Councillor a Redpath Vice Chairman

22 December 2016

Chairman: Councillor A Redpath

Vice Chairman: Councillor N Anderson

Aldermen: Alderman D Drysdale, Alderman G Rice MBE, Alderman J Dillon MBE JP

Councillors: Councillor R Beckett, Councillor A Girvin, Councillor U Mackin, Councillor L Poots, Councillor M Tolerton, and Councillor P Catney

The Monthly Meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, on Monday 9 January 2017 at 2.00 pm, for the transaction of business on the undernoted Agenda.

Please note that lunch will be available in The Members Suite from 1.30 pm. Refreshments will also be available in The Members Suite during the adjournment of the meeting at 5.30 pm.

You are requested to attend.

DR THERESA DONALDSON Chief Executive

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes

3.1 Minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 5 December 2016

4. Report from the Lead Head of Development and Planning

4.1 Report from the Planning Manager

4.1.1 Schedule of Applications to be Determined

(1) S/2014/0908/F – Major Application – Application under Section 54 of the 2011 Planning Act to remove holiday occupancy (Condition 2) of approval S/2008/0878/F for holiday home development comprising 58 apartments at land at Annacloy House, 14 Trench Road, Hillsborough

(2) LA05/2016/0831/F – Major Application – New visitor and estates facilities and restoration of historic gardens and proposed works at the upper stableyard, lower site visitor facilities, walled garden, estates operating base, lost garden, upper forecourt and railings, marquee base, carriage drive, Prince’s Charities building, moss walk, conservation stores and workshops and yew tree walk (Amended plans) within Hillsborough Castle Estate, The Square, Hillsborough

(3) Y/2014/0209/F - Local Application (Called In) – Residential development of 8 No dwellings comprising (2 No 1 1/2 storey detached dwellings and 6 No 2 storey semi-detached) including 6 No domestic garages, associated site works, landscaping and all associated road works. (Revised scheme) (Additional plans) at 29 Belvoir View Park, Newtownbreda, Belfast

(4) S/2014/0762/O – Local Application (Called In) – 2 no. proposed dwellings beside 17 Ballinderry Road, Aghalee.

(5) LA05/2016/0507/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed development of two infill dwellings, access and landscaping (additional information) on lands 10 metres east of 127 Ballyskeagh Road, Drumbeg

(6) LA05/2016/0509/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Proposed multi use games area including fencing, changing accommodation, floodlighting, car parking, landscaping and associated works on land 130m south of 60 Holly Mount, Seymour Hill, Dunmurry

(7) LA05/2016/0828/F – Local Application (Exception Applies) – Proposed single storey rear extension and detached store/garage at 23 Windermere Drive, Belfast

(8) LA05/2016/0868/F – Local Application (Exception Applies) – Single storey rear and side extension to create open plan kitchen and living room along with additional bedroom, ensuite, office and utility room at 48 Killeaton Crescent, Dunmurry

(9) LA05/2016/0924/RM – Local Application (Exception Applies) – 1 no. one and a half storey dwelling with detached double garage for private use on land approx.30m north of 28 Bresagh Road, Boardmills, Lisburn

(10) LA05/2016/0530/F – Local Application (Called In) – Proposed replacement of existing storage building with dwelling, detached garage and all other associated site works, including upgrading the existing vehicular access (in lieu of previously approved conversion dwelling under reference Y/2013/0345/F) at 98 Hillsborough Road, Moneyreagh

4.1.2 Correspondence from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) with regard to Consultation on Permitted Development Rights in respect of Mineral Exploration

4.1.3 Development Management – Live Appeals 15 December 2016

4.1.4 Chief Planners Update – December 2016

4.1.5 Correspondence from Department for Infrastructure (DfI) with regard to Guidance on Representations Received for Development Plans

4.2 Scheme of Delegation and Protocol for Planning Committee

4.3 NI Planning Statistics Covering the Second Quarter 2016/17

4.4 Budget Report – Planning Unit

5. Confidential Business

Members are requested to access the Confidential Report on Sharepoint under the Confidential Folder – Planning Committee

5.1 Consideration of the Planning and Building Control Unit’s Draft Estimates of Income and Expenditure for 2017/18

Confidential for reason of information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Council holding that information).

5.2 Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings for January 2017

Confidential for reason of information relating to any individual; information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; and information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

5.3 Rolling Year Absence Figures for the Planning Unit.

Confidential as it is information relating to any individual.

6. Any Other Business --ooOOoo--

To: Members of Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

PC 05 12 2016

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Offices, Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn on Monday 5 December 2016 at 2.00 pm

PRESENT: Councillor A Redpath (Chairman)

Councillor N Anderson (Vice-Chairman)

Aldermen J Dillon MBE JP, D Drysdale, Councillors T Beckett, P Catney, A Girvin, U Mackin, L Poots, M Tolerton

OTHER The Right Worshipful the Mayor, Councillor R B Bloomfield MBE MEMBERS: Alderman J Tinsley

IN ATTENDANCE: Lead Head of Planning & Building Control Planning Manager Principal Planning Officer (RH) Senior Planning Officers (RT, MCO’N, AS and PS) Committee Secretary Attendance Clerk Admin Assistant

Cleaver Fulton & Rankin Kate McCusker (Legal Advisor)

Commencement of Meeting

Legal Advice

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Councillor M Tolerton and agreed that this item be considered ‘in committee’ in the absence of press and public being present due to the fact that it was information which was in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

In Committee

The Council’s Legal Adviser, Ms K McCusker, provided some legal advice regarding Section 76 Planning Agreements and discussion ensued.

Following comments made by Alderman D Drysdale, it was agreed that council officers should leave the meeting for the duration of the discussion.

Council Officers left the meeting at 2.08 pm and Councillor L Poots arrived at 2.08 pm

Resumption of Normal Business

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Alderman D Drysdale and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed. 977

PC 05 12 2016 Council Officers returned to the meeting at 2.40 pm

Commencement of Meeting

The Chairman, Councillor A Redpath, welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Introductions were made by the Chairman and some Housekeeping and Evacuation announcements were made by the Lead Head of Service (Planning & Building Control).

1. Apologies

Apologies for non-attendance at the Meeting were accepted and recorded on behalf of Alderman G Rice.

2. Declarations of Interest

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

The following Declarations of Interest were made:

• Alderman D Drysdale declared an interest in application number LA05/2016/0002/O as he was the Chairman of a local Business Park which had an interest in light engineering and industrial works. He confirmed that he would be withdrawing from the meeting during discussions.

• Councillor U Mackin declared an interest in application numbers S/2014/0874/O and LA05/2015/0541/F as he planned to speak on behalf of residents and, with respect to the latter application, he resided in the area. He confirmed that he would be withdrawing from the meeting during discussions on both applications.

• Councillor L Poots declared an interest in application number LA05/2016/0953/F as he was the applicant. He confirmed that he would be withdrawing from the meeting during discussions.

3. Minutes

It was proposed by seconded by Councillor A Girvin, seconded by Councillor M Tolerton and agreed that the following Minutes be signed subject to the insertion of the words ‘legal agreement and’ between the words ‘to’ and ‘conditions’ on page 929.

• Minutes of Meeting of Planning Committee held on 7 November 2016.

4. Report from the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control

It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below:-

978

PC 05 12 2016 4.1 Report from the Planning Manager

It was agreed that the report and recommendations of the Planning Manager be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below:-

Items for Decision

4.1.1 Schedule of Applications:

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

(2) LA05/2016/0002/O – Major Application – Development of site for residential purposes (housing), public open space, street network to include pedestrian and cycle provision and access to Comber Greenway and Billy Neill Soccer Centre, vehicular access onto Comber Road, landscaping and any other necessary works on land at Comber Road, Dundonald, north of Comber Road, east of Millmount Road and south of the Comber Greenway.

Alderman D Drysdale left the meeting at 2.46 pm having declared an interest in this application.

The Senior Planning Officer (AS) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report advising that there had been three late representations since Reports had been circulated.

The Committee received Mr Peter Carr (Dundonald Green Belt Association) who wished to speak as an objector to the application and who highlighted the following:

• This application was at odds with planning policy. • This application was contrary to BMAP and RDS. • This application was contrary to SPPS which prioritises brownfield sites • This application is contrary to the advice of Invest NI who deem that the land should be retained for employment. • There was a distinct lack of community consultation and what had taken place had been flawed. • This development would not generate a rates windfall as there were other sites in the area which could be developed. • There were more appropriate sites at other locations in Dundonald. • This application will remove potential for job creation in Dundonald, particularly in the Ballybeen area. • The application was not based on housing need. • This site is not required, it will be expensive to service and will result in sprawl.

There then followed a question and answer session.

979

PC 05 12 2016 The Committee received Mr Clyde Shanks and Mr Nolan Watson who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• Material considerations in this case can be justified by the following: 1. A Section 76 Secured Community Benefit – not alluded to in the Officer’s Report. 2. Substantial economic benefit – not alluded to in the Officer’s Report. 3. Absence of demand for employment use – not alluded to in the Officer’s Report. 4. Two transport schemes in the area had been shelved which would have serviced the site – not alluded to in the Officer’s Report. • These four considerations should convince members that the Officer‘s recommendation is incorrect.

There then followed a question and answer session.

The Committee received Ms Joanne Bunting MLA who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• There were four main considerations – zoning, timing, future need and precedent. • The e-way and park & ride schemes had been shelved thus affecting the sites suitability for employment. • There is high demand for residential property in Dundonald. • The Council can re-zone the land in its Local Development Plan. • The Council will gain from the rate base increase. • A Section 76 Agreement will be put in place for community benefit. • There will be economic benefit by way of jobs. • A precedent has already been set at Grove Street East by Belfast City Council. • All statutory consultees have responded positively. • The CEO of Invest NI has confirmed that there has never been an interest in this site for industrial purposes. • Circumstances have changed since BMAP was introduced.

There then followed a question and answer session.

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

• This was waste land currently not being used. He then went on to describe its location and topography. • The debate was around whether it should be used for industry or housing and in his opinion housing was a much better fit. • Local roads do not lend themselves to industry. • The e-way has been shelved and this fact compliments housing development use of the site. • The Comber Greenway is suitable for residential development.

There then followed a question and answer session.

980

PC 05 12 2016 At the culmination of further discussion and ensuing debate, the decision was put to a vote and by a majority of 8:1 with 0 abstentions, it was agreed that the recommendation of the Planning Officer would not be upheld.

(Alderman D Drysdale was unable to vote due to having declared an interest).

The Chairman stated that the Professional Officer's recommendation to refuse planning permission had fallen and that a new motion was now under consideration. Section 45 of the 2011 Planning Act states that in dealing with planning applications, the Council must have regard to the local development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.

It was then proposed by Councillor U Mackin, seconded by Councillor L Poots and by a majority of 8:1 with 0 abstentions it was agreed that the reasons cited for the approval of the application were:

• The economic benefits of the development through the creation of new jobs • The suitability of the site for the proposed development • The absence of any other use for the site

The Chairman declared the application approved for the reasons stated above.

The Chairman then highlighted that because the application had been recommended for refusal, no conditions had been drafted. Conditions would now need to be discussed and agreed in principle with the precise wording of these being delegated to the Head of Planning in accordance with section 7 of the Local Government (NI) Act 2014.

After discussion it was agreed that conditions drafted should include the provision of a Section 76 Agreement and that the precise wording of the conditions should be delegated to the Head of Planning as outlined above.

It was further agreed that, as it was considered that this development did not significantly prejudice the implementation of the Local Development Plan’s objectives, that there was therefore no requirement for it to be forwarded to the Department for Infrastructure.

Adjournment of Meeting

At this stage (4.06 pm) the Chairman, Councillor A Redpath, declared that there would be a brief adjournment.

Resumption of Meeting

The meeting resumed at 4.20 pm and Alderman D Drysdale returned to the meeting.

981

PC 05 12 2016 (4) LA05/2015/0897/F – Local Application (Deferred for information) – Erection of 36 apartments for social housing with on street parking, landscaping and associated works on lands immediately north of junction of Graham Gardens and Wardsborough Road, Lisburn.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) presented this application as outlined within the circulated report advising that it had been deferred at the previous committee meeting pending receipt of additional information on parking considerations.

The Committee received Mr Conor Hughes who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• He wished to thank the committee for the opportunity to have the application reconsidered. • He endorsed the recommendations of the Senior Planning Officer.

There then followed a question and answer session.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the two circulated reports agreed by a majority of 10:0 with 0 abstentions to approve the recommendations as outlined and it was proposed by the Chairman, Councillor A Redpath, seconded by Councillor U Mackin and agreed that the parking provision should continue for a period of ten years.

(5) LA05/2016/0542/F – Local Application – Proposed temporary surface level car park (for a maximum of 2 years) on lands at 24 Antrim Street, Lisburn.

The Legal Adviser, Ms Kate McCusker, left the meeting at 4.33 pm due to a conflict of interest.

The Senior Planning Officer (RT) advised that this application had been approved at the previous month’s committee meeting and that it was now necessary to agree conditions. She highlighted that proposed conditions had been circulated with Reports.

It was proposed by Alderman J Dillon seconded by Councillor P Catney and agreed that the conditions outlined within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer, should be approved.

(6) S/2014/0874/O – Local Application (Exception Applies) – Proposed farm dwelling (amended address and siting) on lands 29m north east of 13, The Grove, Lisburn.

The Legal Advisor, Kate McCusker returned to the meeting at 4.36 pm. Councillor U Mackin left the meeting at 4.37 pm having declared an interest in this application.

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

982

PC 05 12 2016 The Committee received Mrs Patterson who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• She provided information on the ownership of the site. • She advised that the owner’s death had contributed to the confusion. • It had been established that farming had taken place. • Meetings had taken place with planners. • There had been a site survey and relocation of the dwelling suggested and submitted. • DARD has brought forward incorrect information on a development at the site.

There then followed a question and answer session after which it was proposed by Councillor L Poots, seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that this application should be deferred for the period of one month pending clarification of the ownership issues raised in the report.

(7) LA05/2015/0541/F – Local Application (Called in) – Erection of 4 no. semi detached dwellings, with car parking and other associate site works (proposed amendment to residential development previously permitted under references S/2011/0383/F and S/2008/0714/F) on lands approximately 80m north of 14 Mount Royal, Lisburn.

Councillor U Mackin remained outside the meeting for the discussion of this item as he had declared an interest in it.

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

The Committee received Mr Keith Trimble who wished to speak as an objector to the application and who highlighted the following:

• The ‘Creating Places’ document had not been considered. • There were 68 objectors to the scheme. • This was a shared space. • The applicant’s statement is incorrect. • The bus gate is not in place and it should be. • This will set a precedent for future developments.

There then followed a question and answer session.

The Committee received Councillor U Mackin who wished to speak as an objector to the application and who highlighted the following:

• This was a site within a larger development – Ballantine Garden Village. • Access was always to be from Hillhall Road but a through road with a bus gate was approved.

983

PC 05 12 2016 • A new Planning Permission in 2013 to reduce the number of houses was made with a change of access, this then went to appeal and there was no date on the approval for the provision of the bus gate which effectively means that the developer does not have to put it in. • Another application was made which went to appeal and was granted. • The opening of this route creates a rat-run. • This issue cannot be allowed to continue. • A message needs to be sent to those concerned that this must be rectified. • Transport NI recognise the issue. • Perhaps a meeting of Planning Officers and other stakeholders might have influence.

There then followed a question and answer session.

The Committee welcomed Mr Richard O’Toole who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• Approval was previously in place and now slightly re-aligned. • There was no justification to refuse permission. • The bus gate is part of a different scheme.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer and by those attending to make representations, agreed by a majority of 9:0 with 0 abstentions to approve the application as outlined in Officer’s report and subject to the conditions stated.

(Councillor U Mackin was unable to vote as he had declared an interest in this application).

Councillor M Tolerton requested that Council Officers meet with representatives of Transport NI in an attempt to expedite provision of the bus gate.

Adjournment of Meeting

The Chairman declared at 5.30 pm that there would be a 30 minute adjournment during which refreshments would be served in the Members’ Room.

Resumption of Meeting

The meeting resumed at 6.08 pm and Councillor U Mackin returned to the proceedings.

(10) LA05/2016/0648/F – Local Application (Called in) – Replacement dwelling and new access at 11 Lougherne Road, Hillsborough.

Alderman D Drysdale returned to the meeting at 6.10 pm.

At this stage the Chairman, Councillor A Redpath advised that some photographical information had been circulated in respect of this application.

984

PC 05 12 2016 This had been submitted in advance of the meeting but due to an oversight on his part it had not been circulated.

He also advised that for a personal reason he would need to vacate the position of Chairman for a few moments to step outside the meeting and that the Vice- Chairman, Councillor N Anderson would be chairing the next item.

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

The Committee welcomed Mr Andrew McCready who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• There had been no objections to the proposed development. • CTY3 allows for this development, the existing lane-way is dangerous and the applicant does not own the viability splay area. • The applicant wishes to retain out-buildings which has resulted in the development being outside the curtilage area. • The circulated pictures show that it fits well into the local context. • He considers that there is little visual impact over and above the original dwelling.

There then followed a question and answer session.

The Committee welcomed Mr Edwin Poots MLA who wished to speak in support of the application and who highlighted the following:

• The current building is of replacement standard. • Visual impact is not significantly more than the original dwelling. Any modern house is going to be larger than the one it replaces. • The information circulated is accurate and the house can only be seen in one of the images. • The height is less of an issue as it would be cut into the land to reduce its impact.

There then followed a question and answer session

The Committee received Mrs Jenny Palmer MLA who wished to speak in support of the application, and who highlighted the following:

• Regarding the issue of developing outside the curtilage, there were 2 points to consider – the current curtilage was too restrictive and there would be amenity benefit. The current access was dangerous and this applies to the farm business as well as to the residence. • There is an amenity benefit. The owner wants to develop the land as a farming business and the existing house would be in the middle of the farm building area. • The house is larger than the one it replaces, but it will blend well into the site and will not dominate the landscape.

985

PC 05 12 2016 • There is a similar application also being presented tonight and therefore both should be approved.

At the culmination of further discussion and ensuing debate, the decision was put to a vote and by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions, it was agreed that the recommendation of the Planning Officer would not be upheld.

(Alderman D Drysdale was unable to vote as he had not been present for the entire discussion). (The Chairman, Councillor A Redpath was unable to vote as he had not been present for the discussion of the application).

It was then proposed by Councillor U Mackin, seconded by Councillor L Poots and by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions it was agreed that the reasons to be cited for the approval of the application were:

• The suitability of the site given the reduced level dig and improved access • The fact that it is considered by the committee that visual impact of the replacement dwelling is not significantly greater than the one it replaces.

The Chairman declared the application approved for the reasons stated above.

After discussion it was agreed conditions should be drafted by the Head of Planning as referred to above.

Councillor A Girvin left the meeting at 6.53 pm and did not return.

At 6.54 pm the Chairman Councillor A Redpath returned to the meeting and resumed the position of Chairman.

(1) S/2015/0258/F – Major Application – Erection of 127 no. dwellings, comprising detached and semi-detached dwellings, including garages and all other associated site works on lands located to the east of 54 and 56 Magheralave Road, Lisburn.

The Senior Planning Officer (AS) presented the application as outlined in the circulated report.

986

PC 05 12 2016 The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer, agreed by a majority of 9:0 with 0 abstentions to approve the application as outlined in Officer’s report and subject to the conditions stated.

(3) LA05/2016/0953/F – Local Application (Exceptions Apply) – Erection of a dwelling on lands opposite 22 Gardners Road, Lisnastrean, Lisburn.

Councillor L Poots left the meeting at 7.00 pm as he had declared an interest in the application and he did not return.

The Senior Planning Officer, (MCO’N) presented the application as outlined in the circulated report.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer, agreed by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions to approve the application as outlined in Officer’s report and subject to the conditions stated.

(Councillor L Poots was unable to vote as he had declared an interest)

(8) LA05/2015/0752/F – Local Application (Called in) – Erection of dwelling and garage in compliance with planning policy statement 21 CTY 10 on lands 40m north east of 73 Drennan Road, Boardmills, Lisburn.

The Senior Planning Officer (MCO’N) presented the application as outlined in the circulated report.

The Committee, having considered the information provided within the Report of the Senior Planning Officer, agreed by a majority of 8:0 with 0 abstentions to refuse the application for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

(9) LA05/2016/0438/F – Local Application (Called in) – Erection of dwelling in a cluster in accordance with PPS21 CTY2a (amended plans) on lands 40m north of 178 Saintfield Road, Carricknaveagh, Lisburn

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

Items for Noting

4.1.2 Development Management – Live Appeals 24 November 2016

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Alderman D Drysdale and agreed that the Committee note information provided on Live Appeals as at 24 November 2016. 987

PC 05 12 2016 4.1.3 Development Management – Appeal Decisions

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that the Committee note information provided on details of three recent Appeal decisions.

4.1.4 Correspondence from Department for Infrastructure

It was proposed by Alderman D Drysdale, seconded by Councillor M Tolerton and agreed that the Committee note information provided from the Department for Infrastructure referencing an advice document entitled Overview of Planning Enforcement Responsibilities.

4.1.5 Correspondence from Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA)

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that the Committee note correspondence from the NIEA confirming that Belshaw’s Quarry Area as now been designated an ASSI.

4.2. Conference – Planning Reform in Northern Ireland – Progress, Economic Development and Forward Strategy

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney, seconded by Councillor M Tolerton and agreed that the Chairman and/or Vice Chairman or their nominees attend the above conference to be held on Thursday 23 March 2016 in Belfast. Any other member wishing to attend should advise Members’ Services.

4.3 Budget Report – Planning Unit

It was proposed by Councillor M Tolerton, seconded by Alderman J Dillon and agreed that the Committee note a copy of the summary Budget Report for the Planning Unit for the year to 31 March 2017 as at 31 October 2016.

In response to a question from Councillor N Anderson, clarification was provided on income variances by the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control.

5. Confidential Report from the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control

Senior Planning Officers left the meeting at this point (7.30 pm)

It was agreed that the reports and recommendations of the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control be adopted, subject to any decisions recorded below.

The Chairman advised that the following items would be discussed ‘in Committee’ for the following reasons:

5.1.1 This item was confidential for reason of information relating to any individual; information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; and information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. 988

PC 05 12 2016 5.1.2 This item was confidential due to it being information relating to any individual.

