeology or the built heritage.

Guidance Further guidance is provided in Annex D of PPS 15 Planning and Flood Risk.

13. Economic An Economic Statement sets out the economic effects of new development on the area, whether specific to Statement the neighbourhood in which the proposal would be located, city-wide or region.

Policy When is it required? SPPS An Economic Statement is where: PPS 4 the proposal is for Major development for commercial uses such as offices, light industry, general - industry, warehousing, retail and leisure - the proposal would result in the loss of employment land, having regard to Policy PED7 of PPS 4 Planning and Economic Development

Guidance An Economic Statement should include: - the number and type of jobs to be created both during the construction phase and on occupation, specifying whether the jobs are part time or full time; - whether the proposal is speculative or if there is a specific end user; - the timeframe for delivery of the development; - any wider benefits of the proposal to the economy.

14. Event An Event Management Plan sets out proposal to minimise the transportation impacts of any events that would Management Plan be held as a result of new development.

Policy When is it required? SPPS An Event Management Plan will be required for commercial, recreational and community proposals which will PPS 3 involve the hosting of events that generate significant large numbers of attendees.

Guidance An Event Management Plan should be submitted for events that could result in significant travel disruption. The measures should consider the types of trips, in all modes, likely to visit the site, to ensure they can arrive, park if necessary and depart without causing a traffic safety hazard or disruption to other traffic on the network.

Where disruption to the network is anticipated, the Event Management Plan should propose measures that are co-ordinated with PSNI, Department for Infrastructure Roads, and the local community as necessary, to mitigate these impacts. It should consider measures to encourage sustainable travel, such as public transport, the use of coaches and off-site park and ride and shuttle bus facilities.

15. Environmental An Environmental Statement is a legislative requirement for applications for certain types of development. It Statement (EIA) sets out the likely significant effects of new development on the environment, whether positive or negative, and can relate to environmental, social and economic impacts. When is it required? Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017, certain types of application need to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. An Environmental Statement is required where: - the development proposal falls under Schedule 1 of the Regulations; or - the development proposal falls under Schedule 2 of the Regulations and the City Council gives a screening opinion that an Environmental Statement is required.

Guidance The purpose of an Environmental Statement is to assess the environmental, social and economic effects of development. Where an Environmental Statement is needed, the City Council cannot process the planning application without it. The planning application process will be subject to extended consultation in line with the Regulations.

The requirement for an Environmental Statement can be discussed as part of the Pre-Application Discussion process. If the development proposal falls under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, the applicant is strongly advised to submit a formal request to the City Council for a screening opinion prior to making the planning application.

Applications accompanied by an Environmental Statement are subject to an additional planning fee 16. Flood Risk A Flood Risk Assessment assesses the statistical probability of a flood event occurring combined with the scale Assessment of the potential consequences of that event, and sets out measures to manage and mitigate flood risk on new development. Policy PPS 15 FLD 1 When is it required? Policy FLD 1 of PPS 15 Planning and Flood Risk sets out the circumstances when a Flood Risk Assessment is required. This includes new development: - within the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain or - the 1 in 200 year coastal flood plain where the principle of development is accepted by the council through the proposal meeting the ‘Exceptions Test’.

If you consider your application should be deemed as an Exception please set out your evidence as part of your Planning Statement (see section 24). DFI Rivers Agency will only seek to assess a FRA where the City Council has deemed the site to be an exception to FLD1 and PPS 15 and set out its reason for this.

Guidance A Flood Risk Assessment must demonstrate that: - all sources of flood risk to and from the proposed development have been identified; and - there are adequate measures to manage and mitigate any increase in flood risk arising from the development.

Flood Maps can be viewed on the Department for Infrastructure website.

17. Landscape A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is the process of evaluating the effects of a proposal on views and Visual Impact and on the landscape itself. There is an important distinction between visual effects (the human view or Assessment (LVIA) perception) and the landscape effects (which occur whether or not anyone can see them).