5.1.3 This item was confidential due to it being information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

5.1.4 This item was confidential due to it being information in relation to which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

‘In Committee’

It was proposed by Councillor N Anderson, seconded by Councillor P Catney and agreed that the items in the Confidential Report be considered ‘In Committee’, in the absence of press and public being present.

5.1.1 Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings in December 2015

Having been provided with information on Enforcement Cases with Court Proceedings in December 2016 it was agreed that the information provided within the Report should be noted.

5.1.2 Rolling Year Absence Figures for the Planning Unit

The Committee noted information as circulated providing information of the rolling year absence statistics for the Planning Unit and Director’s Administration team for the period 1 April 2015 to 30 September 2016.

5.1.3 Request for a Pre-determination Hearing in respect of a forthcoming Application

The Committee agreed to accede to the request for a pre-determination hearing in respect of a forthcoming application as outlined by the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control and the Principal Planning Officer (RH).

It was agreed that in advance of this, research on best practice is carried out by officers and an update provided at the next meeting of the Committee.

5.1.4 Update on application number S/2014/0908/F

The Chairman, Councillor A Redpath left the meeting during discussion of this item (at 7.34 pm) as he had declared an interest in it when it had originally been determined by the Committee.

The position of Chairman was taken by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor N Anderson.

It was proposed by Councillor M Tolerton, seconded by Councillor P Catney and agreed that Members note the information provided by the Legal Adviser on the above previously agreed application and that the following action should be taken:

(a) that the Legal Adviser write to the Department for Infrastructure highlighting that there is no need for this application to be re-presented to the Committee for consideration. 989

PC 05 12 2016

(b) if the above request is not acceded to by the Department, then the application should be expedited as swiftly as possible.

(c) that in future there is an assumption by planning officers that the default position is that applications are not forwarded to the Department for Infrastructure as a matter of course.

5.1.5 Update on Legacy Applications

Members noted information on an initiative to address legacy applications, which had recently been put in place by the Lead Head of Planning and Building Control, stating that they wished to express their thanks to all concerned.

Resumption of Normal Business

It was proposed by Councillor P Catney seconded by Councillor M Tolerton and agreed to come out of committee and normal business was resumed.

The Chairman, Councillor A Redpath returned to the meeting at 8.05 pm and took the position of Chairman.

7. Any Other Business

Preferred Options Paper Lead Head of Planning and Building Control

Members noted that this would be brought to a Special Meeting of the Committee which would hopefully be held in February. A further update will be provided at the next meeting of the Committee in January.

NILGA Planning Workshop

Members noted information on a NILGA event scheduled for 13 December 2016.

There being no further business, the meeting concluded at 8.20 pm.

______CHAIRMAN / MAYOR

990

LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 JANUARY 2017

REPORT BY THE LEAD HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to set out for Members’ consideration a number of Planning Matters.

The following decisions are required:

1. To consider the report by the Planning Manager 2. To note the reviewed Scheme of Delegation and Protocol of the Planning Committee 3. To note information regarding NI Planning Statistics 2016/17 covering the second quarter of 2016/17 4. To note the budget report for the Planning Unit

ITEMS FOR DECISION

1. REPORT BY THE PLANNING MANAGER

Attached at APPENDIX 1 is a report by the Planning Manager.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the Planning Manager’s report.

ITEMS FOR NOTING

2. SCHEME OF DELEGATION AND PROTOCOL FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE

Attached at APPENDIX 2 and 3 are copies of the Scheme of Delegation and Protocol for the Planning Committee. Members will be aware that the review was requested to be completed following year one of the Planning Committee activities. The review has taken on board the comments of both officers and Members. They have also been reviewed by our legal advisers, and their comments incorporated. Both documents were considered and agreed at the December Development Committee and full Council on 20 December 2016 and has been forwarded to the Department for consideration and agreement.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note the reviewed Scheme of Delegation and Protocol for the Planning Committee.

3. NI PLANNING STATISTICS COVERING THE SECOND QUARTER 2016/17

The Department for Infrastructure NI Planning Statistics covering the second quarter of 2016/17 were issued on 15 December 2016. The publication presents a summary of NI planning volumes and processing performances at Council level.

A copy of the publication can be accessed via the link:

https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-planning-statistics- july-september-2016

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note this information.

4. BUDGET REPORT – PLANNING UNIT

Attached at APPENDIX 4 for the information of Members is a copy of the summary Budget Report for the Planning Unit for the year to 31 March 2017 as at 31 November 2016.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note this information.

IAN WILSON LEAD HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL 19 December 2016 APPENDIX 1 LISBURN & CASTLEREAGH CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 January 2017

REPORT BY THE PLANNING MANAGER

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to set out for Member’s consideration a number of recommendations specifically relating to the operation of the new Council.

The following decisions are required:

1. To consider the Schedule of Applications to be determined.

2. To consider the consultation paper from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) on proposals to amend permitted development rights in respect of mineral exploration.

3. To note the live appeals as at 15 December 2016.

4. To note the Planning Update from the Chief Planner-Department for Infrastructure (DfI), that provides updates and guidance on a number of issues, including details of the decision by the High Court in relation to the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP).

5. To note Revised Development Plan Practice Note 09 from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) relating to the submission and handling of representations.

ITEMS FOR DECISION

1. SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

1.1 S/2014/0908/F – Major Application – Application under Section 54 of the 2011 Planning Act to remove holiday occupancy (Condition 2) of approval S/2008/0878/F for holiday home development comprising 58 apartments at land at Annacloy House, 14 Trench Road, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.1PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.2 LA05/2016/0831/F – Major Application – New visitor and estates facilities and restoration of historic gardens and proposed works at the upper stableyard, lower site visitor facilities, walled garden, estates operating base, lost garden, upper forecourt and railings, marquee base, carriage drive, Prince’s Charities building, moss walk, conservation stores and workshops and yew tree walk (Amended plans) within Hillsborough Castle Estate, The Square, Hillsborough. Attached at APPENDIX 1.2PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.3 Y/2014/0209/F - Local Application (Called In) – Residential development of 8 No dwellings comprising (2 No 1 1/2 storey detached dwellings and 6 No 2 storey semi- detached) including 6 No domestic garages, associated site works, landscaping and all associated road works. (Revised scheme) (Additional plans) at 29 Belvoir View Park, Newtownbreda, Belfast. Attached at APPENDIX 1.3PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the report.

1.4 S/2014/0762/O – Local Application (Called In) – 2 no. proposed dwellings beside 17 Ballinderry Road, Aghalee. Attached at APPENDIX 1.4PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.5 LA05/2016/0507/O – Local Application (Called in) – Proposed development of two infill dwellings, access and landscaping (additional information) on lands 10 metres east of 127 Ballyskeagh Road, Drumbeg. Attached at APPENDIX 1.5PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.6 LA05/2016/0509/F – Local Application (Mandatory) – Proposed multi use games area including fencing, changing accommodation, floodlighting, car parking, landscaping and associated works on land 130m south of 60 Holly Mount, Seymour Hill, Dunmurry. Attached at APPENDIX 1.6PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.7 LA05/2016/0828/F – Local Application (Exception Applies) – Proposed single storey rear extension and detached store/garage at 23 Windermere Drive, Belfast. Attached at APPENDIX 1.7PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.8 LA05/2016/0868/F – Local Application (Exception Applies) – Single storey rear and side extension to create open plan kitchen and living room along with additional bedroom, ensuite, office and utility room at 48 Killeaton Crescent, Dunmurry. Attached at APPENDIX 1.8PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.9 LA05/2016/0924/RM – Local Application (Exception Applies) – 1 no. one and a half storey dwelling with detached double garage for private use on land approx.30m north of 28 Bresagh Road, Boardmills, Lisburn. Attached at APPENDIX 1.9PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Approved for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

1.10 LA05/2016/0530/F – Local Application (Called In) – Proposed replacement of existing storage building with dwelling, detached garage and all other associated site works, including upgrading the existing vehicular access (in lieu of previously approved conversion dwelling under reference Y/2013/0345/F) at 98 Hillsborough Road, Moneyreagh. Attached at APPENDIX 1.10PM is a copy of a report together with a location map in relation to this application.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee considers the report from the Planning Manager and determines whether planning permission should be Refused for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report.

2. CORRESPONDENCE FROM DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (DfI) WITH REGARD TO CONSULTATION ON PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF MINERAL EXPLORATION

Attached at APPENDIX 2PM is a letter regarding a consultation paper from DfI on proposals to amend permitted development rights in respect of mineral exploration.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Members consider the consultation paper and respond with any comments to the Planning Manager by Friday, 20th January 2017 to enable the Council to make a response.

ITEMS FOR NOTING

3. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – Live appeals 15 December 2016

Attached at APPENDIX 3PM are details of Appeals received as of 15 December 2016.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note the information in relation to Appeals.

4. CHIEF PLANNER'S UPDATE - DECEMBER 2016

Attached at APPENDIX 4PM is an Update from the Chief Planner (Department for Infrastructure) on a number of relevant planning matters, including details of the recent High Court decision in relation to the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP).

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note this information.

5. CORRESPONDENCE FROM DEPARTMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE (DfI) WITH REGARD TO GUIDANCE ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Attached at APPENDIX 5PM is Revised Development Plan Practice Note 09 from DfI relating to the submission and handling of representations.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Committee note this information.

BARBARA ELLIOTT PLANNING MANAGER 19 December 2016 APPENDIX 1.1PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 5 September 2016 Meeting

Committee Interest Major Application

Application Reference S/2014/0908/F

Date of Application 23 December 2014

District Electoral Area Downshire West

Proposal Description Application under Section 54 of the 2011 Planning Act to remove holiday occupancy (Condition 2) of approval S/2008/0878/F for holiday home development comprising 58 apartments.

Location Lands at Annacloy House,14 Trench Road, Hillsborough

Applicant/Agent David Wilson/Resolve Planning

Representations 25+ letters of support

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

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

2. Members will wish to note that two section 54 applications were being considered in tandem until 19 July 2016 when the Agent gave notification that one of the applications was being withdrawn (S/2014/0907/F).

3. The remaining application S/2014/0908/F is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse.

Description of Site and Surroundings

4. The Hillsborough Golf Resort development proposal is located on an 81 hectare site on the edge of Hillsborough Village, to the west of the A1 dual carriageway.

5. The development associated with planning application S/2006/0878/F and S/2014/0908/F is located on the eastern side of Trench Road. The site includes an existing farmhouse and outbuildings at Annacloy House and the extensive barns to the rear of the enclosed farm yard.

6. The land generally rises to the north and west of the site. The site when viewed from the south is open and elevated about the level of the road making it a prominent site in the landscape.

Proposed Development

7. Application under Section 54 of the 2011 Planning Act to remove holiday occupancy (Condition 2) of approval S/2008/0878/F for holiday home development comprising 58 apartments at land at Annacloy House at 14 Trench Road, Hillsborough.

8. Condition 2 of approval S/2008/0878/F reads as follows

The development hereby permitted shall be used only for holiday accommodation and shall not be used for permanent residences.

Reason: The development is located within the Countryside where it is the policy of the Department to restrict development and this consent is granted solely because of its proposed holiday use.

9. The application seeks the removal of the restrictive occupancy condition associated with the earlier approval S/2008/0878/F to ‘enable’ the development of the wider Hotel/Golf resort development.

10. The removal of this condition will effectively allow for all of the 58 holiday homes to become permanent residential dwellings.

11. The application is made under section 54 of the Planning 2011 Act - Permission to develop land without compliance with conditions. The application seeks planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

12. Guidance from the Department states that on receipt of such an application the planning authority must consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. The original planning permission will continue to exist whatever the outcome, i.e. permission for 58 holiday homes approved on 9 April 2009.

Relevant Planning History

13. There are several approvals associated with the application site. The planning history associated with the application site is highlighted in blue in the table below.

Reference Address Proposal Description Decision S/2003/0933/O Land at Trench Proposed hotel and country 10 May 2004 Road, club to including conference Hillsborough facilities, hotel bar and restaurant, leisure complex and golf course clubhouse.

S/2003/0853/F Land at Trench Change of use of agricultural 26 Feb 2008 Road, land to use as 18-Hole Hillsborough. championship golf course to include driving range, practice greens and golf academy.

S/2004/1331/O Lands at Annacloy Self-catering accommodation 6 April 2005 House, Trench linked to approved golf course. Road, Hillsborough

S/2008/0340/RM Lands at Annacloy Self-catering accommodation 11 March House, Trench linked to approved golf course. 2009 Road, Hillsborough.

Reference Address Proposal Description Decision S/2005/0532/F Land between New access off Moira Road to 1 February Hillsborough Road serve approved Country Club 2006 and Moira Road, and Hotel and proposed Golf Hillsborough Course.

S/2006/0880/F Land adjacent to Construction of a 9 hole, par 3 1 March 2007 Millvale Road, Golf Course with 54 No. self- Hillsborough catering holiday units, sales, admin, and housekeeping building, construction of new access, landscape planting and ancillary site works

S/2006/1399/RM Land at Trench Proposed hotel and country 26 February Road, club to include conference 2008 Hillsborough facilities, hotel bar & restaurant, leisure complex and golf course club house

S/2006/1203/O Lands to the Tennis facilities in association 6 September north-east of with approved resort hotel and 2007 Moira Road, golf course Hillsborough

S/2008/0878/F Lands at Annacloy Construction of holiday homes 9 April 2009 House, 14 Trench development comprising 15 Road, apartments within Mansion Hillsborough, House, 43 apartments within a BT26 6JL courtyard development and two replacement dwellings.

S/2004/0920/O Lands approx. Replacement dwelling. Appeal 800m East of dismissed Annacloy House, Trench Road, Hillsborough

S/2004/0921/O Lands approx. Replacement dwelling. Appeal 800m East of dismissed Annacloy House, Trench Road, Hillsborough

S/2004/0900/O Lands approx. Replacement dwelling. Appeal 800m East of dismissed Annacloy House, Trench Road, Hillsborough.

Reference Address Proposal Description Decision S/2012/0098/F Lands adjacent to Application under Article 28 to 9 May 2005 Millvale Road, vary conditions 5, 6, 9, 11, and Hillsborough 15 of approval S/2006/0880/F to allow commencement of the first unit prior to completion of the highway and landscaping works, and variation of condition 16 to require completion of works identified in Drawing Number IBT0012/012 Rev C prior to occupation of the approved units

S/2014/0039/F Lands at Annacloy Application under Article 28 to 11 March House, 14 Trench vary conditions 5 and 6 of 2009 Road, approval S/2008/0878/F to Hillsborough allow commencement of the first unit prior to completion of the highway works, and variation of condition 8 to require completion of the works identified in Drawing Number IBT0012/229 prior to occupation of the approved units.

S/2014/0907/F Land adjacent to Construction of 54 No Self- Withdrawn 19 Millvale Road, catering holiday units July 2016 Hillsborough. (application under Article 28 to remove condition 2 of approval S/2006/0880/F

S/2014/0908/F Lands at Annacloy Construction of holiday home Pending House, 14 Trench development comprising 58 Road, apartments (application under Hillsborough Article 28 to remove condition 2 of approval S/2008/0878/F).

14. It is important to note that none of these applications have been progressed.

Planning Policy Context

15. The relevant planning policy and guidance context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 16 – Tourism . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 – Quality Residential Environments . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 – Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Enabling Development

Consultations

16. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response NI Water (Multi Units) No comment, lack of information.

Transport NI Transport NI offers no objection to this development proposal.

NI Tourist Board Provides information on the potential tourism benefits of the elements of the proposed development which would remain should Condition 2 be removed.

NIEA – Water Management No comment, lack of information Unit Environmental Health No Objection

Consideration and Assessment

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

. Previous Consents . Precedent . Development Plan Context - Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan - Emerging Local Development Plan . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Integration and Design Considerations - Rural Character . Enabling Development . Quality Residential Environments - Inadequate Private Amenity Space - Unassigned Car Parking - Potential Overlooking - Drainage Considerations . Access, Movement and Parking . Other Material Considerations - Economic Considerations - Tourism Considerations - Enabling Development - Representations - Examples from other jurisdictions - Hillsborough Golf & Leisure Brochure – hand delivered 20 July 2016 - Hillsborough Tourism Master Plan – hand delivered 21 July 2016

Previous Consents

18. The planning chronology is set out in the Planning History section above in Paragraph 13. It is evident from the planning history that there are various approvals granted for Hotel and Golf Resort and associated tourist accommodation at this location.

19. A series of planning applications have been approved i.e. for an 18 hole golf course, a 150 bed hotel and a total of 112 holiday homes along with several more recent approvals to remove conditions in order to commence development and secure the permissions.

20. It is important to note that the rationale for the granting these tourism related projects was based on detail associated with the De Vere report model.

21. Supporting detail was submitted with the Hotel and Golf Resort application(s) in order to establish the principle of development at this countryside location. The De Vere model advised that the target model would be 90 luxury holiday lodges with the sites (including that associated with Planning Application S/2008/0878/F) being chosen for their proximity to the proposed golf course. Furthermore, it was considered that their compact nature would allow for efficient site management in terms of both maintenance and site management.

22. The report also claimed that the 90 unit model was based on a ‘sound and consistent business plan’. Based on the business plan presented, the report (DeVere) was confident that the project would result in a highly successful development and a flagship for this type of resort in Northern Ireland.

23. Lodges (holiday homes) were designed for use as overspill for the hotel when there were large conferences/events. It was claimed that the high marketing costs of the high quality self-catering accommodation made small numbers of lodges unfeasible.

24. It is also important to note that concerns were expressed by residents and noted on file in the earlier approval under S/2006/0880/F which issued on 1 August 2007. These concerns related to the potential for the holiday lodges to be used for permanent homes. In addressing these concerns, assurances were given by the Department that the holiday occupancy condition would be attached to the decision notice thereby preventing the Units from being used as places of permanent residence.

Precedent

25. Planning Application S/2008/0878/F - Construction of holiday homes development comprising 15 apartments within Mansion House, 43 apartments within a courtyard development and two replacement dwellings on lands at Annacloy House, 14 Trench Road, Hillsborough was approved by the Department on 9 April 2009.

26. This current application seeks the removal of condition 2 which states:

The development hereby permitted shall be used only for holiday accommodation and shall not be used for permanent residences.

27. The condition was imposed because the development proposed within the context of planning application S/2008/0878/F was one that was located within a countryside location where the policy is to restrict development. The permission was granted solely because of its proposed holiday use in association with the Hotel and Golf resort.

28. The removal of condition 2 would result in unrestricted residential development in this countryside location. It is contended that the condition effectively goes to the heart of the permission as the description of the 2008 permission will still read as follows:

Construction of holiday homes development comprising 15 apartments within Mansion House, 43 apartments within a courtyard development and two replacement dwellings.

29. Furthermore, its removal will result in development that is contrary to the Local Development Plan (BMAP) and key policy tests which seek to deliver sustainable and quality residential environments.

30. The removal of the occupancy condition, if allowed, would set an unwelcome precedent for the development of unfettered housing in the countryside and result in a development that is contrary to the Local Development Plan.

Development Plan Context

31. The application site lies outside of the settlement limit of Hillsborough and within a countryside location as defined by the Local Development Plan (BMAP 2015).

Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan

32. Previous efforts were made by the applicant to have the lands included within the defined settlement limits of Hillsborough as part of the BMAP process, when a number of representations were made seeking the inclusion of land within the limit. The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) Report into objections to BMAP (2011/A002) concluded that the main plank of the objector’s argument related to planning permissions for a major golf course and tourism development on lands to the west of the site.

33. The Commissioner did not consider that this tourism development justified the inclusion of the lands within the settlement limits.

34. The PAC report concluded that the inclusion of the site combined with the holiday cottages would constitute significant expansion in one direction together with urban sprawl, and would therefore not provide a logical settlement form.

35. The evidence was that outline planning permission for the golf course had been granted at the time of the Inquiry and that full planning permissions were partially granted and the remainder were imminent. The agent indicated that work would start straight away. However, no building works or golf holes were present on site at the time of visits by the Commission. The report concluded that this weakened the objectors’ case further and as such, no change to the Plan resulted.

36. The SPPS, published in September 2015, reinforces the importance of the plan led system. It states that the Local Development Plan (LDP) process will play an important role for councils in identifying key features and assets in the countryside and balancing the needs or rural areas and communities with the protection of the environment.

Emerging Local Development Plan

37. Furthermore, where a new LDP is under preparation, it may be justifiable, in some circumstances, to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. This is in respect of developments which are so substantial, that to grant planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan process by pre-determining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought to be taken in the Local Development Plan (LDP) process.

38. Based on an analysis of housing monitor statistics collated by the Local Development Plan team, there are 18 hectares zoned for housing remaining undeveloped within the settlement limits of Hillsborough & Culcavy.

39. In effect, it is considered that this application to remove a condition will result in the development of some 58 homes in the countryside and will prejudice the outcome of the emerging Plan for Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council area as a whole.

Principle of Development

40. The site is located entirely within the countryside, and outside of the settlement limits of Hillsborough, where there is a presumption against development unless the proposal meets one of the listed exceptions, or there are over riding reasons (Policy CTY 1).

41. With the transfer of the planning function to local government on 1 April 2015, the assessment of applications is strongly influenced the Plan Led System established by the Planning Act 2011. Therefore in making any determination under this Act, regard is to be had to the Local Development Plan and the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

42. The SPPS states that until the Council adopts the Plan Strategy for its new Local Development Plan there will be a transitional period in operation. During this period, planning policy within existing retained documents and guidance

will apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

43. Strategic Policy also directs that planning authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance (Para 5.72).

44. As referenced above, it is considered that this application to remove condition 2 of planning permission S/2008/0878/F goes to the heart of the earlier permission. Its effect will result in development for permanent residences outside the settlement limits which in principle is fundamentally unacceptable and contrary to the vision and objectives of the RDS and the current and emerging Local Development Plan which seek to direct housing to established settlements within the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council area as a whole.

45. It is important to note that the agent is relying upon ‘other material considerations’ being awarded significant weight to overcome the fact that the proposal is contrary to the Local Development Plan.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

46. The fact that the application site lies outside the settlement limits of Hillsborough as defined in BMAP, PPS 21 is a key policy consideration.

47. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside, sets out planning policies for development in the countryside. It lists a range of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

Development in the Countryside

48. Policy CTY1 – Development in the Countryside sets out the range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside, and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

49. Policy CTY 1 identifies two instances where housing development may be permitted in the Countryside. These include (i) a small group of houses in a Dispersed Rural Community and (ii) the provision of affordable Social Housing.

50. No case has been put forward to allow the application to be considered under either of these policy tests. The rationale put forward for the proposed removal of the holiday accommodation condition is as follows

a. It will make the approved hotel and golf course viable in the long term; b. It will result in the realisation of significant social, economic and community benefits to the wider region. By way of summary, these are - Anticipated annual visitor spend of £10 million to be added to the local economy; - Job creation opportunities and benefits to Council associated with additional new residents; - Capital investment in tourist industry of £60million; - Provision of walking/cycling and jogging paths around periphery of Golf Course along with other facilities; - Stable employment with accredited training; - No environmental or visual impact; - No harmful precedent set as approved layout and association with Golf resort is to be retained.

51. It is important to note that the majority of the Economic, Social and Community benefits cited within the supporting statements are directly associated with the delivery of the wider tourist project. Benefits associated with job creation and employment opportunities will still be realised.

52. The explanatory notes for Policy CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside reinforces the countryside as a recreational resource and tourist asset. The

planning history associated with the application and wider site recognises the potential of the countryside to support tourism through the development of a Hotel and Golf resort.

53. This application seeks to remove a tourist occupancy condition to allow apartments and homes to be used for permanent residency.

54. No over-riding reasons have been demonstrated for removing the condition to allow 58 dwellings in the countryside nor has it been demonstrated why the development could not have been located within any other settlement limits within the Council Area and the revenue from private sales re-invested back into the Hotel and Golf Resort project. The agent is reliant upon greater material weight being attached to the economic benefits cited to overcome the principle of development.

55. The application to remove condition 2 fails the key policy tests associated with Policy CTY 1. In reaching this conclusion, consideration has been given to the extant permission for the 58 Holiday homes which within the context of PPS 16 – Tourism are entirely policy compliant as this policy allows for such development in countryside locations subject to a holiday occupancy condition being associated with any approval granted.

Integration and Design of Buildings

56. Strategic Policy directs that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character and be appropriately designed.

57. Policy CTY 13 - Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that Planning Permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually integrated into the surrounding landscape and it is of an appropriate design.

58. The policy in this context refers to development within a rural area. It does not support development of a character that would typically be found with settlement limits.

59. The detailed drawings associated with the application illustrate that removing condition 2 will result in a residential development that comprises 15 apartments set out as a standalone manor along with 43 terrace houses set out in a courtyard form. The apartments will be 3 storey in height and the terraces, typically 2 storey with a mixture of render and stonework finishes.

60. An application for permanent residences should be of a design that is appropriate for the site and its locality. It is acknowledged that the design and integration standards applied to the current approval for tourist accommodation have been accepted within the context of the overall tourist scheme and that the scale, form and massing of these buildings are of a nature/layout that is conducive to that of a Hotel and Golf Resort.

61. Removing condition 2 serves to separate this holiday accommodation element from the wider Hotel and Golf Resort development. From an integration and design perspective, this is a fundamental change to what was approved under planning application S/2008/0878/F.

62. The level of integration and design is not of a standard that would be acceptable in a countryside location as a stand-alone housing application. The ancillary works required for permanent housing, such as defined curtilages, in curtilage parking along with practical provision for washing lines, and private bin storage have not been provided for by the approved application.

63. Whilst this detail cannot be considered within the context of this section 54 application, it is contended that introducing such elements to a development of this scale at this countryside location will result in a development form that will be out of keeping with the design of buildings in the countryside.

Rural Character

64. Strategic Policy directs that all development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character and be appropriately designed.

65. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of the area.

66. Whilst it is accepted that planning permission has been granted for 58 holiday accommodation units, this approval was granted on the basis that the units would be used in association with a wider Hotel and Golf Resort initiative

67. The approved development was deemed acceptable in terms of rural character because it was designed to be used as tourist accommodation in conjunction with the Hotel and Golf resort development.

Quality Residential Environments

68. PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments sets out planning polices for achieving quality in new residential developments. The removal of condition 2 has the effect of creating a new residential development in the countryside.

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

70. Policy QD1 sets out the criteria which new development should conform to. This includes respecting the surrounding context and landscape features; provision of open space; movement patterns; and adequate parking provision. The design and layout should draw on the positive aspects of the surrounding context.

71. As indicated above, the application seeks to remove the restrictive occupancy condition associated with an earlier approval S/2008/0878/F to ‘enable’ the development of the wider Hotel/Golf resort development.

72. From a quality residential environment perspective, this section 54 application does not allow for amendments/issues associated with a previously approved scheme to be considered/addressed.

73. The principle of this development (S/2008/0878/F) was approved solely with the intended use as holiday accommodation in association with the Hotel and Golf resort. The assessment would have been based on standards for holiday accommodation in terms of size, private amenity provision, parking, permitted development rights and overlooking etc. These standards would differ from those applied to applications for private housing developments.

74. In considering the detail of the proposed development which comprises 15 Apartments and 43 homes within the context of permanent residency, the following issues arise.

Inadequate Private Amenity Space

75. Removing condition 2 of planning approval S/2008/0878/F will result in development for permanent residence of varying forms which demand different amenity standards. By way of summary, the following the following units are approved under S/2008/0878/F and are subject to the holiday occupancy condition.

Unit Type No. of Units Type Pavilions 4 3 bedroom semi-detached dwellings. Annacloy House 13 2 bedroom apartments Annacloy House 2 3 bedroom apartments Replacement dwellings 2 large 4 bedroom semi-detached dwellings Courtyard development 3 2 bedroom terraced dwellings Courtyard development 26 3 bedroom terraced dwellings Courtyard development 10 4 bedroom terraced dwellings TOTAL 60

76. With holiday accommodation, there is a lesser standard for private amenity space compared with that required for places of permanent residency. This is 17

because the accommodation does not need to meet the quality residential environments standards expected for permanent houses.

77. An owner of a private house would expect to have a defined curtilage and adequate space for domestic related activities, amenity/garden space for children, places to hang washing and space for ancillary domestic buildings/sheds/greenhouses/ garages in curtilage parking areas etc.

78. The approved scheme (S/2008/0878/F) makes no provision for private amenity space. A number of the 39 terraced dwellings have been approved without the minimum private amenity space provision of 70 m sq. per unit.

Unassigned car parking

79. It is acknowledged that the scheme approved under planning application S/2008/0878/F provides for 120 unassigned parking spaces which is acceptable numerically for the minimum number for parking standard provision.

80. However, the removal of condition 2 will result in a scheme that fails to provide in-curtilage parking provision.

Potential overlooking

81. As tourist related accommodation, the standards and distances for overlooking are less when compared to those associated with a private residential development because the nature of such accommodation is that people will only occupy it on a one off/seasonal basis. The absence of private amenity space removes potential issues with overlooking.

82. Removing condition 2 and allowing the Units to be occupied as places of private residency means that the minimum standards for overlooking will not have been assessed in accordance with PPS 7. Again, there is no scope to address such issues within context of this section 54 application.

Compatibility with surrounding land uses

83. It is important to note that both the Hotel and Golf Resort will attract visitors that will access the facility via what will now be a residential area. It is considered that this could result in conflict in terms of noise nuisance and may create other amenity impacts associated with a Tourist development of this nature/scale.

84. This is an application to remove a condition associated with planning permission S/2008/0878/F thus the issues outlined above cannot be addressed within the context of this application. In light of this, it is contended that removing condition 2 will result in a residential development that will fail a number of the key policy tests associated with PPS 7 – Quality Residential Environments.

Drainage considerations

85. Having looked at the previous permission S/2008/0878/F for the overall approval, NIEA stated that consent to discharge would be required. A letter from RPS dated 15 December 2008 stated that they wished to clarify that it is proposed to service the Hillsborough Golf Resort by connecting sewage flows from all areas of the development and pumping the flows directly into Hillsborough WWTW. This proposal was agreed by NI Water as part of the planning process for the Hotel and Golf Course applications. NI Water have confirmed in a letter dated August 2007 that whilst they had no objection, their proposal to pump foul discharge to Hillsborough required a private sewage pumping station that would not be adopted by NI Water. They also stated that attenuation of the foul flows maybe required, along with a stipulated pumping regime to avoid peak flows arriving at the works.

86. Both Water Management Unit and NIW have been consulted with this section 54 application (S/2014/0908/F) and both have commented that there is insufficient information contained within the application to allow them to provide meaningful comment.

87. That said, it is important to note that the previous comments were made on the basis that these homes were for tourist occupation/use and not permanent residences. This section 54 application (to remove condition 2) does not allow for the impacts on the drainage/sewage network to be considered.

Access, Movement and Parking

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

89. Private Street Determination standards have been satisfied for the development in association with wider Hotel and Golf resort project. The arrangements for parking within what will be a residential development will not have been assessed and there is no scope for this do be undertaken within the context of this section 54 application.

Other Material Considerations

90. In assessing applications, it is important that all relevant material considerations are carefully taken into account. This includes the applicant’s supporting information and the argument that the sale of housing is necessary in order to make the implementation of the Hotel and Golf Report economically viable. It is noteworthy that the statements and reports provided by the applicant, relate to the two applications that were initially submitted to remove conditions. The documents have not been updated to reflect the impact of the withdrawal of applications S/2014/0907/F on 19 July 2016 which resulted in the number of units under consideration being effectively halved.

Economic Considerations

91. Strategic Planning Policy recognises that furthering sustainable development in the long term public interest requires the integration and balancing of complex

social, economic and environmental factors and whilst policy does not seek to promote one factor over another, it acknowledges that in practice, the relevance of, and weight to be given to social, economic and environmental considerations is a matter of planning judgement. Sustainable development is about ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

92. Supporting Sustainable and Economic Growth is one of the core planning principles associated with the SPPS. Strategic Policy states that in assessing the positive and negative economic implications of planning applications, planning authorities should ensure that the approach followed is proportionate to the scale, complexity and impact of the proposed development. When taking account of the implications of proposals for job creation, planning authorities should emphasis the potential of proposals to deliver sustainable medium to long-term employment growth. Appropriate weight needs to be given to both the public interest of local communities and of the wider region.

93. The Agent has provided considerable supporting information and detail on the economic, social and community benefits of the delivery of the Hillsborough Golf and Leisure Resort (the project) as a whole. This included the following reports that focused on economic matters.

a. October 2006 DE VERE Resort Ownership– this report formed the basis for the earlier decisions in respect of the Hotel and Golf Resort Project and associated holiday accommodation developments. The view expressed in this report was that the location of the holiday homes would enable the Golf Resort to gain an international reputation.

b. December 2014 Golf Resort Economic Impact Assessment carried out by Ryden, a property consultant firm – this report was submitted to show the Economic Impact Assessment for the development based on the removal of conditions in respect of some 112 holiday homes. As indicated above, this report concluded that all 112 units were essential to facilitate the necessary cross funding to make the development viable. The report

makes reference to the total build being estimated at £61 million and to it offering 244 full time jobs over the 5 year construction period.

c. 30 October 2014 Review of Proposed Residential Housing carried out by Simon Brien Residential – this review claimed that there was a shortage of new build housing for a range of property types and acknowledges that Hillsborough is a unique location with a distinct housing market for an older wealthier population. This report aimed to support the need for housing for Hillsborough, however the Council has evidence to indicate that there are 18ha of land zoned within the settlement limits of Hillsborough which has yet to be developed.

d. December 2014 Resolve/McAleer and Rushe Appraisal – this appraisal acknowledged that without the additional residential houses (of 112) the principle is not viable. (Page 19 paragraph 8.2). The analysis from the appraisal was based on the assumption that both applications would be approved. The appraisal assumed that with 112 dwellings to sell, a net profit of £8 million could be generated. A revised position from McAleer and Rushe has not been provided given that there is only one application under consideration.

94. It is important to note that the supporting documentation was based upon the two applications and the number of units for those combined. There is no supporting information relating to the economics of the scheme, in terms of the remaining application for 58 units.

95. To assist with the assessment of the information provided in support of this application to remove condition 2, the Council commissioned an independent economic impact assessment to be carried out by Tourism & Transport Consult International.

96. The first assessment was received on 1 July 2016. This initial assessment focused on proposals associated with two applications (S/2014/09007/F & S/2014/0908/F) that would essentially remove occupancy condition associated with 112 holiday homes. Shortly after this report was submitted, the Agent

indicated his intention to withdraw Planning Application S/2014/0907/F. The application was withdrawn on 19 July 2016.

97. Due to the withdrawal of this application, it was considered that there was a need for the assumptions and findings of the initial Economic Impact Assessment to be revised to reflect the economic, social and community benefits associated with the removal of the occupancy condition in respect of 58 holiday homes.

98. A revised Economic Impact Assessment, with new assumptions and findings was submitted to the Planning Unit for consideration on 5 August 2016. Chapter 6 concludes the implications of the withdrawal of one of the applications. A further revision was received on 16 August 2016 to correct a typographical error.

99. It is important to note that the report acknowledged (at page 49) that the danger of the unencumbered sale of houses and apartments at this location could set a precedent for housing development in the countryside and allow for a ‘free for all’ approach. Reference is made in the report to a contra argument which states that housing is enabled only by the development of a hotel and golf resort.

100. This report made reference to the rationale provided by the applicant. This was that the housing for private residence (of a higher value that holiday homes) was necessary to enable greater capital to be returned for investment in the wider project.

101. The revised Economic Impact Assessment, received 16 August 2016, comments (at page 67) that in terms of the economic impact assessment of the overall development, the withdrawal of planning application (S/2014/0907/F) complicates matters in terms of the assumptions to be made and the consideration of what are realistic development prospects.

102. The report in assessing the benefits that would be accrued from 112 holiday homes being sold as permanent residences acknowledged that the project was

not feasible financially as a combined hotel and golf resort without the financial input from the sale of all the 112 apartments and houses.

103. The Economic Impact Assessment makes reference to an analysis by Resolve who questioned ‘whether or not this scenario (option 1) is realistic given that the developers advisors have stated that the profit from the sale of all of the 112 units are necessary to provide an adequate return on the investment.’ (Page 68).

104. The independent review also makes reference to conclusions set out in Chapter 4 (which considered both applications). It acknowledges the need for additional resources for the hotel and golf resort and comments that with only roughly 50% of the units available to build and sell ‘make the viability of the development more finely balanced’ (Page 90).

105. At page 69, the independent assessment comments that the ‘ability to build and sell some 58 units on an unrestricted basis will make the development viability somewhat marginal, as it will provide a substantially decreased return compared with that associated with the sale of some 112 Units’.

106. The revised report makes reference to the employment impacts of fewer permanent residents as marginal because the additional spending generated by this (lesser) scale of new residents is very small in relation to current total expenditure. As such, any additional expenditure arising from ‘new residents’ will likely be absorbed by existing businesses without the creation of additional jobs.

107. In terms of local expenditure, the reports makes assumptions that the 58 Units could add between 117 and 138 new permanent residents to the Council Area – an assumption which is based on an average household size (indicated by the applicant) of 3 persons per residential unit.

108. It is important to note that this figure is a 50% reduction of the 112 units associated with the two section 54 applications.

Tourism Considerations

109. The SPPS recognises the vital contribution that Tourism makes to the Northern Ireland economy in terms of the revenue it generates, the employment opportunities it provides, and the potential it creates of economic growth.

110. It recognises that as well as direct spending on holiday accommodation and use of tourist amenities, tourism plays an important role in helping to support the viability of many local suppliers, services and facilities.

111. Comments from the NI Tourist Board indicates that Golf tourism is recognised in strategic tourism policy as a ‘key market segment’. Reference is also made to the consultation on a draft Tourism Strategy for Northern Ireland identifying the need to ‘secure a major European Tour golf event and consider any future options brought forward to develop a world class golf product.’

112. It is evident from the planning history that tourism potential associated with a Hotel and Golf Resort has been endorsed and that a Hotel and Golf Resort can be built in accordance with these approvals.

113. Whilst the supporting information makes reference to the fact that the sale of the homes as places of permanent residency will create revenue that will be used to fund the Hotel and Golf Resort development, it is important to note that there is no link between the removal of the holiday occupancy condition and the realisation of the Hotel and Golf Resort and no guarantee that the remainder of the approvals will ever be completed.

114. It is contended that removing condition 2 will have implications for the Council’s ability to enforce condition number 3 associated with planning application S/2008/0878/F which reads as follows:

The development hereby approved shall not become operational until such times as all engineering operations associated with the Golf Course have been suitably completed to the satisfaction of the Department.

115. With regard to Tourism considerations, the developments as approved are considered to be acceptable. The application is essentially for a housing 25

development, by virtue of removal of the tourist occupancy condition and is not therefore considered to compliant with the tourist policy.

Enabling Development

116. By way of rationale/justification for the removal of condition 2, reference is made throughout the associated supporting papers, to Enabling Development.

117. At paragraph 3.1 of the supporting statement it states that Enabling of developments with a demonstrable public benefit has been a well-established planning principle since 1999 when English Heritage published its policy statement ‘Enabling Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets’.

118. This concept centres on enabling development being a planning tool by which a community may be able to secure the long term future of a place of heritage interest. Within the context of this English Heritage guidance, a significant place is defined as any part of the historic environment which has heritage value.

119. Paragraph 4.3 of the supporting statement states that the golf course and hotel is financially unviable in the medium to long term and without an element of ‘enabling development’ will not be developed in its current form.

120. It is important to note that the approved hotel and golf course does not fall within the definition of enabling development, as defined by English Heritage

121. Planning Policy Statement 23 was published in April 2014 and allowed Enabling Development for the Conservation of Significant Places. It formalises policy established in case law where established planning policy may be set aside for a proposal to secure the long term future of a significant place.

122. At the outset, this policy document acknowledges that enabling development is a development proposal that is contrary to established planning policy and in its own right would not be permitted. It makes reference to the fact that such a proposal may however be allowed where it will secure a proposal for the long term future of a significant place. For the purposes of the policy, significant 26

place means any part of the historic environment that has heritage value including scheduled monuments, archaeological remains, historic buildings (both statutorily listed or of more local significance) together with any historically related contents, industrial heritage, conservation areas or a historic par, garden or demesne.

123. Enabling development typically seeks to subsidise the cost of maintenance, major repair or conversion to the optimum use of a significant place where this is greater than its value to its owner or market place.

124. Policy ED1 – Enabling Development requires various policy tests to be satisfied, however as this policy only relates to the re-use, restoration or refurbishment of a significant place and this application is neither for re-use or refurbishment, nor is it for a significant place as per English heritage’s definition mentioned above, it fails to be considered under this policy.

Representations

125. A substantial amount of information was submitted by the Applicant during the processing of the application. Consideration of the various pieces of information is set out below.

126. Supporting information submitted in December 2014 includes a number of letters of support from the following bodies/organisations a. Tourism Bodies b. Political Parties c. Golf Resort operators d. Local Education Authorities e. Historic Royal Palaces f. Invest NI g. Sports Authorities

127. Further letters of support were associated with the addendum to the supporting information submitted in September 2015 a. Maze Long Kesh Development Corporation b. MP 27

c. DETI d. Other tourist accommodation/restaurant providers in the area e. Various local businesses

128. Some 25 comments of support were acknowledged against the application online, however several more were received within both of the supporting statements and included in the associated appendices.

129. By way of summary, the letters are supportive of the Hotel and Golf resort project and recognition is given to benefits to be accrued from Tourism development generally.

130. Whilst some of the correspondence from other resorts recognises the need for a level of private sales to fund wider tourism projects, it is important to note that this was not the ‘sound business plan’ contained with the De Vere Model used to assess the initial Hotel and Golf Resort approval.

131. Removing condition 2 to provide for a level of private residence substantially changes the basis on which the earlier decision was made. Furthermore, it runs contrary to commitments given to local residents at that time.

Examples from other Jurisdictions 132. The applicant in support of the application provided detailed examples from other Jurisdictions with reference made to all of the larger golf resorts in the Republic of Ireland being approved with unrestricted housing units.

Republic of Ireland Resorts

133. It is important to note that each of these applications will have been assessed on their individual merits. It is understood that full applications were submitted at the outset with the development of homes as places for permanent residence being considered with the context of the overall scheme.

Runkerry and Lough Erne Developments

134. Supporting information seeks to draw comparisons with developments at Runkerry and Lough Erne. 28

135. The Runkerry application was a full application for a Proposed Golf Resort including 18 hole Championship Golf Course, Club House, Golf Academy incorporating driving range, a 3 hole practice facility, 120 Bedroom Hotel incorporating Conference facilities & Spa, 75 Guest Suites/lodges, and associated car parking, maintenance building and landscaping.

136. It is important to note that this decision was in respect of a full application for a Proposed Golf Resort and Hotel. The rationale for the lack of a restrictive condition being attached is set out in the Judicial Review decision dated 27 February 2013. It is noted at paragraph 101 of this High Court decision, that the decision not to attach such a condition was because it was considered that the scheme as presented would operate on the basis of a sale of the guest houses/lodges for use by purchasers for a specified period during the year – a version of a time share model.

137. It was also noted that the proposed scheme for the use of the suites/lodges was said to be important to the economics of the overall development because the use of the guest suites/lodges will contribute to the overall viability of the development.

138. With regard to the development at Lough Erne, supporting papers make reference to it being a new facility that contributed to the Golf Tourism Strategy for Northern Ireland. Reference is also made to this facility being recently sold following administration.

Hillsborough Golf & Leisure Brochure

139. A glossy brochure was hand delivered by the applicant on 20 July 2016 and this brochure was made available to Members. The Brochure provides an overview of the wider project and it includes location details and visuals aimed at promoting the tourist elements of the project as a whole.

140. It is noted that the layout that refers to this application site in the brochure is stated now to include 8 units in lieu of the two large replacement dwellings fronting onto Trench Road.

141. It is important to note that some of the detail reflected in this brochure is not reflective of the development as approved under either the original scheme or the removal of occupancy condition application(s). Reference is also made to the 4th and 5th holes being realigned. This change is not part of this current application.