When is it required? Policy A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is required for: SPPS - all development proposals for tall buildings of a height of 35 metres or more; PPS 2 - all applications for Major or Local development within a Conservation Area or Area of Townscape PPS 6 Character, the setting of a Listed Building, or within a locality where the proposal will introduce an PPS 6a increase to the predominant scale and mass; PPS 7 - proposals in the countryside which are likely to have a significant visual impact within the landscape, PPS 21 and for any Major applications within or affecting the setting of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; - proposals for wind turbines where their overall height would exceed 15 metres and where Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

Guidance A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the impact of new development in the landscape. Understanding the character quality and value of the landscape determines the sensitivity of that landscape to accommodate change through development.

The two components of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment are: - landscape effects assessment – deals with changes to landscape as a resource, and - visual effects assessment – concerned with how the surroundings of individuals or groups of people may be specifically affected by change in the landscape.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment should clearly demonstrate an understanding of the difference between them. The sensitivity of receptors (people) to changes in view is dependent upon the activity, location and nature of the view experienced. People engaged in outdoor sports or occupiers of commercial buildings are considered to be of low sensitivity, with road users, footpath users and views from upper storeys of residential properties of medium sensitivity. Residents experiencing views from principal rooms and people visiting well-known beauty spots are considered of high sensitivity to change.

A Zone of Visual Influence map (ZVI) or Critical View analysis should also be included.

Further information can be obtained from the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment published jointly by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2013.

18. Lighting A Lighting Assessment explains how proposals that include largescale external lighting will impact on visual Assessment amenity of the area, and the living conditions of local people.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Lighting Assessment is required for: - proposals involving largescale artificial lighting (such as floodlighting of sports pitches); or - proposals for sensitive receptors close to a largescale existing artificial light source.

Guidance A Lighting Assessment should include the following as a minimum: - details of the external lighting, including a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of the equipment in the design; - proposed hours of operation of the lighting; - a vertical lux contour plan at appropriate façade height at sensitive premises; - identification of the appropriate environmental zone as outlined in the relevant Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance document: Details of any directional hoods or other forms of mitigation; - the design and layout details of the proposal should demonstrate that any existing light sources will have no negative impact on habitable rooms.

Detailed guidance on conducting an artificial lighting assessment can be found in the ILP ‘Guidance on Undertaking Environmental Lighting Impact Assessments’

Useful guidance is provided by the Institute of Lighting Professionals’ publication: Guidance for the reduction of obtrusive light

Further guidance is provided by Sport England – Outdoor Sports Lighting Briefing Note

19. Market Testing A Market Testing Report demonstrates whether or not the existing use of a building or land is viable or likely Report to be viable in the context of market testing.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Market Testing Report is required where the applicant seeks to demonstrate that the current use of a PPS 4 building or land is no longer viable or is unlikely to be viable, and believes that this is an important material PPS 6 consideration when the planning application is assessed.

For example, a Market Testing Report may be used where the proposal would result in the loss of employment land having regard to Policy PED7(e) of PPS6 Planning and Economic Development.

It should also be used in the context of a proposal for complete or partial demolition of a Listed Building or an un-listed building in that makes a material contribution to a Conservation Area, having regard to Policies BH10 and BH14 of PPS6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage (see section 11, Demolition Justification Report).

Guidance: The City Council expects the building or land to be subject to rigorous marketing for a minimum period of 18- months. The Market Testing Report should include the following information: - how the building or land was marketed – by whom, for how long, the media used for marketing, as well as frequency, terms, conditions and value/rent; - details of any interest in the building or land resulting from the marketing exercise, including viewings; - details of any offers made; and explanation of why any interest was not followed up or why any offers were not accepted. A Market Testing Report demonstrates whether or not the existing use of a building or land is viable or likely to be viable in the context of market testing.

When is it required? A Market Testing Report is required where the applicant seeks to demonstrate that the current use of a building or land is no longer viable or is unlikely to be viable, and believes that this is an important material consideration when the planning application is assessed.

For example, a Market Testing Report may be used where the proposal would result in the loss of employment land having regard to Policy PED7(e) of PPS6 Planning and Economic Development.

Guidance: The City Council expects the building or land to be subject to rigorous marketing for a minimum period of 18- months. The Market Testing Report should include the following information: - how the building or land was marketed – by whom, for how long, the media used for marketing, as well as frequency, terms, conditions and value/rent; - details of any interest in the building or land resulting from the marketing exercise, including viewings; - details of any offers made; and - explanation of why any interest was not followed up or why any offers were not accepted.

20. Noise and A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment sets out the potential for new development to impact on its Vibration Impact surroundings by way of noise and/or vibration. Where necessary, it will include measures to mitigate noise Assessment (NVIA) and vibration impacts, particularly if the site is surrounded by sensitive premises such as housing and other residential uses. Policy SPPS When is it required? A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is required where: - noise and/or vibration arising from the proposed development has potential to adversely impact on nearby residential property or other noise sensitive premises (e.g. schools or hospitals); or proposed noise sensitive premises or development is likely to be exposed to adverse noise and/or vibration from an existing noise source (e.g. from road traffic/railway/ entertainment venues/sports/leisure facilities/plant noise)

Guidance The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment should: - be carried out by a competent acoustic consultant; - include an assessment of existing baseline noise conditions; - be carried out in line with current guidance and British Standards; - assess the impact on the internal amenity and, where appropriate the external amenity; - identify any intensification of use of a site and/or cumulative impacts for a major mixed-use site; - identify the necessary mitigation/design measures to ensure suitable internal and external noise targets are not exceeded.

Reference should be made to current guidance such as: BS4142, BS8233, WHO Guidelines for Community Noise1999; BS6272-1 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings; ProPG Guidance: Planning & Noise (2017), and IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Noise Impact Assessment.

21. Odour An Odour Abatement System controls the level of odour emissions resulting from odour generating Abatement equipment such as a commercial kitchen, waste transfer station or industrial premises. System (flue and ventilation details) When is it required? Details of an Odour Abatement System are required where: - the proposal has potential to generate odours which could adversely impact on nearby sensitive Policy premises e.g. from cooking operations (hot food bars, restaurants, cafes etc.); waste transfer stations; SPPS and light industrial and commercial developments that may cause odorous emissions.

Guidance Details of the Odour Abatement System should include: - floor plans, positioning and design of ventilation and extraction equipment; - manufacturers details of the equipment proposed including odour abatement techniques; and - elevation drawings depicting the external location of the odour abatement system and ventilation termination points

A Noise Assessment may also be required (see section 20).

Useful guidance is provided by DEFRA – Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (2005) (This guidance was officially withdrawn in 2017 but remains a useful reference point)

Further guidance is provided by IAQM – Guidance on the assessment of odour for planning, dated May 2014

22. Parking Survey A Parking Survey assesses the volume of vehicles parked at any one time in the vicinity of the application site, either on street or in existing car parks, and provides an indication of parking trends and any available capacity that could serve the new development.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Parking Survey should be submitted when there is an identified parking need that cannot be PPS 3 accommodated within the application site. Typically it is used to demonstrate whether there is sufficient Creating Places parking capacity on public roads or streets to accommodate the additional vehicles generated by the new development.

Guidance The Parking Survey can form part of a Transport Assessment. It should be undertaken over a minimum of two days at appropriate times during the day and evening on both weekdays and weekends.

Further guidance on when a Parking Survey is required and what should be included in it can be obtained from the Department for Infrastructure Roads Eastern Division.

23. Phasing Plan A Phasing Plan sets out the sequence in which the various parts of a larger development scheme will be brought forward. The phasing is indicated on a diagrammatic plan with supporting narrative that describes the sequencing and why it is to take place in that order. Policy SPPS When is it required? PPS 7 Where the phasing of development of a site is critical, either from a planning or commercial perspective. This may include the sequencing of development to ensure that necessary infrastructure is put in place, such as a road, junction or a community facility.

Guidance Where circumstances warrant, plans may specify a phased release of development land. Phasing may be necessary having regard to infrastructure requirements or the adequacy of other services, which may indicate that a particular area cannot be released for development until a particular stage in the plan period. It may also take into account any relocation of people, sale or rental of land, the property market, possible movement issues, land ownership patterns, funding availability, and relevant planning processes and legislation.

24. Planning A Planning Agreement is a legally binding agreement, normally between the applicant, landowner and Agreement (Heads council, secured under Section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Planning Agreements are of Terms) used to secure a planning obligation, such as developer contributions, where it is not possible to do so by a planning condition. The Planning Agreement must be signed and completed before the planning permission Policy can be issued. SPPS Heads of Terms set out the applicant’s intention to enter into a Planning Agreement as part of the planning application process and the nature of the planning obligations that it is expected to contain.