Hillsborough Tourism Master Plan November 2015

142. Extracts from a Hillsborough Tourism Master Plan document was submitted by the Applicant. The report acknowledged that Lisburn & Castlereagh was not a strong tourism performer currently due to the lack of overnight paid for accommodation and that the lack of such accommodation is reflected in the economic impact figures for the area as a whole.

143. The analysis of the current position confirms that Hillsborough has no major accommodation provider with the nearest hotel being in Lisburn City. Reference is made to occupancy rates at this hotel being very high and that this is indicative of a latent demand for more accommodation.

144. Taking this assessment into account within the context of the current application, it is contended that this reference is supportive of further holiday accommodation within the Council Area.

145. The application to remove condition 2 will run contrary to the thrust of this Plan as it will result in the loss of holiday accommodation to the Council area.

146. Making Hillsborough a must visit destination for visitors in Northern Ireland is identified as the Vision of the Tourism Master Plan and the Plan outlines a set of proposal that are intended to fulfil the vision. These proposals comprise a mix of infrastructure projects, improvements to heritage, and new tourist attractions; enabling new tourist accommodation along with events, festivals and marketing.

147. A medium term action identified in the plan is to develop new tourist accommodation within or close by a village. The thrust of this action is

supported by the existing approval which provides for the development of some 58 tourist accommodation units.

148. The need to unlock the tourism potential within Hillsborough is recognised. It is contended that existing approvals are supportive of the vision, mission and objective of the Tourism Master Plan and that removal of condition 2 runs contrary to this wider vision.

Conclusion

149. The reason that condition 2 was associated with the S/2008/0878/F approval was because the site was located in the Countryside where the planning policy is to restrict development. The permission was only granted solely because of its proposed holiday use.

150. To modify the application as requested, will make it difficult for the Council to resist similar modifications elsewhere. Furthermore, its removal will result in a proposal which is contrary to a number of other planning policies.

151. Having carefully considered the nature of the proposal against all the relevant planning polices and material considerations, including the potential economic benefits, and representations, reports and consultation responses, it is considered that on balance, the section 54 application is unacceptable as it raises a number of fundamental policy issues.

Recommendation

152. It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons

. The proposal is contrary to the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan, the policy provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no over-riding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located in a settlement.

. The proposed development, if permitted would prejudice the outcome of the emerging policies in a local development plan that has not yet been approved or adopted.

. The proposed development is contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD 1 (a) (c)(f) and (h) of the Departments Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments, in that the development does not respect the surrounding context, and will result in unacceptable visual impact to the local character in terms of its, layout, scale, height, form, proportions, massing, and appearance. It has not been demonstrated that

- adequate provision is made for private open space,

- nor has appropriate provision been made for parking

- The design and layout will not create conflict with adjacent land uses and there is no unacceptable adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

Site Location Plan – S/2014/0908/F Annex A

APPENDIX 1.2PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Major Application

Application Reference LA05/2016/0831/F

Date of Application 10 August 2016

District Electoral Area Downshire West New visitor and estate facilities and restoration of Proposal Description historic gardens and proposed works at the upper stableyard, lower site visitor facilities, walled garden, estates operating base, lost garden, upper forecourt and railings, marquee base, carriage drive, Prince's charities building, moss walk, conservation stores and workshops, yew tree walk. Hillsborough Castle Estate, The Square, Location Hillsborough Applicant/Agent Historic Royal Palaces

Representations 0

Case Officer Kevin Maguire

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This proposal is categorised a major planning application in accordance with the Development Management Regulations 2015 in that the proposed site exceeds the threshold of 1 hectare as defined in Part 8 of the Schedule to those Regulations.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The area of the application site is approximately 41.3 hectares of land encompassing Hillsborough Castle Estate (the estate).

4. The grounds of the estate are contained to all sides by a mix of stone wall boundaries of up to 2 metres in height. The estate wall along the Dromore and Moira Road boundaries is defined by cut stone, probably sandstone to match the finishes of the Castle. The remaining estate walls are constructed of indigenous random rubble basalt.

5. Hillsborough Castle, its associated gardens and miscellaneous buildings, including the Upper Stableyard (the upper part of the site), are located towards the southern half of the grounds and are adjacent to the Square and Court House at the top of Hillsborough Main Street.

6. Ground levels fall away from the Castle to its North, South and West Sides. To the South of the Castle is a heavily treed area. A small watercourse originating from Hillsborough Lake enters the castle grounds within this treed area at a point on the estate’s south eastern boundary at Dromore Road. This watercourse flows through this treed area, around the Yew Tree Walk and formal gardens to the West of the Castle and into a series of ponds in the northern part of the estate. The route of this watercourse is defined by mature trees. The watercourse exits the estate at its North West Corner adjacent to Millvale Road. West of the watercourse is the Lime Tree Walk and Lady Alice Temple with the estate’s old walled garden (the lower part of the site) located further west near the Moira Road and A1 dual carriageway.

7. The majority of the site contains features synonymous with a planned historic landscape including mature trees, woodland, pastures, formal lawns, open water bodies, an ice house, tree lined avenues and a walled garden.

8. Outside the estate walls the site is bound to its East by built development within Hillsborough Village, its North by housing along Millvale Road, its South and South West by housing on Dromore and Moira Roads and to its North West by the A1 dual carriageway.

9. The estate is located within the Settlement Development Limit of Hillsborough as defined in BMAP 2015. In addition it is subject to a number of other zonings including Hillsborough Conservation Area and Local Landscape Policy Areas (HH07 & HH12). A number of recorded historic monuments, both scheduled and unscheduled, as well as listed buildings are contained within the grounds.

10. In the general area ground levels fall towards the North and West, these lands are comprised of low undulating drumlins with limited intervisibility both into and out of the site.

Proposed Development

11. The application seeks full planning permission for new visitor and estate facilities in the lower part of the site (western portion). Restoration of the historic walled garden and formal gardens of the estate. The application also proposes a number of other separate project areas, including works to the gates and railings adjacent to Hillsborough Square, conversion of the Upper Stable yard and development of a ‘Lost Garden’ along the watercourse in the southern part of the site.

12. In addition to the application forms and drawings the application has also been supported by a Pre-Application Community Consultation Report, Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, archaeological assessment, Drainage Impact Assessment and Drainage Strategy, Arbourcultural Impact Statement. Noise Survey, Transport Assessment, Flora and Fauna Survey, Tree Management Plan, Bat Survey, Smooth Newt Survey and Badger Survey.

Relevant Planning History

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

Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/2015/0231/LBC Alteration of Boundary Demesne wall Granted 02/10/15 to create new gateway. LA05/2016/0510/F New car park to serve Hillsborough Approved 20/09/16 Castle - LA05/2016/0826/LBC New visitor and estate facilities Ongoing including restoration of existing stableyard and historic gardens, at Hillsborough Castle to include Upper stableyard, lower site visitor facilities, walled garden, estates operating base, lost garden, upper forecourt and railings, marquee base, carriage drive, Prince's charities buildings, Moss walk, Conservation stores and workshops and yew tree walk.

Pre – Application Notice Procedure

14. It is a requirement under Section 27 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 that the applicant submits to Council a ‘proposal of application notice’ (PAN); consults the community in advance of submitting the application and subsequently compile a Pre Application Community Consultation Report (PCCC) as part of the planning submission.

15. A pre application notification (LA05/2015/0694/PAN) relating to this proposal was received. The application, when submitted, was accompanied by a PCCC which noted a number of concerns raised by attendees at the public consultation events;

. Increase in noise and activity at the site. . Location of bin storage. . Smells from bins and kitchens. . Potential for vermin.

. Servicing of facilities and access arrangements and operational issues. . Operational issues – hours of operation/staff activity

16. Subsequent to the points being raised, the Applicant has noted that a review of the servicing plan was undertaken identifying routes to mitigate any servicing and delivery vehicle disruption. It has also been advised that the Applicant is continuing to review the potential hours of operation of the new facilities as part of the overall development. Furthermore, the site layout and design has been reorganised with the kitchen deliveries, stores and bins being located away from the neighbouring property boundaries to minimise noise and disruption and visual impact. An enclosed bin storage area has been provided in the service yard to alleviate concerns over smells and vermin potential.

17. The Applicant also entered into pre-application discussions with the Council to enable engagement with some of the key statutory consultees and identify issues which would need to be addressed as part of the planning application.

Planning Policy Context

18. The relevant planning policy context is as follows:

. Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS), Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 - Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 - Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 - Planning, Archaeology and The Built Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation. . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 15 - Planning and Flood Risk . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 16 - Tourism

Consultations

19. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response Natural Heritage No objection subject to conditions Water Management Unit No objection subject to conditions Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions Rivers Agency No objections Transport NI No objection subject to conditions Historic Buildings Unit No objections subject to conditions Historic Monuments Unit No objections subject to conditions

Representations

20. To date no letters of representation have been received in relation to this application.

Consideration and Assessment

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

. Principle of Development . Regional Planning Context . Local Development Plan Context . Tourism Benefit . Impact on Open Space . Impact on Built Heritage features . Impact on Natural Heritage features . Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring . Impact on Existing Land Uses . Potential effects of Flooding and Water Management

Principle of Development

22. The site is located within the settlement limit of Hillsborough, as defined in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. Whilst the site is classified within that Plan as a Historic Park, Garden and Demesne, is within the Hillsborough Conservation Area and affected by 2 Local Landscape Policy Areas, it does not fall within any other land zoning which this proposal would be contrary to.

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

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

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

26. It is contended that the principle of development at this site is in accordance with the up to date Development Plan and is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other relevant material planning considerations.

Regional Planning Context

27. The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 is the spatial strategy of the Stormont Executive and seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and while not a binding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

28. Policy RG4 of the RDS promotes a sustainable approach to the provision of tourism infrastructure with encouragement of a balanced approach that safeguards tourism infrastructure while benefitting society and the economy.

29. This proposal seeks to restore and reuse a number of buildings within the estate and limits the majority of new buildings to the lower part of the site. In addition visitor numbers are likely to result in substantial benefits to the local economy and provide further facilities for the population of Hillsborough and it is envisaged the proposal will allow this to be done in a sustainable manner.

30. Policy RG11 of the RDS seeks to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance built heritage and the natural environment.

31. Compliance with this strategic guidance is assessed through the information submitted with this proposal and the consultation responses to that information that has been received from Historic Environment Division (HED) and Natural Environment Division (NED).

Local Development Plan (BMAP)

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

33. The Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 is the applicable up to date local development plan (LDP). The application site lies within the following designations contained within that LDP; Hillsborough Conservation Area, a Local Landscape Policy Area (LLPA HH 07) and a Historic Park, Garden, and Demesne of Special Historic Interest (HH 12).

34. It is contended within the following sections that the proposal is in compliance with the designations of the LDP and therefore not contrary to the policies of the said plan.

Tourism

35. The SPPS states that ‘there will be a general presumption in favour of tourism development within settlements, subject to meeting normal planning requirements’.

36. This echoes Policy TSM 1 of PPS 16 ‘Tourism’ which states that planning permission for tourism facilities in the settlement will be granted ‘provided it is of a nature appropriate to the settlement, respects the site context in terms of scale, size and design, and has regard to the specified provisions of a development plan’.

37. Given the nature and location of the application site within Hillsborough Settlement Limit and the approval already granted to facilitate car parking attracted to the site, it is considered to represent a sustainable form of development in the local area and is considered in principle to be acceptable.

Impact on Open Space

38. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out planning policies for the protection of open space, the provision of new areas of open space in association with residential development and the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation.

39. Policy OS1 seeks to protect existing open space. For the purposes of this proposal existing open space will remain intact with the exception of an area of ground adjacent and North of the new visitor facilities at the lower part of the site where it is proposed to develop buildings for the operational functions of the estate and workshops associated with the Prince’s Trust.

40. Policy OS1 does allow an exception to protecting open space if the proposal will bring substantial community benefits that outweigh the loss of such space.

41. Given the overall amount of open space within the estate it is contended the limited amount of space that will be lost to the operations base is acceptable and meets with this exception contained within Policy OS1.

Impact on Built Heritage Features

42. The application site includes a number of heritage features including listed buildings, state cared monuments and unscheduled monuments, as well as the registered Demesne itself.

43. Within the proposed site the following table identifies applicable listed buildings and structures.

Building Ref No. Date Listing Hillsborough Castle HB19/05/076A 1780 - 1799 B+ Part gate screen, walling, railing, HB19/05/076 B B gates, piers, lamp standard and gate lodge. Guardhouse & Courtyard wall HB19/05/076 C B Summer House (Greek Temple) HB19/05/076 D B+ The Lady Alice Temple HB19/05/076 E B+ Ice House HB19/05/076 F B1 Gardeners House, rubble wall to HB19/05/076 G 1840 - 1859 B2 north and two sets of sandstone gate piers Walled garden, shell house and HB19/05/076 H B2 garden outbuildings 10

44. This proposal is supported by a Heritage Statement and Archaeological Assessment. The following is a consideration of the works to be completed on each project area and the impact on known heritage features detailed in the report:

. Lower Visitor Facilities – within the lower visitor area it is proposed to retain and restore a number of key heritage features including the existing estate walls, original ‘hot wall’ and the former apple and gardener’s stores. The new visitor facilities and security pavilion will be designed to respect their historical context and ‘original structures within this courtyard, especially the remains of the hot house with its boiler and trombe wall have been integrated within the design of the new visitor facilities’. In addition the ‘scale and massing of the elements of the building has been carefully considered to avoid impact on neighbouring properties or on the views from key points within the walled garden beyond’.

. Upper Stableyard Visitor Facilities – the existing stableyard facilities will be fully restored to include entrance lobby, café provision with associated kitchen, gift shop unit and conservation studios and store. The Heritage Report advises that ‘original window openings, currently blocked up are reopened and all alterations to site levels will be contained behind the existing wall and railings, minimising any impact from the forecourt area’. In addition the report states that ‘non-original render will be removed, windows and doors restored and the entire building enhanced using best practice conservation standards’.

. Garden Areas – In terms of heritage impact the report advises ‘each of the garden projects within this application has been developed in tandem with historic research of the estate, to ensure all the proposals protect and enhance the heritage value of the estate’.

. Site Improvements – This would include enhancements in relation to the forecourt and railings, Carriage Drive, pathways and lighting. These include enhancement to the Richhill Gate and Railings, the introduction of a fountain and realignment of kerb edging to increase the extent of the lawn and planting areas. The report advises that this provides ‘an opportunity to open up the visual connection between the Castle and the village’.

. Gardeners Operating Base – The report notes that the area chosen for this facility is away from any listed buildings/monuments and ‘has been developed to be low key and bed down within the landscape surrounding’. In this regard the proposals do not impact on any heritage assets within the estate.

. Princes’ Charities buildings – These are to be located in an area currently used by the estates garden team. The style and palette of materials are traditional in nature and do not impact on the heritage value of the estate.

45. The Heritage Statement refers to the relevant planning policy for assessment of the proposal, which in this case is PPS 6 (Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage). The following relevant policies within PPS 6 are detailed as follows;

46. Policy BH 6 will not normally permit proposals which may impact on parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest if it will lead to the loss of, or cause harm to, the character, principal components or setting of parks, gardens and demesnes of special historic interest. As indicated above, this proposal essentially seeks permission for development of four parts of the estate. The alteration and/or change of use of buildings and structures in the vicinity of the Castle itself (upper part of the site), the development of a visitors centre, restoration of the walled garden and provision of an estate operations base (lower part of the site), development of a riverside walk in the ‘Lost Garden’ in the southern part of the site and general upgrade and ancillary works to the formal gardens and pathways between these three locations.

47. It is contended that the overall proposal will not have an impact on the estate’s setting given the limited amount of new buildings proposed and their position within the walled boundaries of the estate. As such its designation as a Park, Garden and Demesne of Special Historic Interest will remain.

48. The proposal involves some works to change the use of, alter, and to a limited degree extend some of the listed buildings within the estate. Policies BH 7 and BH 8 of PPS6 are applicable in this regard.

49. Policy BH 7 allows for a change of use where it secures the upkeep and survival of the building and the character, architectural and historic interest of the building is retained. Consultation with HED confirms acceptance of the proposed change of use and which is to be carried out without detriment to the specific buildings.

50. Policy BH8 relates to the extension and alteration of listed buildings. Consent will normally only be granted to proposals for the extension or alteration of a listed building where its character and setting are retained and the works make use of traditional/sympathetic building materials and techniques to match the existing. The consultation with HED has confirmed they accept those aspects of the proposal that affect listed buildings within the estate, subject to appropriate conditions.

51. Policy BH 11 deals with development affecting the setting of a listed building. Development will normally only be considered appropriate where extensions/alteration respect the building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment of the proposed design, the works use traditional/sympathetic building materials and techniques and the overall result respects the character within which the listed building is set. Again HED have responded to confirm their acceptance of the works to be carried out, subject to conditions.

52. Policy BH 12 advises on new development proposed within a Conservation Area and the estate falls within the Conservation Area of Hillsborough. Policy BH12 will normally only permit proposals for new buildings, alterations, extensions and changes of use in, or which impact on the setting of a 13

conservation area where the development preserves or enhances the area, is sympathetic to the characteristic built form, its scale, form, materials and detailing respects that of adjoining buildings, it will not result in noise nuisance or disturbance detrimental to the area, important views in/out of the area are protected and trees and other landscape features contributing to character of the area are protected.

53. The Council’s Conservation Officer has considered the proposal in respect of its location in the Conservation Area. The officer notes the felling of some trees but, subject to implementation of conditions, this will not have a detrimental impact as a result. In terms of the works to existing buildings the officer is content that the proposal adopts a sensitive approach to restoration, retaining original character. New development is considered to be in sympathy with the existing character of the estate.

54. An Archaeological Assessment in support of the proposal advises that there are no scheduled monuments within the estate. The report details the potential for archaeological impact of all the various ‘Projects’. Given the nature of the works, the limited scale of ground works and the likelihood of archaeological survival no mitigation is proposed within the vicinity of the Upper Stableyard, Estates Operating Base, Lost Garden, Castle Entrance, Forecourt and Railings, Marquee Base, Carriage Drive and Conservation Stores.

55. The report concludes that with the remainder of the projects potential archaeological impacts may be addressed through a programme of archaeological works, archaeological recording and analysis and reporting of findings as mitigation.

56. Policy BH 4 deals with development which may impact on archaeological remains. The policy advises that conditions will be imposed requiring appropriate identification and mitigation including licencing of excavation and recording of remains prior to development commencing.

57. HED in its response on the Archaeological Assessment has indicated they are satisfied with the mitigation measures proposed and has offered suitable conditions to enforce this requirement.

Impact on Natural Heritage Features

58. As described above, this proposal involves a number of separate project areas, some of which may have the potential to impact on flora and fauna within the estate.

59. The site is within a LLPA (Zoning HH 07, BMAP 2015) which designates the estate as an area of local nature conservation interest and includes water features and associated vegetation. The features of this LLPA have the potential to create habitats for a variety of species which could be affected by all aspects of this proposal.

60. An Aboricultural Impact Statement and a Flora and Fauna Survey accompany this proposal and details results and assessment of impacts to birds, amphibians, badgers, bats and other mammals. The report concludes; ‘careful scheme design, the impacts of the development will be avoided, reduced or mitigated against’, any ‘residual impacts will be compensated by appropriate conservation management’ and therefore there will ‘be no overall significant impacts on the flora and fauna due to the development’.

61. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) Natural Environment Division (NED) has considered the contents of these supporting documents and offers no objection to the proposed works subject to conditions. Such conditions will include requirements to identify protection zones around specific habitats prior to work commencing and ensure the presence of bats is checked prior to demolition or aboricultural works and that such checks are monitored by a recognised expert.

Adequate Access, Car Parking and Manoeuvring

62. The application proposes that its main vehicular access will be taken from a new slip road junction on the southbound carriageway of the A1 dual carriageway in order to avoid traffic disruption through Hillsborough Village. While this application provides the detail of these arrangements that access and car park were the subject of a separate approval, LA05/2016/0510/F which was granted on 20th September 2016.

63. Ticket admission to the estate will be sold at both the ‘car park’ (western part of the estate) and the ‘Hillsborough Village’ end (eastern part of the estate). There will be no additional charge for car parking, therefore encouraging people to use the designated facilities rather than park in the centre of Hillsborough. Further measures to avoid congestion in Hillsborough seeks to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and use of public transport to visit the site.

64. A Transport Assessment (TA) submitted as part of the approved car parking scheme also accompanies this proposal. Transport NI were consulted and on the basis of the information provided and the previous approval for access and car parking, has indicated no objection to this proposal subject to conditions. In particular conditions will be attached requiring the access from the A1 dual carriageway, as previously approved, to be provided in advance of the works sought with this proposal commencing.

65. It is considered that this requirement will ensure that no detrimental impact will occur to Hillsborough Village, as demonstrated in the TA and as such it is considered the proposal complies with Policy AMP 2 of Planning Policy Statement 3 – Access, Movement and Parking.

Impact on Existing Land Uses within the vicinity of the site

66. As detailed above, the proposed new visitor facilities, estate facilities and restoration of the historic gardens will involve works at both the Upper Stableyard and to the west of the walled garden area, the Lower Visitor Facilities. As such the proposal is designed to significantly increase the

number of persons attending the site with the potential to conflict with existing residential development in terms of noise and general nuisance.

67. The new building to house the lower visitor facility is approximately 8 metres from the nearest residential properties, No’s 18 and 20 Moira Road. These properties are separated from the proposed building by an estate wall of approximately 2 metres in height. Some trees exist along part of this boundary wall and it is proposed to augment these with further tree planting of approximately 3½ to 4 metres in height. Such trees would assist the existing to mitigate potential impacts of both the building and the operations to which it relates.

68. As a result of the public consultation process the kitchen and staff areas of the lower visitor facilities were reorganised and the kitchen stores, deliveries and bins were relocated to be away from the neighbouring property boundaries so as to minimise noise, disruption and visual impact. In addition the PACC has advised that an enclosed bin storage area has been provided in the service yard to alleviate concerns over smells and vermin potential.

69. As part of the application a consultant addressed potential issues associated with noise impact emanating from all aspects of the proposal through a noise survey report. A survey of current conditions was undertaken with background noise levels recorded, these included noise sources such as passing vehicular traffic, aircraft noise, and existing mechanical plant. The report has stated the ‘plant and equipment to be installed into the lower visitor facilities, the art conservatory and the upper stables visitor centre is not currently known’ and that ‘in order to ensure there is no adverse impact on the nearest noise sensitive receptors from the plant and equipment associated with this development, it is recommended that a maximum rating level is adopted for the plant and equipment being installed’.

70. On the basis of the noise survey report Council’s Environmental Health Department (EHD) advise that while they have no objection to the proposal there may be some potential nuisance from noise, odour and light pollution. In

considering the potential for noise at the site EHD have advised that this can be controlled by condition requiring the maximum rating level of the plant and equipment at the upper stableyard and lower visitor facilities shall not exceed

39dB LA10 (10min) and 43dB LA10 (10min) respectively at any noise sensitive receptor. In addition no plant or equipment shall operate at night between 23:00 and 07:00 without the prior agreement of the Council.

71. EHD has advised that issues relating to odour could be satisfactorily dealt with through to provision of a fat and grease trap of adequate design before foul sewage is discharged into the public sewage network. Furthermore, the installation of suitable ventilation and filtration equipment is required at the upper stable yard visitor facility and lower visitor facility to suppress and disperse cooking odours created from operations.

72. EHD have advised of the potential for light pollution from the proposed development and have recommended that the development must minimise obtrusive light and conform to the requirements of the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations for Environmental Zone – E2 (Rural).

73. Subject to implication of its recommendations through conditions and informatives EHD offer no objection to this proposal.

Potential effects of Flooding and Water Management

74. The proposal is subject to consideration in terms of flood risk at the site and potential for effects at other locations as a result of this development.

75. Rivers Agency Flood Maps indicate that the southern portion of the site including the project area known as the ‘Lost Garden’ is situated within a 1:100 year fluvial flood plain. Within the Lost Garden a number of zones interconnected by paths and bridges are proposed. These zones incorporate a number of water features including a cascade and weir, a viewing platform, stone folly and Chinese temple. 18

76. Policy FLD 1 of PPS 15 – Planning and Flood Risk states that development will not be permitted in a floodplain unless the applicant can demonstrate it constitutes an exception to the policy. FLD 1 lists a number of such ‘Exceptions Test’ scenarios. Of relevance to this proposal an exception can be met if a proposal involves ‘the use of land for sport and outdoor recreation, amenity open space or for nature conservation purposes, including ancillary buildings’ (FLD 1 exception f).

77. It is contended that the proposed development in the ‘Lost Garden’ meets the criteria for that exception.

78. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) were submitted to identify sources of flood risk to and from the proposal and demonstrate measures to manage and mitigate any increased flood risk as a result. Rivers Agency in its consultation response did not object to the proposed works within the existing watercourse and has granted the applicant consent under Schedule 6 of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973 to carry out those works.

79. This proposal involves small alterations to the existing flow path of the watercourse passing through the Lost Garden, the works will involve replacement of small canalized sections. The FRA and DIA have indicated no increased risk of flooding or impacts on existing drainage as a result. Therefore as the Assessments are to the satisfaction of Rivers Agency it is contended that the proposal is in accordance with Policies FLD1 and FLD2 of PPS15.

80. The proposal is located downstream of Hillsborough Lake, a body of water impounded by earth dams and as such the estate lies within a potential flood inundation area.

81. Policy FLD5 of PPS15 – Development in Proximity to Reservoirs will only permit development in such an area if the applicant can demonstrate the condition, management and maintenance of the reservoir is appropriate to provide sufficient assurance regarding its safety. Advice from Rivers Agency has confirmed that the condition of the dam offers sufficient safety assurance to

allow this development to proceed. The FRA modelling for controlled and uncontrolled release of waters from the dam is also dealt with to the satisfaction of Rivers Agency.

82. In considering storm water and foul sewage disposal the upper part of the site is already connected to sewage networks. The DIA includes an assessment of the existing sewage infrastructure and concludes there is sufficient capacity for the proposal. The DIA details how storm and foul sewage will be dealt with once the Operations Base and Visitor Centre become operational. Storm water runoff will be directed to an existing watercourse via an attenuation pond, to ensure the rate of runoff remains at greenfield rates. Consent to discharge storm water will require the approval of Rivers Agency.

83. The proposed foul system to the lower part of the estate, the Visitors Centre and Operations Base is to be served by a BioDisc facility and plans show this is to be located in the vicinity of the Operations Base. Water Management has advised that discharge consent under the terms of the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 will be required and that such has been submitted and is currently being assessed.

Conclusions

84. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that on balance the proposed development meets the requirements of the Local Development Plan and all relevant planning policies.

Recommendations

85. It is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Conditions

86. The following conditions are recommended for inclusion on any forthcoming decision notice.

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

Reason: Time Limit.

. The development hereby permitted shall not become operational until the access to the site from the A1 Hillsborough By-Pass as approved in planning application ref LA05/2016/0510/F has been completed to the satisfaction of Transport NI.

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

. The maximum rating level of the plant and equipment at the upper stableyard visitor facility should not exceed 39dB LA10 (10min) at any noise sensitive receptor.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise

. The maximum rating level of the plant and equipment at the lower visitor facility should not exceed 43dB LA10 (10min) at any noise sensitive receptor.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise

. No plant or equipment should operate at night i.e. between 23:00 hours and 07:00 hours without the prior agreement of Environmental Health.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to noise

. A detailed Construction Method Statement, for works in, near or liable to affect any waterway as defined by the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, must be submitted to NIEA Water Management Unit, at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of the works or phase of works.

Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the protection of the water environment.

. No development should take place on-site until the method of sewage disposal has been agreed in writing with NIW or a consent to discharge has been granted.

Reason: To ensure a practical solution to sewage disposal is possible at this site.

. Each building shall be provided with such sanitary pipework, foul drainage and rain-water drainage as may be necessary for the hygienic and adequate disposal of foul water and rain-water separately from that building. The drainage system should also be designed to minimise the risk of wrongly connecting the sewage system to the rain-water drainage system, once the buildings are occupied.

Reason: In order to decrease the risk of the incorrect diversion of sewage to drains carrying rain/surface water to a waterway.

. The drainage for the vehicle wash area must be constructed in line with the agreed drainage plan.

Reason: In order to decrease the risk of the incorrect diversion of wash water to drains carrying rain/surface water to a waterway.

. No site clearance or development activity shall commence until a protection zone, clearly marked with posts joined with hazard warning tape, has been provided around the smooth newt breeding pond, as shown on the smooth newt location map, at a radius of 20 metres from the edge of the pond. No works, vegetation clearance, disturbance by machinery, dumping or storage of materials shall take place within this protection zone without the consent of the Planning Authority. The protection zone shall be retained and maintained until all newts have been translocated to a receptor pond under the terms of a licence issued by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Reason: To protect newts and their place of refuge.

. No development activity shall commence on site until a protection zones, clearly marked with posts joined with hazard warning tape, has been provided around each badger sett entrance at a radius of 25 metres (as shown on Appendix 5 of the Badger Survey, dated September 2016 ). No works, vegetation clearance, disturbance by machinery, dumping or storage of materials shall take place within those protection zones without the consent of the Planning Authority. The protection zone shall be retained and maintained until all construction activity has been completed on site.

Reason: To protect badgers and their setts on the site.

. A wildlife licence shall be sought for all works occurring within the 25m protection zones.

Reason: To protect badgers and their setts on the site.

. Twenty four hours prior to demolition, the existing buildings, and the removal of mature trees, on the site shall be checked for bat presence and all demolition works shall be monitored by a recognised bat expert. A report shall be submitted to the Planning Authority within 2 weeks.

Reason: To ensure protection to bats and their roosts.

. The applicant shall submit full details to Historic Environment Division of the proposed shell house including construction and material details prior to procurement/commencement.

The applicant shall provide colour/type specification for metal cladding to roofs on the Conservation Store (Upper Stableyard), Horticultural Education Buildings and Agricultural Store (Estates Operating Base) prior to procurement and/or commencement.

The applicant/agent shall provide sample brick to be used in the temporary visitors centre to Historic Environment Division for agreement prior to procurement/commencement of construction.

Repairs to the walled garden shall be in suitable matching brick and lime pointing. All brick shall be reclaimed or handmade to match the existing historic brick within the Estate.

Slate to be used on roofs shall be natural Welsh blue slate;

All rainwater goods shall be cast iron/cast alumium;

All doors shall be hardwood timber, opaque painted;

All roof lights to be cast iron Conservation Type, fitted flush with the roof plane and;

All render to be lime, with a breathable painted finish.

Lower Visitor facility: Window joinery shall be opaque painted, hardwood, no trickle vents (provide air management by other means), mitre jointed, site painted (not factory finished). Any double glazing shall be slimlite with spacer bars coloured to match window (not aluminium).

Princes Charities buildings, upper Stableyard educational building: Window joinery shall be opaque painted, hardwood, no trickle vents (provide air management by other means), mitre jointed, site painted (not factory finished), single glazed and putty fronted.

Reason: To ensure that the form, materials and details respect the setting of listed structures on the estate and the characteristic form of the Conservation Area is properly protected.

. No site works of any nature or development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work has been implemented, in accordance with a written scheme and programme prepared by a qualified archaeologist, submitted by the applicant and approved by the Council in consultation with Historic Environment Division (Historic Monuments). The programme should provide for the identification and evaluation of archaeological remains within the site, for mitigation of the impacts of development, through excavation recording or by preservation of remains, and for preparation of an archaeological report.

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

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

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

. The temporary Visitors Centre hereby approved, including any associated services and access, shall be fully removed within 1 year of the permanent Visitors Centre becoming operational and the site restored to its former condition.

Reason: To protect the setting of the Hillsborough Castle Estate which is a demesne of special historic interest.

. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the details contained in approved plan No. 05/A, dated stamped the 9 September 2016, before any equipment, machinery or materials are brough on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and 25

surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made or any other works carried out, or files lit without the written consent of the Council.

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

. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, or have its roots damaged within the crown spread nor shall arboricultural work or tree surgery take place on any retained tree to be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Council. Any aboricultural work or tree surgery approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998, 2010 – Tree Work, Recommendations.

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

. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within 3 years from the date of the occupation of the buildings for their permitted use another tree or trees shall be planted at the same place and shall be of such a size and species and shall be planted at such a time as may be specified by the Council.

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

. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other recognized Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development.

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

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

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0831/F

APPENDIX 1.3PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference Y/2014/0209/F

Date of Application 30 June 2014

District Electoral Area Castlereagh South

Proposal Description Residential development of 8 No dwellings comprising (2 No. 1½ storey detached dwellings and 6 No. 2 storey semi-detached) 6 No. domestic garages, site works, landscaping and associated road works.

Location 29 Belvoir View Park, Newtownbreda, Belfast

Applicant/Agent TSA Planning

Representations 62 representations received (59 objections and 3 support)

Case Officer Peter McFadden

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The application site is located at 29 Belvoir View Park, Newtownbreda, a vacant site on what was a former large residential property known as Carnmoon Lodge.

4. The site benefits from an existing entrance on to Belvoir View Park which rises up from the Newtownbreda Road to the West. Ground levels within the site are relatively flat in nature with only a slight rise towards the North East boundary. All boundaries to the site are defined by predominate vegetation in the form of mature trees and hedges.

5. The site is bound to all sides by residential development. Adjacent to the West and South are a mix of two storey detached and semi detached dwellings. To the East on Breda Road the dwellings are two storey terraced and semi detached, to the North East in Rogers Park the dwellings are two storey semi detached and to the North, with access from Newtownbreda Road is one large detached bungalow. Ground levels in the area are generally rising from West to East.

6. Views to and from the site are particularly limited as the existing entrance is the only public view into the site. All other views are limited by existing boundary treatments of the site and those established within neighbouring residential property curtilages.

7. The site is located within an established residential area which is contained inside the settlement development limit. There are no designations or zonings applicable to this site.

Proposed Development

8. The application seeks development of 8 No. dwellings, 2 of which are 1½ storey detached dwellings and 6 are 2 storey semi-detached. The proposal includes the provision of 6 No. domestic garages, associated site works, road works and landscaping.

Relevant Planning History

9. The relevant planning history of this site is set out in the table below.

Application Reference Description of Proposal Decision Y/2007/0655/F Erection of 27 No. dwellings, associated Withdrawn basement car parking and landscaping.

Y/2008/0503/F Erection of a 26 No. dwellings, associated Withdrawn basement car parking and landscaping.

Planning Policy Context

10. The relevant planning policy context which relates to this application is as follows: . The Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 2 – Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7: Quality Residential Environments . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 (Addendum): Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12: Housing in Settlements . Guidance of DCAN 8: Housing in Existing Urban Areas . Guidance of DCAN 15: Vehicular Access Standards . Guidance of Creating Places

Consultations

11. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response Transport NI No objections Environmental Health No objections

Consultee Response NI Water No objections NIEA Natural Heritage No objections

Representations

12. 60 letters of representation were received in response to the local press advertisement and neighbour notifications. 57 of those representations were objections to the proposal and raised the following issues;

. Traffic issues, including car parking, as a result of the development . Drainage issues . This represents over development of the site . Impact on the turning head on Belvoir View Park . Noise and disturbance as a result of the development . Heritage and loss of character . Wildlife issues . Issue of trees including heights, overhanging and damage of roots . Loss of light, overshadowing and light pollution as a result of the development . Potential for overlooking . Design and finishes of proposed dwellings

13. Three representations in support of the proposal were received.

Consideration and Assessment

14. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development . Regional Planning context . Local Planning context . Quality Residential Environments . Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas . Adequate access, car parking and manoeuvring provision

. Impact on Natural Heritage

Principle of Development

15. The site is located within the settlement limit of Castlereagh, as defined in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 and is on ‘White Lands’ and as such it is not restricted by any specific land use zoning.

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

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

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

19. It is contended that this proposal is in accordance with the up-to-date plan and planning policies as assessed in the following sections.

Regional Planning Context

20. The revised Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 was published in 2010. It is the spatial strategy of the Stormont Executive and it seeks to deliver the spatial aspects of the Programme for Government (PfG). The RDS will influence the future distribution of development throughout Northern Ireland and

while not a bidding document, it has a legislative basis and is material to decisions on individual planning applications.

21. Policy RG8 of the RDS requires the management of housing growth that achieves sustainable patterns of residential development. As this is within a residential area and the site of a former dwelling it is contended the proposal represents the sustainable reuse that is appropriate to the surrounding residential area and thus contributing to the aims of the PfG.

Local Planning Context

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

23. As has been noted this site is within a residential area without any specific land use zoning and it is contended that the proposal is compliant with the aims of the LDP.

Quality Residential Environments

24. Assessment of planning applications for residential use is guided by the policies of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 ‘Quality Residential Environments’ and the Addendum to PPS7, ‘Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas’. As with the RDS, PPS7 also seeks to promote more sustainable housing development within existing urban areas to support urban renaissance with the recycling land to reduce the use of green-field land.

25. PPS7 will only grant planning permission for new residential development where it is demonstrated that the proposal will create a quality and sustainable residential development. The design and layout of the proposal should be based on an overall design concept that draws upon the positive aspects of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

26. Policy QD1 – Quality in New Residential Development lists criterion to which a proposal must be considered against and met. The following is an assessment of the acceptability of the proposal against relevant parts of this criteria.

27. Policy requires that a proposal must respect its surrounding context and be appropriate to the character and topography of the site in terms of layout, scale, proportions, massing and appearance of buildings, structures and landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

28. As described above the surrounding area is defined by a mix of 1½ and 2 storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. The exception to this are No’s 90 and 90b Newtownbreda Road, adjacent and North of the site, which are

large bungalows set within substantial curtilages.

29. It is contend that the appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the overall urban characteristic of the area. The site layout is such that the dwellings proposed are situated to provide sufficient separation distances from any of the existing dwellings.

30. Furthermore, it is considered that that site layout as presented identifies, protects and integrates the landscaped boundaries of this site to ensure the visual impact of the development is softened and integrated into the surrounding area.

31. Each of the proposed dwellings will be provided with sufficient and appropriate private amenity space (gardens).

32. Adequate and appropriate car parking is provided as each dwelling facilitates incurtilage parking spaces and garages.

33. It is considered that the design of the proposal draws upon the best local traditions of form, materials and detailing. The submitted plans show the dwellings will have a mix of brick and render finishes, uPVC windows/guttering and concrete roof tiles. All these elements are evident to existing dwellings adjacent and within the vicinity of the site.

34. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposal does not conflict with adjacent land uses and there is no unacceptable adverse effects on existing properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing or noise and other disturbance.

35. The site layout plan indicates that the proposed dwellings have an average separation distance to existing landscaped boundaries that are in excess of 10 metres, the guidance contained in ‘Creating Places’ suggests this is an appropriate distance to ensure negative impacts on adjacent dwellings is mitigated.

36. Whilst one dwelling falls below this guidance however with a 9.4 metre separation to an established and mature boundary this is considered acceptable to the proposal. With the proposed separation distances, the mature landscaping to site boundaries and the context of site levels, which are lower than some of the adjacent dwellings, it is contended that no overlooking from the development, loss of light, overshadowing or noise disturbance will occur in the existing residential area.

Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas

37. The Addendum to PPS7 – Safeguarding the Character of Established Residential Areas is also applicable to this proposal.

38. Policy LC1 seeks to protect local character, environmental quality and residential amenity of the existing area. Policy LC1 will only grant planning permission for a vacant site such as this where the proposal satisfies the criteria set out above under Policy QD1 of PPS7, and the following additional criteria are met: the proposed density is not significantly higher than that found in the established residential area and the pattern of development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental quality of the established residential area.

39. As this is a small development of residential properties it is considered to respect the overall density when considered with the locality. The proposal involves a pattern of development that takes it theme from the existing and

established plot sizes, ratio of built form to garden area, spacing between buildings, building scales, height, and massing, architectural styles and materials, landscaping and boundary treatments; and potential impacts on non- residential uses e.g. schools, open space, etc.

40. It is therefore contended that this proposal is not incongruous to the existing settlement pattern, layout and design of the immediate area and it therefore complies with the requirements of Policy LC1 of the Addendum to PPS7.

Access, Movement and Car Parking

41. PPS3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out the planning policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment, the protection of transport routes and parking. The policy context is applicable in relation to the connection of this site to Belvoir View Park and the provision of car parking associated with the new dwellings.

42. Transport NI has assessed the proposed connection to the existing road network, its intensification and the provision and car parking and has offered no objection to this proposal.

43. It is therefore contended that the proposal complies with Policy AMP2 of PPS3 which allows direct access or intensification of accesses to the public road when it will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic.

44. It is also considered that the car parking within the proposal has also satisfied the requirements of Policy AMP7 of PPS3 as the in curtilage spaces will not inconvenience the flow of traffic to/from the proposal or prejudice road safety. Transport NI has offered conditions for any forthcoming approval.

Impact on Natural Heritage

45. PPS2 – Natural Heritage seeks the protection of wildlife and natural heritage habitats.

46. The proposal is accompanied by site survey and report into the natural heritage attributes of the existing site. NIEA Natural Environment Division (NED) were consulted on this report and its conclusions and, having visited the site, NED has no concerns with the development as proposed. A mammal hole evident on site was investigated and it was concluded it was more likely to be a fox than a badger sett.

47. It is contended that the proposal will not have a negative impact on any protected species nor wildlife in general given the level of existing boundary vegetation and its retention as part of this proposal.

Consideration of Representations

Roads/Traffic Concerns 48. Pertaining to the roads/traffic concerns and issues advice from Transport NI as a statutory consultee is an important consideration. Transport NI examines such issues as the effect on the existing network, safety implications, existing physical road environment, traffic impact, access standards and parking requirements.

49. Based on advice received, it is considered that the proposal as presented satisfies road standards. The specific policy issues of PPS3 have been considered and assessed to the satisfaction of Transport NI and the guidance on such matters contained in DCAN 15 has been considered and accepted. Full PSD drawings have been submitted, considered and signed off by Transport NI with appropriate conditions provided for any future planning approval.

Internal layout 50. In terms of the internal layout, notwithstanding the road standards being meet, parking has been provided in curtilage for all the proposed dwellings. Any overspill parking would have to conform with any road regulations pertaining to where a vehicle is parked.

51. It is considered that the separation distance and location of the parking will limit the vehicle movements along shared boundaries with individual residential properties. The parking of vehicles in an unauthorised manner in breach of other relevant legislation is beyond the control of planning legislation. Hence these issues have been fully addressed and considered appropriate.

Impact on Wildlife

52. With regard to the issue of wildlife concerns, NIEA have been consulted. They have no concerns in relation to badger activity on the site following a site visit and hence it is considered that this matter has been fully addressed.

Drainage and Potential Flooding Issues 53. NI water were consulted and have advised there is available capacity within their network infrastructure for receiving waste water from this proposal. The availability of mains water connection has been confirmed to the satisfaction of NI Water.

54. In relation to the surface water runoff from the site this will be directed to the storm drain network serving the wider residential area, again NI Water confirms there is available capacity to deal with the proposal.

55. It is therefore considered that all water infrastructure issues have been considered and satisfied. Specific mention has been made to a pipe running across the site from a neighbouring property. NI Water’s response on this matter confirms that the provision of that pipe is as existing or if necessary can be provided to serve the proposed development and as such approval of this development will not impact upon that pipe to the detriment of adjacent residential properties.

Impact on Character 56. In terms of the character of the existing area it is noted that the proposal is located within an urban context and the number of units proposed allied with its layout and that of the associated and existing residential layout will not be at odds to the nearby and adjacent urban context. The density of the proposal is not considered to be at odds with the wider context. The design of the

properties, as has been covered within Policy QD1 of PPS7 above, is not incongruous to the established grain of urban design in the immediate vicinity or indeed the its wider urban context.

Impact on Amenity 57. With regard to concerns raised about the impact on amenity of existing dwellings, this has been considered within the body of the report above. None of the proposed dwellings will be located at such positions to cause detrimental impact to existing dwellings and this, combined with the proposed finished floor levels and the retention of established site boundaries, will ensure that residential amenity is not significantly degraded as a result of this proposal.

Impact on Trees 58. The trees on the site have no protection for their retention, however the plans submitted with this proposal show their retention and augmentation with new planting. This will ensure screening to and from the site and limit the degree of inter-visibility across common boundaries.

59. It is considered that all objections to have been fully noted and the issues to have been fully addressed through the requirements of planning policy and the further guidance available to the Planning Unit and all other interested parties.