When is it required? Heads of Terms should be provided for all applications where it is expected that a Planning Agreement will be a prerequisite to the granting of planning permission.

Guidance The requirement for a Planning Agreement can be discussed as part of the Council’s Pre-Application Discussion service.

The applicant may voluntarily submit a draft Planning Agreement with their planning application if it is expected that the planning permission, if granted, will be subject to a Planning Agreement.

The City Council’s draft Developer Contributions Framework sets out circumstances when a Planning Agreement will be required to secure developer contributions.

Further guidance on planning agreements is provided by Development Management Practice Note 21: Section 76 Planning Agreements

25. Planning A Planning Statement is a written document that explains the rationale for a proposal within the relevant Statement planning policy context

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Planning Statement is required for applications for: All PPSs - Major development; Draft BMAP 2015 - proposals that would result in a loss of existing open space, - proposals that would result in a loss of employment land; - proposals that require the exceptional test to be applied under Policy FLD 1 of PPS 15; and - proposals that would result in the demolition or part demolition of either: - a Listed Building; or - an un-listed building within a Conservation Area that makes a material contribution to the character or appearance of that Conservation Area.

Guidance The Planning Statement should set out how a development proposal takes account of relevant planning policies and other material considerations. It should include: - a description of the site and its surrounding context; - a description of the proposal and why it is needed; - relevant planning history; - summary of the relevant regional and local planning policies, including the Local Development Plan, and how those planning policies have been applied; - other relevant material considerations; - assessment of the key planning issues; - justification for the proposal if it is contrary to planning policy (e.g. loss of open space) or if an exception needs to be applied (e.g. Policy FLD1 of PPS 15); - Heads of Terms if a planning agreement is required (see section 23); and - draft planning conditions in the event that planning permission is granted.

26. Retail Impact A Retail Impact Assessment considers the impacts of proposals for retail or other main town centre uses Assessment (including cultural and community facilities, retail, leisure, entertainment and businesses) on the vitality and viability of the City Centre, Town Centres, District and Local Centres. Policy SPPS When is it required? BUAP A Retail Impact Assessment is required for: Draft BMAP - proposals for retail or other main town centre uses above a threshold of 1,000 sqm not proposed in a town centre location (i.e. primary core, district or local centre) and are not in accordance with the Local Development Plan; or - proposals for an extension to retail or other main town centre uses which would result in the overall development exceeding 1,000 sqm gross external area.

Guidance The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 (SPPS) requires a town centre first approach for the location of future retailing and other main town centre uses. The planning system should protect and enhance diversity in the range of town centre uses appropriate to their role and function, such as leisure, cultural and community facilities, housing and business.

A Retail Impact Assessment considers the impacts of development proposals for retailing and other main town centre uses on the vitality and viability of existing centres in the catchment including the primary retail core; district and local centres. It should include an assessment of: - the impact of the proposal on trade and turnover for both convenience and comparison goods traders, and the impact on town centre turnover overall for all centres within the catchment of the proposal; - the impact of the proposal on existing committed and planned public and private sector investment and investor confidence in the town centre/s; - the impact of the proposals on the delivery of the planned/allocated sites and the LDP strategy; - the impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres including consideration of the local context. This should take into account existing retail mix and the diversity of other facilities and activities. - cumulative impact taking account of committed and planned development, including plan commitments within the town centre and wider area; and, - a review of local economic impacts.

27. Sequential The Sequential Test is used by the City Council to assess whether the application site for retail or a main Test (main town town centre (including cultural and community facilities, retail, leisure, entertainment and businesses use) is centre uses) located within, or as close as possible to the City Centre, Town Centre or District Centre.

Policy When is it required? SPPS The Sequential Test is required for: BUAP - all development proposals for retail or main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are Draft BMAP 2015 not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Development Plan, irrespective of scale.

Guidance The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 2015 (SPPS) requires new retail development and other main town centre uses to be directed to existing centres. Where it is established that an alternative sequentially preferable site or sites exist within a proposal’s whole catchment, an application which proposes development on a less sequentially preferred site should be refused.