Conclusions

60. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended the proposed development on balance meets with the site’s local context as assessed through the aims, objectives and policies of the LDP.

61. Furthermore, the proposal has been carefully assessed in relation to relevant Planning Policy Statements and guidance on such matters available to this Council.

Recommendations

62. It is recommended that planning permission been approved, subject to appropriate conditions.

Conditions

63. The following conditions are recommended.

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

. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. C 103 Rev E bearing the Planning date stamp 2nd March 2016, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The access gradients to the dwellings hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.Transport NI hereby determines that the width, position and arrangement of the streets,

and the land to be regarded as being comprised in the streets, shall be as indicated on Drawing No. C 103 Rev e bearing the Planning date stamp 05 Feb 2016.

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

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

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

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

Reason: To ensure adequate visibility in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users and to prevent damage or obstruction to services.

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved drawing no C 103 Rev E bearing the Planning date stamp 05 Feb 2016 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles.

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

. Connection to the main sewer is required with Northern Ireland Water approval.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to odour

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the drawing 31 bearing the date stamp 13th June 2016 and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practise.

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

. The existing natural screenings of the site, as indicated, on approved drawing 31, date stamped received 13 June 2016 shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation along with a scheme for compensatory planting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council, prior to removal.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality.

. During the first available planting season after the occupation of any of the properties herby approved, the additional planting as indicated on drawing 31 bearing the date stamp 13th June 2016 shall be planted.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

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

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

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

Site Location Plan – Y/2014/0209/F

APPENDIX 1.4 PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference S/2014/0762/O

Date of Application 10 November 2014

District Electoral Area Killultagh

Proposal Description 2 no. Proposed dwellings

Location Beside 17 Ballinderry Road, Aghalee.

Applicant/Agent McCready Architects

Representations 0

Case Officer Conor McGarry.

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The proposed application is located beside 17 Ballinderry Road, Aghalee and occupies a small parcel of land approximately 0.25 hectares in size along the road frontage of the Ballinderry Road and Chapel Road.

4. The boundary along the road frontage comprises mature hedging and it divides the plot of land from either house, No. 17 Ballinderry Road and No. 25 Chapel Road. There are two telegraph poles located near the southern boundary of the site with over-head cabled lines running north through the site.

5. The site is located outside of the Local Landscape Policy Area, and the land is currently zoned as white land within BMAP.

Proposed Development

6. The application is for outline permission for 2 proposed infill dwellings under PPS21 between No.17 Ballinderry and No. 25 Chapel Road, Upper Ballinderry.

Relevant Planning History

7. There is no specific planning history relating to this site.

Planning Policy Context

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

. Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) . Planning Policy Statement 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Planning policy Statement 3 – Access Movement and Parking

Consultations

9. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to conditions

Consultee Response Environmental Health No Objection in principle

NIEA - Drainage and Content Water NIEA Protecting Historic Content Units NI Water No Objection

Representations

10. No third party representations were received in respect of this application.

Consideration and Assessment

11. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Ribbon Development - New Dwellings in Existing Clusters - Integration and Design - Rural Character . Access, Movement and Parking

Principle of Development

12. The site is located in the open countryside as designated in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

apply. Any conflict between the SPPS and policy retained under transitional arrangements must be resolved in favour of the provisions of the SPPS.

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

15. The SPPS states that ‘provision should be made for the development of a small gap site in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage. It states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development’.

16. The application proposes two dwellings in the countryside therefore for the principle of development to be established it must comply with the SPPS and PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

17. PPS21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside, sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

18. Policy CTY 1 – Development in the Countryside makes reference to a number of circumstances when planning permission will be granted for individual dwelling houses in the countryside. In particular it states that planning permission will be granted for residential development in the countryside for the development of a small gap within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage in accordance with Policy CTY 8.

19. Development would not be acceptable in principle within the countryside unless it complies with Policy CTY 8 – Ribbon Development.

Ribbon Development 20. Paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS and Policy CTY 8 provide policy direction in relation to ribbon development.

21. Policy directs that planning permission will be refused for a development of a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. Policy qualifies this position by stating that ‘an exception will be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built-up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements’. For the purpose of this policy, the definition of a substantial and built-up frontage includes a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. For an infill opportunity to arise, there must be a small gap in a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage.

22. The two infill developments are to be sited on the eastern side of the Ballinderry Road converging with the Chapel road. The infill dwelling are set between No.25 Chapel Road and No.17 Ballinderry Road with a proposed plot width of approximately 22metres for dwelling no.1 and 35metres for dwelling no.2. It is considered that in the current location the dwellings do not share a common frontage and there is no common frontage of a line of three or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

23. The dwellings on either side of the proposed site are not visually linked and are located on different roads, which are the Ballinderry Road and Chapel Road.

24. A recent appeal (appeal reference no. 2016/A0043) for a proposed site for two infill dwellings shares some common characteristics of this application in that the application relied upon frontages onto two differing roads/lanes.

25. In considering the appeal, the Commissioner states that “the addresses of the properties on which the appellant is relying refer to Ballybogy Road, however the road frontage, which is critical to the determination of this proposal is known as Newbuildings Lane, a minor road that accesses onto Ballybogy Road.” 5

26. The Commissioner concluded that one of the dwellings being relied upon to create the substantial and continuously built up frontage does not have a frontage onto Newbuildings Lane whereby the other two properties do. It was also concluded that “it follows that there is no line of there or more buildings to meet CTY 8’s definition of a substantial and continuously built up frontage and the appeal site, whatever the size, cannot constitute a small gap site. Consequently the appal proposal fails to meet the first, second and third elements of policy CTY 8.”

27. The first proposed dwelling would have a frontage onto the main Ballinderry Road and the second dwelling would have a frontage onto Chapel Road therefore it follows that there is no line of three or more buildings to meet the policy definition of a substantial and continuously built up frontage and as such, it fails to meet to the criteria associated with policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development.

New Dwellings in Existing Clusters

28. Whilst the Agent submitted the application with a description of infill dwellings, a concept plan was also submitted detailing the sites as a cluster of development. In light of this, an assessment has been carried out against the policy tests associated with policy CTY 2a – New Dwellings in Existing Clusters

29. Policy CTY 2a – New Dwellings in Existing Clusters states that planning permission will be granted for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development provided a number of criteria are met.

30. In this case, it is contended that there is no visual appearance of an existing cluster consisting of four or more buildings located at a crossroads nor is there evidence of a social/ community building in the immediate locality. As such, there is no existing cluster of development evident on the ground to be considered.

31. It is contended that the existence of ruins of a church and graveyard some 150m away are not visually associated with the site due to the distance and the

curvature of the road. For this reason, it is contended that the proposal fails to comply with policy CTY 2a.

Integration and Design

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

33. This is an outline application and detailed drawings have not been submitted. Design would normally be considered at the reserved matters stage.

34. Whilst it is contended that the principle of development is unacceptable, should the application be successful, suitably designed single storey dwellings could be conditioned as could the retention and augmentation of existing vegetation in order to help integrate a suitably sized dwellings into the area.

Rural Character

35. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

36. It is considered that proposed development would be contrary to policy CTY 8 and that the approval of two dwellings at this location would create ribbon development it follows that such a development would fail to respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area given that it does not meet the tests within CTY 8 and fronts onto two roads.

37. In is therefore contended that the proposal is contrary to CTY 14 and that if approved, it would cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of the area.

Access Movement and Parking

38. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard and that any proposed development can have a safe access/egress onto the public road.

39. The site fronts onto the Ballinderry Road and Chapel Road and has a single access onto each road. Transport NI consider this application acceptable subject to standard outline conditions.

40. The proposal is therefore considered to be policy compliant with the provisions of PPS 3.

Conclusions

41. The application is for two proposed infill dwellings in a countryside location. PPS 21 is the relevant planning policy context. It is contended that the application is not policy compliant as there is no line of three or more buildings along a road frontage.

42. The proposed infill dwellings do not share a common frontage as they front two different roads and the proposal is therefore not policy compliant.

43. The proposal as presented fails to satisfy the policy tests associated with policy CTY 2a as it is not associated with a focal point or cross roads and does not appear as a visual entity in the landscape.

Recommendations

44. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reason

45. The following refusal reasons are recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the site is not considered to be a small gap in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage.

- The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY2a of Planning Policy Statement 21, New Dwellings in Existing Clusters in that the proposed dwelling is not located within an existing cluster of development consisting of 4 or more buildings of which at least three are dwellings nor is it located at a cross roads or associated with a focal point.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21,Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the development would, if permitted add to a ribbon of development along the Ballinderry and Chapel Roads and would therefore result in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside.

Site Location Plan – S/2014/0762/O

APPENDIX 1.5PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2016/0507/F

Date of Application 23 May 2016

District Electoral Area Downshire East

Proposal Description Proposed development of two infill dwellings, access and landscaping.

Location Lands 10 metres east of 127 Ballyskeagh Road, Drumbeg, Co.Down

Applicant/Agent Mr D Crowe / Clyde Shanks Ltd

Representations 4 objections & 1 letter of support

Case Officer Catherine Gray

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.

2. This application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse.

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The site is located to the northern side of the Ballyskeagh Road. It is situated between property 127 Ballyskeagh Road which is a two storey dwelling house

and an end terrace property which is no. 133 Ballyskeagh Road. The site itself is a grassed field.

4. The western and southern boundaries of the site currently defined by a wooden ranch style fence. Between the defined southern boundary and the road there is a tarmac footpath. The northern boundary of the site is defined by mature hedgerow vegetation and trees. The eastern boundary is defined partly by the gable end wall elevation of property 133, to the front/south of this there is a concrete wall and the rest of the boundary to the rear of the terrace dwelling is defined by fencing approximately 2m in height.

Proposed Development

5. Outline permission is sought for the proposed development of two infill dwellings, access and landscaping.

Relevant Planning History

6. The following is details of the planning history:

Reference Description Decision S/2013/0647/O Proposed development of two Permission Refused infill two storey dwellings, – 03/09/2014 access, garages and ancillary site works at lands 10 metres east of 127 Ballyskeagh Road, Drumbeg. Appeal - 2014/A0112 Appeal lodged to Appeal was S/2013/0647/O. dismissed on 05/06/2015. Ground for judicial challenge sought and granted. Judicial challenge not pursued by the applicant.

Planning Policy Context

7. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 (BMAP 2015) . Strategic Planning Policy for Northern Ireland (SPPS): Planning for Sustainable Development . Planning Policy Statement 2 (PPS 2): Natural Heritage . Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Access, Movement and Parking . Planning Policy Statement 21 (PPS 21): Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

Consultations

8. The following consultations were carried out

Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to standard conditions. NI Water No objection. Environmental Health No Objection. Lagan Valley Regional Refers to policy COU10 that should be applied. Park Historic Environment Content that the proposal is satisfactory to the SPPS and PPS 6. Division DAERA: Drainage and Content with the proposal. Water DAERA: Natural Heritage Site is located within an area of sensitivity for NI priority habitat or priority species. Asked for biodiversity and Conservation checklist. A completed biodiversity checklist was subsequently submitted and when re-consulted they deem that there is low potential for biodiversity on the site.

Representations

9. Four objections have been lodged to the proposal. The following concerns have been raised: . Draws attention to the previous refusal on the site; . Detrimental visual impact; . The field in question was and still is agricultural land – not for building; . Road safety; . Negative impact on neighbours amenity – overlooking, loss of light, privacy, and noise pollution; . Interrupt the views of the Lagan Valley Regional Park (LVRP); . The proposed area of development is outside of the settlement limit and within the Lagan Valley Regional Park; . The parameters of the village are clearly and legally defined under designation DG 01 Settlement Development Limit Drumbeg in BMAP 2015 and emphasises its stated definition as quoted within the development plan. . Construction on this land would result in inappropriate ribbon development between Ballyskeagh and Drumbeg, currently two distinct areas; . Not in accordance with planning policy permission should be refused; . Impact on nature and biodiversity; . The setting of the Area of Village Character and its location within the LVRP, the proposal would not contribute to the AVC or its setting within the LVRP; . Advises that the applicant seeks to extend the settlement limit of Drumbeg and must be set aside on the grounds of prematurity of the new Lisburn and Castlereagh Local Development Plan which the Council will formulate in due course; . With regards to the LVRP consultation response advises that by not objecting does not confer approval; and . The examples put forward by the agent bare no relevance to this application which seeks to undermine the setting of Drumbeg, it AVC, location within LVRP and an important settlement within the Council area.

13. One letter of support has been submitted from Mr Hugh Crookshanks, Chairman of Drumbeg Residents Association. The following points were raised:

. Disappointed at the refusal of the previous application; . Concerned that the site would turn into derelict waste land that would detract from the Drumbeg area and the Lagan Valley Regional Park; . At a meeting of the Drumbeg Residents Association on 25 May 2016 it was agreed that the site visually appears to be within the settlement limit of Drumbeg village; . Believes that two dwellings at this location would not only be appropriate to the areas but also be a significant enhancement along with representing a natural rounding off; . Advises that it is their considered view that two dwellings, designed in sympathy with their surroundings and would integrate into this small gap within an existing ribbon of development.

14. On submission of the application, the agent has provided a statement of support and throughout the processing of the application another statement of support was submitted providing rebuttal comments to the objections raised. They also have provided examples that they feel are similar in nature and that set a precedent.

Consideration and Assessment

15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Ribbon Development - The Setting of Settlements - Integration and Design Considerations - Rural Character - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage . Access, Movement and Parking 5

. Natural Heritage Considerations . Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage . Representations

Principle of Development

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

17. Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 states that ‘where an application is made for planning permission, the council or, as the case may be, the Department, in dealing with the application, must have regard to the local development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.’

18. The site is located within the Lisburn Countryside, within Lagan Valley Regional Park, within Lagan Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to the Settlement Development Limit of Drumbeg (Designation DG 01) and Drumbeg Area of Village Character (Designation DG 07) as denoted by the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

19. Designation DG 01 - Settlement Development Limit Drumbeg: The Settlement Limit takes account of the role of the village whilst protecting its natural setting. The limit will maintain a compact form and exclude important landscapes to the south, east and north. The Settlement Development Limit also takes account of the village’s location within the Lagan Valley Regional Park and Lagan Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the setting of St Patrick’s Church, a listed building and archaeological site. It prevents ribbon development along the Ballyskeagh Road, Quarterlands Road and Drumbeg Road.

20. Designation COU 9 – Lagan Valley Regional Park: The objectives of the Park since its creation have been two-fold, to conserve the landscape quality and 6

features of the Lagan Valley and to enhance recreational usage by the public. All proposals for development or redevelopment for compatible uses will be considered against the need to protect and where possible enhance the natural and man-made heritage of the Park and the conservation of its essential character.

21. Policy COU 10 - Development Proposals outside the Metropolitan Development Limit and Settlement Development Limits in the Lagan Valley Regional Park states that Planning permission will only be granted for development proposals outside the Metropolitan Development Limit and Settlement Development Limits within the Lagan Valley Regional Park which meet all of the following criteria:

. They are for a use appropriate to the character of the Park and to the particular locality; . They conserve or enhance the landscape quality and features of the Lagan Valley; . They are of a scale and design which integrates with the sensitive landscape of the Park; and . Where located adjacent to the Rover Lagan. Proposal should integrate with, and take into account, the river and its associated features where appropriate.

22. The application is for two residential dwellings. Residential use in itself would not necessarily conflict with the LVRP and criteria one would be met. The site does not lie adjacent to the river Lagan and therefore criteria four does not apply in this instance.

23. As the application is for outline permission it is solely to establish if the principle of development on the site is acceptable. No proposed design details have been submitted with the application. A proposed site layout plan has been submitted that details the access details and layout, in as far as to show that the access to the two proposed dwellings would be through a shared access. Views across the valley towards the Belfast Hills are seen from the site frontage although filtered by the vegetation to the rear of the site. 7

24. It is contended that any development of dwellings on this site would block these important views of the valley. It is also considered that two dwellings on this site with a shared access would not conserve or enhance the landscape quality and features of the Lagan Valley and as such, the proposal fails to satisfy the tests associated with the second criteria.

25. The third criteria requires that the proposal is of a scale and design which integrates with the sensitive landscape of the Park. The applicant has chosen to submit no design details as the application is for outline permission only. However, it is considered that the plot size put forward for two dwellings would not conserve or enhance this sensitive landscape of Lagan Valley Regional Park. Two dwellings on the site would interrupt the important views of the park and its sensitive landscape that is sought to be retained.

26. It is therefore contended that the proposal fails to comply with criterion two and three of Policy COU 10.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

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

28. The aim of the SPPS with regard to the countryside is to manage development in a manner which strikes a balance between protection of the environment from inappropriate development, while supporting and sustaining rural communities consistent with the RDS.

3. PPS 21 – Sustainable Development in the Countryside sets out planning policies for development in the countryside and lists the range of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable and contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

29. Policy CTY 1 - Development in the Countryside makes provision for a range of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development.

30. This application is for an infill site and being adjacent to a settlement development limit.

Ribbon Development 31. Policy CTY 8 - Ribbon Development states that planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. An exception will be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage and provided this respects the existing development pattern along the frontage in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size and meets other planning and environmental requirements. For the purposes of this policy the definition of a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear.

32. The applicant is proposing that the properties 125 and 127 Ballyskeagh Road along with property 133 Ballyskeagh Road is a substantial and continuously built up frontage. In doing so the applicant is reliant on development inside the Settlement Limit of Drumbeg.

33. Whilst numbers 125 and 127 Ballyskeagh Road lie in the countryside, the dwellings to the east including property 133 Ballyskeagh Road on which the applicant relies upon do not occupy a rural context at as such, cannot be included when considering development proposals under Policy CTY 8.

34. Two dwellings on the proposed site would be visually linked with property number 133 Ballyskeagh Road, however this building lies within the urban fabric and settlement limit, occupying a different policy context from the proposed site.

35. The proposed site is not a small gap within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage within the countryside and is not considered to be an exception under Policy CTY 8.

36. It is considered that the proposal would add to an existing ribbon of development along the Ballyskeagh Road. The ribbon of development runs from property number 155 along to property number 127. Property number 127 although it is a recent new development is a replacement dwelling. Property number 127 is where the development ends within the countryside along the Ballyskeagh Road on approach to the site from the west. If the proposed site was developed it would add to this existing ribbon of development along the Ballyskeagh Road. The proposal fails to comply with Policy CTY 8.

37. The previous appeal on this site for the same proposal also acknowledged that

‘whilst no’s 121-127 lie in the countryside, the dwellings to the east on which the appellant relies does not occupy a rural context in policy terms and therefore cannot be included when considering development proposals under Policy CTY 8’.

38. This reflects the approach taken in appeals 2012/A0219 and 2013/A0114.

39. In a recent appeal 2015/A0221 the Commission stated that

‘The settled Commission position is that development within settlement limits cannot be included when considering development proposals under Policy CTY 8 as it occupies a different context in policy terms.’

40. More recently appeal 2015/A0243 also confirmed the approach taken by the Planning Appeal Commission in this regard.

41. The site presents itself as a significant visual gap between the Settlement Limit of Drumbeg and the countryside. It is contended that the infilling of this significant visual gap will extend urban sprawl into the countryside.

42. As stated above the site relies on development to the west of the site, it does not therefore sit within a line of three or more buildings in the countryside required to meet the definition of a substantial and continuously built up frontage. As there is no substantial and continuously built up frontage in the countryside, then there cannot be a development opportunity.

43. Paragraph 5.34 of PPS 21 states that many frontages in the countryside have gaps between houses or other buildings that provide relief and visual breaks in the developed appearance of the locality and that help maintain rural character. The proposed site is considered to be such a gap that provides relief and a visual break in the developed appearance of the locality.

44. As stated in the previous appeal, the erection of two proposed dwellings on the site would result in the loss of the buffer between no. 127 and the terrace and would create a continuous row of roadside development stretching westwards from the terrace.

45. The development if approved would be perceived as a ribbon of development and run contrary to Policy CTY 8.

46. There is no evidence to suggest that the appeal proposal falls into any other category of development that is listed as acceptable in principle in the countryside under Policy CTY 1 or that there are overriding reasons why the development is essential and could not be located in a settlement.

The Setting of Settlement Limits 47. As outlined above, the site is located adjacent to the Settlement Development Limit of Drumbeg.

48. Policy CTY 15 - The Setting of Settlement Limits states that planning permission will be refused for development that mars the distinction between a settlement and the surrounding countryside or that otherwise results in urban sprawl.

49. Paragraph 5.83 states that a settlement’s identity can be as much as a result of its setting within the surrounding countryside, as the quality of its buildings. Landscapes around settlements have a special role to play in maintaining the distinction between town and country, in preventing coalescence between adjacent built-up areas and in providing a rural setting to the built up area. Paragraph 5.84 states that ‘the principle of drawing a settlement limit is partly to promote and partly to contain new development within that limit and so maintain a clear distinction between the built-up area and surrounding countryside.

50. The supporting information puts forward the argument that this proposal would round off the development along this portion of the Ballyskeagh Road.

51. This position is not accepted in this instance. The appeal ref: 2014/A0112 states that ‘The LPA consider that the appeal site provides a clear break between the countryside and the settlement of Drumbeg, the limits of which are clearly defined by the terraced dwellings which abut the appeal site.’

52. It is considered that this position has not changed and on the ground the settlement limit of Drumbeg is clearly defined by the end of the terrace dwellings. The proposal would mar the distinction between the countryside and settlement and result urban sprawl. The site is a significant visual break between the settlement of Drumbeg and the Countryside.

53. The agent put forward previous approvals as example of precedent for this type of development at the edge of a settlement limit. All the examples put forward have been considered within the context of the application and its context.

54. Policy CTY15 involves a visual test and views from the critical viewpoints show that the proposal would undoubtedly mar the distinction between the settlement limit of Drumbeg and the Countryside.

Integration and Design of Buildings

55. Policy CTY 13 – Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it can be visually linked into the surrounding landscape and it is of an 12

appropriate design.

56. The application is for outline permission and as such, no details of the proposed layout or proposed design have been submitted for consideration. Dwellings on the site could be accommodated without having a negative impact on neighbouring amenity.

57. Should outline permission be granted, it is recommended that a plan showing existing and proposed levels is to be submitted, along with a proposed landscaping plan, along with detailed elevations, floor plans and site layout.