The City Council will require applications for retail or main town centre uses to be considered in the following sequential order of preference (and consider all of the proposal’s catchment):

1. primary retail core; 2. city/town/district centres; 3. local centre; 4. edge of centre; and 5. out-of-centre locations, only where sites are accessible by a choice of good public transport modes.

The applicant should submit a written statement with their application that sets out which sequentially preferable sites (in the sequence above) they have considered for the development proposal and the reasons why those sites have been rejected.

28. Student A Student Accommodation Need Statement supports applications for Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation Accommodation (PBMSA). It seeks to ensure that the needs for student accommodation can be met in an Need Statement economically, socially and environmentally sustainable way. Applicants are required to demonstrate that there is a need for the accommodation based on robust evidence. Policy SPPS When is it required? PBMSA SPG A Student Accommodation Need Statement is required for all applications for Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation.

Guidance The City Council’s Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation Supplementary Planning Guidance provides guidance on proposals for PBMSA. Specific advice on need is set out in paragraphs 5.53 – 5.56 of the guidance.

The Student Accommodation Need Statement should provide evidence, as appropriate, to enable the assessment of need, based on known demand and supply indicators at the time within the student housing sector, including details of: - the specific need that is being addressed, with reference to relevant Corporate Plans published by the city’s further and higher education institutions; - why this need is currently unmet; - the type of existing accommodation the potential student occupiers are likely to be drawn from; confirmation that the facilities are to be used exclusively for student accommodation; - any recorded increase in student numbers; - university support, if available; - current waiting lists for student accommodation; and - Bank funding available to deliver proposals.

29. Transport A Transport Assessment is a comprehensive review of all the potential transport impacts of a proposed Assessment development or re-development, with an agreed plan to mitigate any adverse consequences.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Transport Assessment is required where the new development would likely have significant transport PPS 3 implications. Applicants should complete a Transport Assessment Form (TAF) to help establish if a detailed PPS 13 Transport Assessment is needed (see section 30).

The following table provides an indicative guide as to when a Transport Assessment may be required.

Food retail - 1,000 sqm Gross Floor Area

Non-food retail - 1,000 sqm Gross Floor Area Cinemas and conference facilities - 1,000 sqm Gross Floor Area

Leisure facilities - 1,000 sqm Gross Floor Area

Business - 2,500 sqm Gross Floor Area Industry - 5,000 sqm Gross Floor Area Distribution and warehousing - 10,000 sqm Gross Floor Area

Hospitals - 2,500 sqm Gross Floor Area

Higher and further education 2,500 sqm Gross Floor Area Stadia - 1,500 seats Housing – 100 units

Guidance A Transport Assessment is a comprehensive review of all the potential transport impacts of a proposed development, with an agreed plan to mitigate any adverse consequences. The coverage and detail of the Transport Assessment should reflect the scale and the likely extent of transport impacts of the proposed development. Developers need to consider a wide range of options to deal with the transport impacts of a development rather than simply increasing highway capacity to meet demand. Such measures may include the preparation of a Travel Plan (see section 31), travel cards, financial incentives to encourage alternatives to private car use, infrastructure improvements to make walking and cycling more attractive or public transport service improvements.

Further guidance on Transport Assessments is provided by the Department for Infrastructure’s publication, Transport Assessment: Guidelines for Development Proposals in Northern Ireland (November 2006)

30. Transport A Transport Assessment Form is a tool that applicants can use to screen out those applications where no Assessment Form further information on the transport impacts of the proposal is required.

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Transport Assessment Form (TAF) should be submitted for the following types of proposal: PPS 3 - residential comprising 25 or more units PPS 13 - non-residential with a gross floor area of 500 sqm or more - likely to generate 30 or more vehicle movements per hour - likely to generate 10 or more freight movements per day or 5 in any given hour

Guidance Further advice can be found on the Department of Infrastructure Roads website

31. Travel Plan A Travel Plan is a means of mitigating the transportation impacts of new development through long-term management measures to promote sustainable travel. Policy SPPS When is it required? PPS 3 The requirement for a Travel Plan will be informed by a Transport Assessment (see section 29). PPS 13 Guidance A Travel Plan is intended to influence the way people travel to / from new development by encouraging more walking, cycling and public transport use. The transport measures contained in a Travel Plan should address the scale and the anticipated transport impacts of the proposed development and be tailored to the development proposal. Travel Plans that provide a range of coordinated transport measures will be more effective in changing travel behaviour. A Travel Plan can help mitigate the transport and parking impacts associated with proposed developments.