Rural Character

58. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

59. It is considered that the proposal would not be unduly prominent in the landscape however, it would result in a sub-urban style of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings. It would erode the important visual break and gap between development in the countryside and the settlement limit. It would also add to an existing ribbon of development and therefore be detrimental to the rural character of the area.

60. It is contended that the proposal does not comply with Policy CTY14 in that it will cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of the area.

Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage 61. Policy CTY 16 - Development Relying on Non-Mains Sewerage states that planning permission will only be granted for development relying on non-mains sewerage, where the applicant can demonstrate that this will not create or add to a pollution problem.

62. As the application is for outline permission no details of the proposed septic tank and soak ways have been provided. This detail would be considered at RM stage if the application is approved. Water Management Unit and Environmental Health have been consulted and they have no objections to the proposal in principle.

Access, Movement and Parking

63. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking is designed to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard.

64. The proposed access to the site is off the Ballyskeagh Road, one access is proposed to the two dwellings. Therefore a shared access is proposed. Transport NI were consulted on the proposal and they have no objections subject to standard conditions. It is therefore considered that a safe access can be accommodated.

Natural Heritage Considerations 65. PPS 2 – Natural Heritage sets out the Departments planning policies for the conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage.

66. Policy NH 6 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty makes provision for planning permission for new development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to only be granted where it is of an appropriate design, size and scale for the locality given that a certain criteria is met. If this application is approved, the details of the size, scale and design of the dwellings would be considered in the Reserved Matters application.

67. Natural Heritage and Conservation advise that from a desk top study of our GIS and aerial and photography records that the application site is located within an area of sensitivity for Northern Ireland priority habitat or priority species.

68. Their records indicate trees and hedgerow habitat occurring within or adjacent to the application site. They advised that hedgerows are classified as NI Priority habitat. In addition to that, they advised that they are known to provide

foraging, resting and breeding opportunities for a range of species including bats, badgers and wild birds.

69. NIEA noted opportunities to benefit biodiversity through the retention and enhancement of trees and hedgerow habitat on site through supplementation with native species, as detailed on drawing no2 dated 20 May 2016.

70. The agent was then asked to complete and submit a biodiversity checklist for consideration. A completed biodiversity checklist received on 5 August 2016 identified that the application site has hedgerows and the supporting statement states that the proposal will not involve the loss of NI priority habitat, no hedgerows will be impacted. For this reason the proposal will not impact on local bat flight paths. This is confirmed by NIEA consultation responses to date.

71. At the time of survey, no ephemeral waterbodies were extant on site and there appears to be no reasonable likelihood that the site is suitable for newts, site surveys have indicated that badgers or otters are not extant on the site. No impacts will arise upon them. The habitats on site is unsuitable for lizards. Habitats impacted by the proposal are not NI or UK priority habitats and no impacts upon priority habitats will arise in the event that the proposal proceeds.’

72. Natural Environment Division were re-consulted with the completed biodiversity checklist and additional information. They advised that having reviewed the biodiversity checklist, accompanying photographs and declaration, they deemed that there was a low potential for biodiversity on the site. No site inspection was carried out by NIEA.

73. Having reviewed the submitted information, the consultation responses from NED and the concerns raised by the objector with regards to natural heritage issues, it is contented that the proposal would not have a negative impact on any natural heritage and would comply with PPS 2.

74. The need for the rear boundary of the site i.e. the existing hedgerow and vegetation to the rear to be retained is an important consideration.

Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage 75. The site is located within a buffer zone surrounding a Listed Building. The Listed building of concern is ref: HB19/23/057, Charley Memorial Primary School, which is Grade B2 Listed.

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

77. Policy BH 11 – Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building states that planning permission will not normally be granted where the development would adversely affect the setting of a listed building.

78. Historic Environment Division advised that it has considered the impacts of the proposal on the setting of the listed building and on the basis of the information provided was content that the setting of the listed building would remain unaffected by the development subject to a number of conditions to retain existing boundary hedging and vegetation to the northern and eastern boundaries and the planting of a new native species hedge along the southern roadside site boundary, prior to occupation of the proposed dwellings.

79. It is therefore contended that the proposal would not have a negative impact on any archaeology or built heritage and in this regard complies with the SPPS and PPS 6.

Consideration of Representations

80. Consideration of issues raised by way of third party representation is set out below.

81. Previous refusal on the site – the previous history is a material consideration.

82. Detrimental visual impact – the assessment above demonstrates that the proposal would result in a detrimental visual impact to the Lagan Valley Regional Park.

83. Existing Agricultural Use not for development – The existing use has been considered in the assessment of the proposal.

84. Road safety – Transport NI have no objections to the proposal.

85. Negative impact on neighbours amenity – overlooking, loss of light, privacy, and noise pollution - The application is for outline permission and as such no details are provided with regards to design specifics. However it is contented that two dwellings on the site would not have a negative impact on any neighbours amenity. Environmental Health have been consulted and they have no objections to the proposal in principle.

86. Interrupt views of the Lagan Valley Regional Park (LVRP) – it is contended that the proposal will interrupt the views of the Lagan Valley Regional Park.

87. The proposed area of development is outside of the settlement limit and within the Lagan Valley Regional Park – the designations of the site have been taken on board in the assessment of the proposal.

88. The parameters of the village are clearly and legally defined under designation DG 01 Settlement Development Limit Drumbeg in BMAP 2015 and emphasises its stated definition as quoted within the development plan – The designations of the site and surrounding area have been considered as part of the assessment of the proposal.

89. Construction on this land would result in inappropriate ribbon development between Ballyskeagh and Drumbeg, currently two distinct areas – Planning agrees that the proposal would add to an existing ribbon of development along the Ballyskeagh Road.

90. Contrary to Planning Policy – the assessment above demonstrates how the proposal as presented is contrary to planning policy.

91. Impact on nature and biodiversity – A biodiversity checklist has been submitted for consideration and it is contented that the proposal would not have a negative impact on any nature or biodiversity. Natural Heritage have been consulted and they have raised no objections to the proposal.

92. The setting of the Area of Village Character and its location within the Lagan Valley Regional Park, the proposal would not contribute to the AVC or its setting within the LVRP - In policy terms no provision is made for development adjoining an Area of Village Character however it is contented that the proposal would have a negative impact on the Lagan Valley Regional Park.

93. Advises that the applicant seeks to extend the settlement limit of Drumbeg and must be set aside on the grounds of prematurity of the new Lisburn and Castlereagh Local Development Plan which the Council will formulate in due course – In line with legislation the current development plan is to be considered and in this case has been. No assessment can be made for against a development plan that is currently being undertaken.

94. With regards to the LVRP consultation response advises that by not objecting does not confer approval – the consultation response from Lagan Valley Regional Park Office has been taken on board when assessing the application.

95. The examples put forward by the agent bare no relevance to this application which seeks to undermine the settling of Drumbeg, its AVC, location within LVRP and an important settlement within the Council area – Examples put forward by the agent and have considered them as part of the assessment of the application.

96. Disappointed at the refusal of the previous application – the history of the site has been taken on board when assessing the current application.

97. Concerned that the site would turn into derelict waste land that would detract from the Drumbeg area and the Lagan Valley Regional Park – The site is currently not a waste land and its future use if this application is refused is not part of planning assessment of the proposal.

98. At a meeting of the Drumbeg Residents Association on 25 May 2016 it was agreed that the site visually appears to be within the settlement limit of Drumbeg village – it is contended that the proposal would mar the distinction between the Countryside and the Settlement Development Limit of Drumbeg and therefore contrary to Policy CTY 15 of PPS 21.

99. Belief that two dwellings at this location would not only be appropriate to the areas but also be a significant enhancement along with representing a natural rounding off – it is contended that the proposal would mar the distinction between the Countryside and the Settlement Development Limit of Drumbeg.

100. Advises that it is their considered view that two dwellings, designed in sympathy with their surroundings and would integrate into this small gap within an existing ribbon of development – it is contended that the proposal would mar the distinction between the Countryside and the Settlement Development Limit of Drumbeg.

101. View that the current interpretation of the policy context between the countryside and settlement development limits referred to cannot be sustained due to other applications that have been approved at the edge of settlement limits – it is contended that the current interpretation of planning policy is correct. This position is and continues to be endorsed by the Planning Appeals Commission, an independent body.

Conclusions

102. The proposal has been carefully considered and all material considerations have been taken into account. The proposal fails to comply with the development plan or planning policy.

Recommendation

103. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reason(s)

104. The following refusal reason(s) are recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to Policy COU 10 Development Proposals outside the Metropolitan Development Limit and Settlement Development Limits in the Lagan Valley Regional Park of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015, in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would conserve or enhance the landscape quality and features of the Lagan Valley

. The proposal is contrary to Policy COU 10 Development Proposals outside the Metropolitan Development Limit and Settlement Development Limits in the Lagan Valley Regional Park of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015, in that it has not been demonstrated that appropriately scaled and designed dwellings would integrate with the sensitive landscape of the Park.

. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) and Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement.

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the addition of ribbon development along the Ballyskeagh Road.

. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal 20

would, if permitted result in a suburban style build-up of development when viewed with existing and approved buildings and would therefore result in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside.

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

. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY15 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would if permitted mar the distinction between the defined settlement limit of Drumbeg and the surrounding countryside and result in urban sprawl.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0507/O

APPENDIX 1.6PM Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting Local Application (Mandatory) Committee Interest

Application Reference LA05/2016/0509/F

Date of Application 23 May 2016

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description Proposed Multi Use Games Area including fencing, changing accommodation, floodlighting, car parking, landscaping and associated works.

Location 130 metres south of 60 Holly Mount, Seymour Hill, Dunmurry.

Applicant/Agent Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council.

Representations 0

Case Officer Joanna Magee

Recommendation Approval

Summary of Recommendation

1. This application is categorised as a local planning application. It is presented to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

2. The application is presented with a recommendation to approve.

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The site is located south of Holly Mount adjacent Willow Gardens. The site is enclosed by a 1.2 metre high palisade fence and currently within an area of existing open space.

4. The land is situated adjacent the former Dunmurry High School contains ongoing building work at the adjacent site for social housing within an area formerly used as football pitches. The surrounding area contains a mixture of planting opposite the site. The site is currently not in use by the public and currently appears overgrown grass land.

Proposed Development

5. The application as presented is for full permission to provide a multi-use games area (MUGA) including fencing, changing accommodation, floodlighting and car parking landscaping and associated works largely used for 5 and 7 aside football pitches.

Relevant Planning History

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

Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference LA05/2015/0874/F Proposed multi use games area including Withdrawn fencing, changing accommodation, 16.03.2016 floodlighting, car parking, landscaping and associated works at 130m south of 60 Holly Mount, Seymour Hill Dunmurry, Belfast.

S/2014/0562/F 98 No New Social Housing dwellings, Permission provision of communal open space, Granted. relocation and replacement of existing bus 20.03.2015 turning circle and provision of children’s play park at former High School Site, River Road, Dunmurry.

S/2009/0189/F Proposed 3rd generation football pitch, Permission fencing, floodlighting, car parking and Granted. changing facilities at 250m North East of 12/01/10 Dunmurry High School River Road Dunmurry.

7. Planning permission was previously granted within the context of planning application S/2009/0189/F for a proposed 3g pitch football pitch, fence floodlighting car parking and changing facilities for the former Lisburn City

Council on land immediately adjacent the site. However this permission granted on 12 January 2010 has since lapsed and as such cannot be implemented.

Planning Policy Context

8. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015: Metropolitan Lisburn . Strategic Planning Policy Statement: Planning for Sustainable Development 2015 (SPPS): Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation. . PPS 2 Natural Heritage Policy NH6: Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. . PPS 3 Access Movement and Parking. . PPS 8: Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation. Area of Existing Open Space. . Policy OS 5: Noise generating sports and outdoor recreational activities. Policy OS 7: The Floodlighting of Sports and Outdoor Recreational Facilities.

Consultations

9. The following consultations were carried out:

Consultee Response Environmental Health Conditions attached

Transport NI Conditions attached PSD Drawings NIW Strategic Informatives attached NIEA Water Management Informatives attached Unit NIEA Natural Environment No objections. Division

Objections / Representations

10. No objections or representations were received in respect of this application.

Consideration and Assessment

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

. Principle of Development . Land use zoning within an Area of Existing Open Space. . Natural Heritage Considerations . Access and Car parking consideration. . Public Health Noise and disturbance consideration

Principle of Development

12. The site is located within the settlement development limit of Metropolitan Lisburn and within an area of open space. The site also lies within an (AONB) Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but does not require a design and access statement due to the floor area of the building (changing facility) being non- residential development under 100 square metres as required by legislation.

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

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

16. Given the planning history associated with the application site and its location within the settlement limits, it is contented that the principle of development is acceptable subject to all other planning and environmental considerations being met.

Land use zoning within an Area of Existing Open Space.

17. The site located in a former area of open space known as Dunmurry High School sports grounds.

18. PPS 8 – Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation sets out planning policies for the protection of all areas open space whether or not they are indicated in the Plan Proposals Maps.

19. Policy OS1– Protection of Open Space, operates a presumption to protect existing open space. The new changing facility and car parking area presents a loss of usable space Policy OS1 provides exceptions where the redevelopment will bring substantial community benefits that outweigh the loss and no significant detrimental impact to amenity will occur.

20. To comply with PPS 8: Open Space Sport and Outdoor recreation. This designation seeks to prevent the loss of existing open space of land zoned for the provision of open space. An exception will be permitted where it is clearly shown that redevelopment will bring substantial community benefits that decisively outweigh the loss of open space.

21. It is evident that this development will be used to benefit the community and a large element of this football pitch will retain the land use as designated open space. The proposed development therefore complies with this policy requirement.

Natural Heritage Considerations

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

23. Policy NH6 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty states that planning permission for new development within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will only be granted where it is of an appropriate design, size and scale for the locality and a number of criteria are met.

24. With regard to the siting and scale, the proposal, is for a multi-use games area with changing room accommodation. The building will be located to the north of the site with adequate car parking facilities.

25. The structure itself measures 6m x 13.6m with a total height of 3 metres, the associated car parking area contains 24 spaces including one disabled space.

26. The proposed new fence is proposed along all boundaries. The fencing will measure 3 metres surrounding the perimeter with a grass and soft landscaping proposed at the junction at River Road and Willow Gardens.

27. The proposed football area will be surrounded by a 5 metre high security antic climb mesh panel fence. The pitch measures 60 metres in length x 40m wide with the pitch itself covered by a bitmac surface with pedestrian access from the car parking area.

28. The building is considered to be appropriate for this location in terms of scale and mass.

29. It is contended that the proposed building is sympathetic to the urban surroundings. It will be finished in a textured flat steel painted green, with the base constructed from concrete blocks. All exposed faces plastered with 12.5 mm sand cement plaster rendered smooth. The boundary of the pitch itself will measure 3 metres in galvanised black finish.

30. NIEA - Natural Environment Unit has commented on the proposal and has offered objection to the development. In light of this, and the assessment set out above, it is considered that the proposal as presented is of an appropriate design, size and scale for the locality.

31. NIEA Natural Environment Division (NED) have made comments with regards bats in their response dated 3 June 2016. 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.

32. NED considers that as the site is within an urban environment and already subject to a certain amount of light spill, it is unlikely that very light sensitive bats would be found using the site. Therefore NED considers that the additional floodlighting proposed is unlikely to significantly impact the local bat population.

Access and Car parking consideration.

33. PPS 3 Access Movement and Parking is the relevant policy consideration in with regards access and car parking layout.

34. Policy AMP 7 – Car parking and Servicing Arrangements states, ‘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 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 proposed layout illustrates 24 car parking spaces and one disabled car parking space which is deemed adequate to facilitate this development.

35. Policy AMP 8 – Cycle Provision: Planning permission will only be granted for development providing jobs, shopping, leisure and services, including educational and community uses where the needs of cyclists are taken into account. Where appropriate provision of the following may be required: (a) safe and convenient cycle access; (b) safe, convenient and secure cycle parking having regard to the Department’s published standards; and (c) safe and convenient cycle links to existing or programmed cycle networks where they adjoin the development site. It appears that the proposal is

policy compliant. There is also provision for local residents to park 10 bicycles within the car park area nearby the entrance and changing facility.

36. Policy AMP 9 – Design of Car parking, The Council will expect a high standard of design, layout and landscaping to accompany all proposals for car parking. Planning permission will only be granted for a proposal where all the following criteria are met.

(a) it respects the character of the local townscape / landscape; (b) it will not adversely affect visual amenity; and (c) provision has been made for security, and the direct and safe access and movement of pedestrians and cyclists within the site.

37. It is also noted that facility would be used for 5 and 7 aside football and that the maximum number of players therefore at any one time on the pitch would be 14 with a further 15 maximum waiting. Spectators are not expected to be in attendance and no official matches held in this location therefore no need for any coach parking.

38. It is recommended that conditions regarding road safety are attached to any decision notice issued. It is anticipated that the facility would have the following opening hours opening hours would close at 10 pm Monday to Saturday and Sunday opening hours from 2-5 pm. An additional letter from LCCC states that it is expected that this facility will be predominately used by the residents of the housing estates and that on average 10 cars will access the facility on any given day.

39. It is therefore contended that the proposal is in compliance with Transport NI Policy as set out in PPS 3 - Access Movement and Parking, Policy AMP 7 Car parking and Servicing Arrangements, AMP8 Cycle Provision and AMP 9 Design of Car parking.

Public Health Noise and disturbance considerations

40. Policy OS 5 – Noise Generating Sports and Outdoor Recreational Activities has been taken into account and is compliant in this case. Environmental Health

will limit the opening hours of the site accordingly to protect the amenity of residents.

41. Policy OS 7 - The Floodlighting of Sports and Outdoor Recreational Facilities states that development of floodlighting associated with sports and outdoor recreational facilities will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met.

42. Policy criteria will permit development where there is no unacceptable impact upon the amenities of people living nearby, no adverse impact upon the visual amenity or character of the locality and public safety is not prejudiced.

43. The adjacent housing development is currently under construction by a housing association and the dwellings are not yet to be occupied. There is already an element of street lighting in the vicinity and this will not create an adverse residential impact due to the addition of flood lighting.

44. The Environmental Health section within the Council was consulted and requested additional information on the form of details of flood lighting.

45. The information provided to Environmental Health demonstrates that the light intrusion level is in excess of 10 lux within the adjacent dwellings. Any artificial lighting to the development must minimise obtrusive light and conform to the requirements of the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations for Environmental Zone – E3 (Suburban) contained within Table 2 of the Institute of Light Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting, GN01, dated 2011. This guidance stipulates that the intrusive light level in suburban locations should not exceed 10 lux between the non-curfew hours and 2 lux between the curfew hours. Environmental Health recommend that curfew hours are between 22:00 and 08:00 hours.

46. This additional information was submitted and a further consultation was sent to EHO within the Council. The latest response updated 20/10/16 from Environmental Health Service Unit recommends no objection submit to conditions attached in particular to limit the hours of use from 8.30am to 22.30 and the use of floodlighting 9:00 am – 22:00pm.

47. It is recommended that appropriate conditions should be attached to the decision notice to protect the amenity of residents in surrounding area.

Conclusions

48. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that the proposed development satisfies all relevant policy tests. The (MUGA) facility will bring significant benefits to the local community in that it will provide for a modern facility and cater for the needs of a wide age group.

Recommendation

49. It is recommended that planning permission is approved subject to conditions.

Conditions

50. The following conditions are recommended:

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

. Development should be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved drawings in particular the placement of floodlighting columns and luminance levels. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to obtrusive light

. Use of the floodlights should be limited to between the hours of 09:00am and 22:00pm. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to obtrusive light and noise

. Operation of the site should be limited to between the hours of 08:30am and 22:30.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to obtrusive light and noise.

. In compliance with the submitted lighting design drawing any artificial lighting to the development must minimise obtrusive light and conform to the requirements of the Obtrusive Light Limitations for Exterior Lighting Installations for Environmental Zone – E3 (Suburban) contained within Table 2 of the Institute of Light Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting, GN01, dated 2011. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to obtrusive light.

. Foul sewage should be connected to the main sewer with Northern Ireland Water approval. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring dwellings with respect to odour.

. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. DHS/835/15, bearing the Transport NI determination date stamp 05 December 2016 and Area Planning date stamp 29 November 2016 prior to the occupation of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The access gradient shall not exceed 4% (1 in 25) over the first 10m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

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

The Department hereby determines that the width, position and arrangement of the streets, and the land to be regarded as being comprised in the streets, shall be as indicated on Drawing No. DHS/835/15, bearing the Transport NI determination date stamp 05 December 2016.

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

. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. No other development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the works necessary for the improvement of a public road have been completed in accordance with the details outlined blue on Drawing No. DHS/835/15, bearing the Transport NI date stamp 05 December 2016. The Department hereby attaches to the determination a requirement under Article 3(4A) of the above Order that such works shall be carried out in accordance with an agreement under Article 3 (4C). Reason: To ensure that the road works considered necessary to provide a proper, safe and convenient means of access to the development are carried out.

. No retailing or other operation in or from any building hereby permitted shall commence until hard surfaced areas have been constructed and permanently marked in accordance with the approved drawing No. DHS/835/15 bearing date stamp 29 November 2016, to provide adequate facilities for parking, servicing and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. . Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic circulation within the site.

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

. No Traffic calming works shall commence on site until the appropriate Traffic Calming legislative procedures have been successfully completed. Reason: To ensure the proposed traffic calming measures are provided on the adopted Carriageway to the satisfaction of Transport NI in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

Site Location Plan: LA05/2016/0509/F

APPENDIX 1.7PM Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Exception Applies)

Application Reference LA05/2016/0828/F

Date of Application 09 August 2016

District Electoral Area Castlereagh South

Proposal Description Proposed single storey extension to rear of dwelling and detached store/garage

Location 23 Windermere Drive, Belfast BT8 6XD

Applicant/Agent Maeve Gillen/Keith Flemming

Representations No objections

Case Officer Jonathan Marley

Recommendation APPROVAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The site consists of a two storey semi-detached dwelling which is located to the south side of Windermere Drive, a residential cul de sac, which lies to the east of the Cairnshill Road.