Further guidance on when a Travel Plan and what it should include can be obtained from the Department for Infrastructure Roads Eastern Division.

32. Tree Survey A Tree Survey (or arboricultural survey) assesses the impact of new development on any existing trees that are likely to be affected by the proposal, whether they are within the site or adjacent to it. The Tree Survey Policy will assess the health and condition of the affected and assess their amenity value to the character and SPPS appearance of the area. The survey should also set out measures to protect the trees during construction. PPS 2 PPS 7 When is it required? Creating Places Where the new development has the potential to impact on existing trees on or adjacent to the site (including street trees).

Guidance Applicants will need to satisfy the City Council that new development will not have an adverse impact on important trees within or adjacent the site, and that a high quality and ecologically friendly landscaping scheme can be provided as part of the scheme.

A Tree Survey should be carried out in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations (or any subsequent replacement BS) and should be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced arboriculturalist.

The Tree Survey should include as a minimum: - a plan showing existing trees on or adjacent to the site; - an evaluation of the health, condition and amenity value of the trees affected by the proposal - a proposed layout showing retained trees and Root Protection Areas (RPAs); - a plan showing new tree planting; - Arboricultural Implications Assessment; - existing and proposed finished levels; - Tree Protection Plan; - Arboricultural Method Statement (where applicable), including details for all special engineering within the Root Protection Area (as determined by the Arboricultural Implications Assessment); and - the position of existing and proposed services.

33. Viability A Viability Appraisal assesses whether a development proposal is financially viable. Therefore, that after Appraisal taking account of all costs, the scheme provides a competitive return to the developer to ensure that development takes pace and generates a land value sufficient to persuade a land owner to sell the land for Policy the development proposed. If these conditions are not met, a scheme will not be delivered. SPPS PPS 6 When is it required? Draft Developer A Viability Appraisal will be required in the following circumstances: Contributions - where the applicant believes that the requirement for developer contributions to mitigate or manage the Framework impacts of the proposal would make the scheme unviable; or

- where the applicant believes that it would not be financially viable to retain a Listed Building in its current use, having regard to Policy BH7 of PPS 6 Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage.

Guidance The viability of a development proposal may in some circumstances be a material planning consideration.

A Viability Appraisal should be carried out by a suitably qualified professional such as a quantity surveyor.

The City Council may choose to commission an independent review of the Viability Appraisal, the cost of which will be met by the applicant.

Further advice on viability in the context of developer contributions is provided by the City Council’s draft Developer Contributions Framework

34. Waste A Waste Management Plan sets out how waste will be managed when new development is occupied Management (residential) or operational (commercial).

Policy When is it required? SPPS A Waste Management Plan is required in the following circumstances: PPS 7 - new residential development for which communal waste storage is proposed (e.g. apartments, flats or PPS 12 sheltered housing); or - new commercial development of 500 sqm or more.

Guidance

The Waste Management Plan will establish the volume of waste likely to arise from new development once occupied or operational and sets out the provision for waste storage and access.

The Waste Management Plan should ensure that appropriate provision is made to: - accommodate the total waste generated from the building/s; - accommodate segregation of waste for recycling; - facilitate convenient and safe access and egress for depositing waste and collecting waste.

It should include: - occupier separation (how the occupier will manage waste within their own space) - occupier deposit and storage (how materials will be moved to the communal areas, and how materials will be stored) - collection method (how materials will be collected and by whom, where are the materials stored prior to collection) - removal and or on-site treatment (how materials will be removed from or treated/sorted on site) - end destination (whether materials are to be recycled and how much will end up in landfill)

Further advice on waste storage guidelines can be found on the City Council's website.

This includes the following publications:

 Local Government Waste Storage Guide for Northern Ireland (2010)  Supplementary Waste Storage Guidance for Housing and Apartment developments in Belfast (2017)  Supplementary Waste Storage Guidance for Purpose Built Managed Student Accommodation (PBMSA) (published June 2019)