4. The properties are characteristically red or grey brick on the ground floor and white render on the floor with mock Tudor black boards. The application site has red coloured boards and grey brick on the ground floor. It is adjoining No 21 Windermere Drive which is to the west. The land rises up to the next property a no 25 which is set at a higher level.

5. There are a number of dwellings on the opposite side of the road which are single storey with dormer windows in the roof.

6. The existing boundary between the application site and No 25 is made up of a concrete wall which at its highest is approximately 1.5m. There is a fence on top of this which is approximately 1m high (from the ground level at 25). This therefore gives a combined height of approximately 2.5m from ground level at No 23.

7. The existing driveway runs between this boundary and the eastern gable of the dwelling at no 23. There is a small front which is open to the roadside.

8. There is a rear garden area defined by a 2m fence with gated access. It is at a slightly raised level. The rear garden of the site faces onto the rear gardens of the properties at Upper Malvern Park (24 and 26).

9. There are a number of side extensions within the wider area (numbers 15, 17, 14 and 16).

Proposed Development

10. The application is for a single storey rear extension and detached single storey store/garage.

Relevant Planning History

11. There is no relevant planning history pertaining to the site.

Planning Policy Context

12. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy (RDS) 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015. . Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS). . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3: Access, Movement and Parking. . Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7 (Addendum): Residential Extensions and Alterations.

Consultations

13. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response TransportNI Condition relating to parking

Representations

14. There have been no representations received in relation to the application.

Consideration and Assessment

15. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development; . Residential Extensions and Alterations - Scale Massing and Design Considerations; - Impact on Residential Amenity; - Detriment to the Local Environment; - Parking and Manoeuvring of Vehicles

Principle of Development

16. The application site is located in an urban context within the settlement development limits of Lisburn City as defined in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015.

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

18. Under the SPPS the guiding principle is that 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. Furthermore it identifies that there are a wide range of environment and amenity considerations which should be taken into account by planning authorities when proposing policies or managing development, including noise or light pollution, design considerations, impacts relating to visual intrusion, general nuisance, loss of light and overshadowing. It is noted that these considerations are not an exhaustive list and planning authorities will be best placed to identify and consider, in consultation with stakeholders, all relevant environment and amenity considerations for their areas.

19. Given the location and nature of the proposal it is considered that such a development would be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other relevant planning policies including PPS 7 (addendum) and PPS 3.

Residential Extensions and Alterations

20. The application proposes a modest single storey rear extension to No 23 to provide for an extended kitchen dining room. In addition small single storey store/boiler house is proposed which will be attached by flat roof to the dwelling. The vehicular access will remain unaltered.

21. The Addendum to PPS 7 - Residential Extensions and Alterations sets out polices for the design of improvements and extensions to residential properties.

22. Policy Ext 1 - Residential Extensions and Alterations states that planning permission will be granted for a proposal to extend or alter a residential property where all the following criteria (a - d) are met:

(a) The scale, massing, design and external materials of the proposal are sympathetic with the built form and appearance of the existing property and will not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area;

23. The dwellings within the immediate vicinity are all of a similar design, being two storey semi-detached with mock Tudor design finishes. The proposed scale of the extension is modest providing a rear extension to the kitchen of just under 2m in length for the width of the rear of the dwelling. The proposed store is also modest being under 8m sq. In terms of scale, it is considered that the proposal is entirely in-keeping with the area and the host property.

24. The design of the proposal is somewhat modern with partial cedar cladding proposed and white render. The scale and location of the extensions is considered to be modest and will not detract from the character of the area. It has been designed that the front facing areas will be more white render which will blend in with the host dwelling with the elements of glazing and cladding being contained primarily to the rear, this preserving the character to the front of the dwelling.

25. It is therefore contended that the proposal is sympathetic with the built form and appearance of the existing property and will not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area.

(b) The proposal does not unduly affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring residents;

26. In terms of privacy and amenity considerations, the extension proposes glazing to the rear elevation at ground floor. As there are currently glazed patio doors

on the rear of the property, the windows, albeit 2m closer to the boundary are considered acceptable. There is still sufficient rear garden area and separation distance to the dwelling to the rear.

27. There is an additional high level side window however it will face directly onto the proposed store so there will therefore be no issue of overlooking to any neighbouring property. There are no new windows facing into number 21, the adjoining neighbour. The proposal is set off the party wall boundary with No 21. The design has been tested against the 60 degree angle test and is clear from any degree of overshadowing.

28. The detached store has no windows facing into number 25. The drawings show it will be built down the middle of the existing boundary. A brief discussion with the applicant confirmed that he is satisfied that all proposed works are within his property and there is no issues with any overhanging or requirement to serve notice on the neighbour.

29. It is not considered therefore that the proposal will have any detrimental impact on any of the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking or overshadowing.

(c) the proposal will not cause the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, trees or other landscape features which contribute significantly to local environmental quality; and

30. The application does not propose the removal of any trees or significant landscape features which would cause detriment to the local environment.

(d) Sufficient space remains within the curtilage of the property for recreational and domestic purposes including the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles

31. After the erection of the modest extension and store, sufficient space will remain within the curtilage of the property for recreational and domestic purposes including the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

32. Transport NI were consulted regarding the parking for the dwelling and as sufficient space remains within the driveway and to the front of the property to park 2 vehicles, Transport No offer no objections to the proposal.

Conclusions

33. The application is for the erection of a modest rear extension and a single storey store/boiler house.

34. Based on careful consideration of all the relevant material planning considerations, it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable scheme at this location in terms of the existing use and structure on the site, its design and other relevant policy considerations.

Recommendation

35. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

Conditions

36. The following conditions are recommended:

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

Reason: Time Limit

. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until parking / hard standing has been provided and permanently retained in accordance with the approved drawing.

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

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0828/F

APPENDIX 1.8 PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2016 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called In)

Application Reference LA05/2016/0868/F

Date of Application 19 August 2016

District Electoral Area Lisburn North

Proposal Description Single storey rear and side extension to create open plan kitchen & living room along with additional bedroom, ensuite, office & utility room.

Location 48 Killeaton Crescent, Dunmurry, BT17 9HD

Applicant/Agent ABS Services NI

Representations 1

Case Officer Conor McGarry.

Recommendation APPROVAL.

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol of the Operation of the Planning Committee.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The site is located at 48 Killeaton Cresent which is in close proximity to Queensway Road. The property is a single storey detached bungalow finished in red brick with a hipped roof and is south facing. The dwelling has a private driveway with available parking for two cars on site. There is a small garden to 1

the rear and front. There is a detached garage located at the North West corner of the site.

4. The property is neighboured by No. 46 and No. 50 Killeaton Cresent. There is a strong boundary of matures hedges separating the proposed dwelling with No. 50 and a small 1.5 metre boundary fence separating No. 46 Killeaton Cresent.

Proposed Development

5. Single storey rear and side extension to create open plan kitchen & living room along with additional bedroom, ensuite, office & utility room.

Relevant Planning History

6. There is no specific planning history on this site.

Planning Policy Context

7. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) . Planning Policy Statement 7 Quality Residential Extensions

Consultations

8. No consultations were required regarding the application.

Representations

9. One representation was received regarding the application. The following issues were raised . Right to Light . Separation Distances

Consideration and Assessment

10. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development . Quality Residential Environments . Residential Extensions and Alterations

Principle of Development

11. The application site is located in North Lisburn within the townland of Derryaghy.

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

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

14. The application seeks planning permission for a single storey rear and side extension to create open plan kitchen & living room along with additional bedroom, ensuite, office & utility room.

Residential Extensions and Alterations

15. The Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7 – Residential Extensions and Alterations sets out planning policies for achieving quality in relation to proposals for residential extensions and alterations.

16. Policy EXT 1 – Residential Extensions and Alterations states that planning permission will be granted for a proposal to extend or alter a residential property where a number of criteria are met.

a) the scale, massing, design and external materials of the proposal are sympathetic with the built fo rm and appearance of the e xisting property and will not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area;

17. The proposed extension will be sited at the rear and along the western elevation of the property on the boundary of No. 50 Killeaton Cresent. Currently the boundary line is overgrown with shrubs and hedges. There is approximately half a metre decrease in the ground level between the site and the neighbouring property. The proposed extension will measure approximately 33m2.

18. The height of the extension will measure 2.5 metres and will have a flat roof throughout. There are windows proposed to all elevations of the extension. The windows proposed on the elevation towards No. 50 Killeaton Crescent will serve a utility room and a bathroom, with both windows proposing obscure glazing they only have opening top section for natural ventilation.

19. The proposed extension will be finished in the existing red brick which will match the host dwelling allowing for the successful integration of the proposal on site, with a flat roof.

20. The scale, massing, design and external materials of the proposal are sympathetic with the built form and appearance of the existing property and will not detract from the appearance and character of the surrounding area. The proposed extension will be finished to match existing and will appear subservient in nature against the original residential dwelling.

b) the proposal does not unduly affect the privacy or am enity of neighbouring residents;

21. There is distance between the two properties of 1.6 on the midpoint of this elevation. The boundary treatment between the properties will have the existing concrete posts retained.

22. There are over grown shrubs and trees shared by both neighbours that neither party have pruned. There are plans in place to cut back this overgrown section of vegetation by a specialist gardening company to allow for the extension to be built and still leave a reasonable amount of the vegetation to maintain a degree of screening between the properties.

23. A 900mm high timber panel fence can be provided to this boundary as additional screening if necessary and as indicated on Drawing No. 04, however, as noted in paragraph 18 above, it is noted again that the two windows to the side of this extension are to be fitted with opaque glazing to ensure privacy to the adjacent property.

24. A window is proposed to the rear elevation of the extension to serve the master bedroom offering views over the applicant’s own rear amenity space property only.

25. It is therefore contended that the proposed development will not unduly affect the privacy or amenity of neighbouring residents. The windows proposed on the extension are considered to be acceptable, ensuring privacy of neighbouring amenity space is protected.

26. The boundary proposals including retention of existing vegetation or replacement with a timber panel fence are also acceptable.

c) the proposal will not cause the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, trees or other landscape features w hich contribute significantl y to local environmental quality;

27. The application does not propose the removal of any trees or significant landscape features which would cause detriment to the local environment.

d) sufficient space remains w ithin the curtilage of the propert y for recreational and domestic purposes including the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

28. After the erection of the modest extension and store, sufficient space will remain within the curtilage of the property for recreational and domestic purposes including the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

29. It is therefore contended that sufficient space will remain at the front and rear of the property to serve domestic purposes.

Consideration of Representations

30. One representation was received which expressed concern in relation to the right to light and closeness of the proposed windows facing towards No. 50 Killeaton Cresent.

31. The agent’s boundary treatment plan, Drawing No. 4, details how the extension to this shared boundary will be dealt with, this has been considered within the body of the text above. Both the application site and No. 50 Killeaton Crescent come very close to the common boundary. However the extension to this side of the application site will be single storey, the boundary treatment will be retained or replaced with a panel fence and the 2 windows within the proposed elevation will be opaque glazed. Privacy to No. 50 will be protected as a result.

32. With regard to the right to light issue, the representation is concerned that this approval will restrict any future extensions to their own property as such would restrict the light to the 2 windows proposed in this extension. This point is noted however that is a matter between parties, the proposal is considered compliant with planning policy and as such Planning Unit is content to proceed in line with policy and the proposal as presented.

Conclusions

33. Based on careful consideration of all relevant planning polices and taking into account concerns expressed by way of third party representation, it is contended that the proposed extension is acceptable.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that planning permission is approved subject to conditions.

Conditions

35. The following conditions are recommended:

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

. The windows to the North East elevation of the extension hereby approved, to serve the utility room and en-suite, shall be fitted with opaque glazing and shall be retained as such in perpetuity. Reason: To protect the amenity and prevent overlooking to the adjacent property, No. 50 Killeaton Crescent.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0868/F

APPENDIX 1.9PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9th January 2016 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (agent is related to council employee)

Application Reference LA05/2016/0924/RM

Date of Application 7th September 2016

District Electoral Area Downshire East 1 no. storey and a half dwelling with detached Proposal Description double garage for private use Approximately 30m north of 28 Bresagh Road, Location Boardmills, Lisburn Applicant/Agent C R Design

Representations None

Case Officer Brenda Ferguson

Recommendation Approval

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local planning application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

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

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The application site is located adjacent to the existing farm house and outbuildings at no.28 Bresagh Road. The land rises to the north and north east from the laneway. The south eastern boundary of the site is defined by a

hedgerow and a mature tree with all remaining boundaries undefined. Views across to the site from the north west are restricted by rising ground, with only partial long distance views available from the east given the proximity to a nearby lough. Views from Bresagh Road are restricted by a wooded area to the north.

4. The application site is located within the Lisburn Countryside under the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

Proposed Development

5. 1 no. storey and a half dwelling with detached double garage for private use (Reserved Matters)

Relevant Planning History

6. Relevant site history is set out in the table below.

Application Description of Proposal Decision Reference S/2010/1023/F Proposed Farm Dwelling and Permission granted Garage on land 10 metres north west of 28 Bresagh Road, Boardmills, Lisburn, BT27 6TU,

LA05/2015/0547/O Proposed change of site location Permission granted for farm dwelling and garage to that approved under Application S/2010/1023/F dated 14 April 2011 approximately 30m North of 28 Bresagh Road, Boardmills, Lisburn, BT27 6TU.

Planning Policy Context

7. The relevant planning policy context is as follows: . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP) 2015; . Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland . Planning Policy Statement 3 - Access, Movement and Parking

. Planning Policy Statement 21 - Sustainable Development in the Countryside . Building on tradition – A sustainable design guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside . DCAN 15 - Vehicular Access Standards

Consultations

8. The following consultations were carried out.

Consultee Response Transport NI No objection subject to conditions Environmental Health No objection Northern Ireland Water No objection NIEA No objection – standing advice applies

Representations

9. There have been no letters of representation received throughout the processing of the application.

Consideration and Assessment

10. The main issues to consider in the determination of this planning application are: . Principle of Development . Dwellings on Farms . Integration and Design . Rural Character . Sewage Disposal . Access, Movement and Parking

Principle of Development

11. The application site lies within the countryside as designated within BMAP 2015. The provisions of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and PPS 21 are therefore applicable.

13. The Statement indicates that a 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.

14. Paragraph 6.73 point 3 of the SPPS states that provision should be made for a dwelling house on an active26 and established farm business to accommodate those engaged in the farm business or other rural dwellers. The farm business must be currently active and have been established for a minimum of 6 years; no dwellings or development opportunities shall have been sold off or transferred from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application; and, the proposed dwelling must be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm holding. Dwellings on farms must also comply with LDP policies regarding integration and rural character. A dwelling on a farm under this policy will only be acceptable once every 10 years.

15. The application is for 1 no. storey and a half dwelling with detached double garage for private use in the countryside therefore for the principle of development to be established it must comply with the SPPS and PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside.

16. Outline approval for a farm dwelling was granted in April 2016 on the same site (LA05/2015/0547/O). The principle of development was therefore established and in this respect is in compliance with the provisions of paragraph 6.73 of the SPPS and Policies CTY 1 and 10 of PPS 21. This application pertains to the reserved matters for the farm dwelling.

Dwellings on Farms

17. The principle of development of a dwelling on a farm has already been tested and granted by the approval of outline planning permission under S/2010/1023/F and LA05/2015/0547/O, the latter of which remains live. It is not possible to revisit the principle of granting development but will deal solely with other matters pertaining to the reserved matters.

Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside.

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

19. Conditions were attached to the outline permission relating to levels, a 5.8m ridge height new boundaries delineated by timber fencing and planting and replacement is required of planting should it become dying or dead within 5 years of planting.

20. The proposal is for a single storey dwelling measuring 5.75m from finished floor level to ridge. It is total is style with some front dormer windows. Windows are vertical in emphasis and the roof is pitched with blue/black slates. There is part Donegal slate on the sun room and render finish on the walls.

21. The design is considered to be appropriate and rural in character. It meets the stipulations on the ridge height.

22. The proposed dwelling faces towards the existing group of farm buildings.

23. New boundaries are to be defined with post and wire fencing and landscaping on the inside and existing landscaping is to be retained.

24. Finished floor levels are shown at 0.4 above existing ground level and there is no cut or fill proposed.

25. It is considered that the proposal is compliant with policy CTY 13 in that the design is appropriate within the rural context. There is a suitable degree of integration and the new dwelling reads with the existing group of buildings on the farm which is a requirement of policy CTY 10.

Rural Character

26. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

27. The new dwelling will be positioned adjacent to the existing farm buildings, it will not be prominent in the landscape due to its location, the proposed height of the dwelling is acceptable and in line with the ridge height stipulated at outline stage, the design is appropriate for the rural location and there will be no detrimental impact on rural character.

Sewage Disposal

28. The development is to be served by a proposed septic tank and soakaway located to the north east of the proposed dwelling. The Council’s Environmental Health Unit have offered no objection. It is therefore considered that the arrangements for sewage disposal are acceptable.

Access, Movement and Parking

29. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard and that any proposed development can have a safe access/egress onto the public road.

30. The outline approval conditioned the access to be in accordance with the RS1 form. Access is taken off an existing long lane to the farm buildings and the two spaces required have been indicated for parking.

31. Transport NI consider this application acceptable subject to standard reserved matters conditions. It is therefore

32. The proposal is therefore considered to be policy compliant with the provisions of PPS 3.

Conclusions

33. Based on careful consideration of all relevant material considerations, it is contended that the proposed development meets the requirements of the SPPS and relevant planning policies and is acceptable in principle.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that planning permission is approved.

Conditions

35. The following conditions are recommended for inclusion in any forthcoming decision notice.

. The development to which this approval relates must be begun by whichever is the later of the following dates:-

i. The expiration of a period of 5 years from the grant of outline planning permission; or ii. The expiration of a period of 2 years from the date hereof Reason: As required by Section 62 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

. The vehicular access, including any visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 3, bearing the date stamp 07 September 2016, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250 mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interest of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. The access gradient to the dwelling hereby permitted shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5 m outside the road boundary. Where the vehicular access crosses footway or verge, the access gradient shall be between 4% (1 in 25) maximum and 2.5% (1 in 40) minimum and shall be formed so that there is no abrupt change of slope along the footway. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users.

. No dwelling shall be occupied until hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with approved drawing no. 6, bearing date stamp 07 September 2016 to provide adequate facilities for parking and circulating within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used for any purpose at any time other than for the parking and movement of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking.

. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed or have its roots damaged within the root protection area nor shall arboriculture work or tree surgery take place on any retained tree other than in accordance

with the approved plans and particulars, without the written consent of the Council. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees. . . If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Council, seriously damaged or defective, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the appropriate British Standard or other recognised Codes of Practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0924/RM

APPENDIX 1.10PM

Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council

Council/Committee Planning Committee

Date of Committee 9 January 2017 Meeting

Committee Interest Local Application (Called in)

Application Reference LA05/2016/0530/F

Date of Application 26 May 2016

District Electoral Area Castlereagh East

Proposal Description Proposed replacement of existing storage building with dwelling, detached garage and all other associated site works, including upgrading the existing vehicular access (in lieu of previously approved conversion dwelling under ref: Y/2013/0345/F)

Location No 98 Hillsborough Road, Moneyreagh BT23 6AZ

Applicant/Agent Sammy Rainey/ Alan Patterson Design LLP

Representations 0

Case Officer Mark Hanvey

Recommendation REFUSAL

Summary of Recommendation

1. This is a local application. The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination in accordance with the Protocol for the Operation of the Planning Committee.

2. This application is presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse.

Description of Site and Surroundings

3. The application site is located adjacent to an existing dwelling at no.98 Hillsborough Road, Moneyreagh. There is an existing single storey building on site. It has a rectangular floor plan, is constructed with concrete blockwork and has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheeting.

4. There is an area between the building and the roadside that is sunk down in level. Planning history confirms this area to have previously served as a bund for fuel storage tanks, which are no longer present on site. The majority of the site is an area of hardstanding with the site extending into a field at the rear.

5. A wall and conifer hedge separate the application site from the existing 2-storey dwelling at no.98, with a hedgerow along the boundary with no.100. The roadside boundary is defined by a hedgerow, with pillars either side of the vehicular access.

6. The application site is located outside the Settlement Development Limits of Moneyreagh under the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

Proposed Development

7. Full permission is sought for the replacement of an existing storage building with a dwelling, detached garage and all other associated site works including upgrading the existing vehicular access (in lieu of previously approved conversion dwelling under ref. Y/2013/0345/F). By way of justification the agent states that the existing building is a redundant commercial building.

Relevant Planning History

8. The relevant planning history includes the following:

Application Site Address Description of Decision Reference Proposal Y/2013/0345/F 98 Hillsborough Proposed conversion Permission granted Road, and alterations of 12.05.2014 Moneyreagh, existing commercial 2

Application Site Address Description of Decision Reference Proposal Newtownards, building to single BT23 6AZ dwelling and associated siteworks.

Y/1995/0379 98 Hillsborough Provision of site lines to Permission granted Road, existing entrance with 05.02.1996 Moneyreagh re-location of 3 No. telegraph poles, home heating oil storage tanks enclosure and retention of existing portacabin office.

Planning Policy Context

9. The relevant planning policy context which relates to the application is as follows: . Regional Development Strategy 2035 . Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 . Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) . Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside

Consultations

10. The following consultations were carried out

Consultee Response Transport NI No objections subject to conditions Environmental Health No objections subject to conditions NIEA – Advice Water Management NI Water Informatives attached Rivers Agency No objections

Representations

11. There have been no letters of objection received in relation to the application.

Consideration and Assessment

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

. Principle of Development . Sustainable Development in the Countryside - Replacement dwellings - Integration and Design - Rural Character . Access, Movement and Parking

Principle of Development

13. The site is located in the open countryside as designated in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.

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

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

16. The SPPS makes provisions for replacement dwellings but does not state that this can relate to the replacement of a non-residential building.

Sustainable Development in the Countryside

19. Planning permission will be granted for a replacement dwelling where the building to be replaced exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling and as a minimum all external structural walls are substantially intact. For the purposes of this policy all references to ‘dwellings’ will include buildings previously used as dwellings.

20. Whilst the subject building has been approved for conversion to a dwelling under planning application Y/2013/0345/F, it remains as a storage building at the time of inspection.

21. Policy CTY 3 states that favourable consideration will be given to the replacement of a redundant non-residential building with a single dwelling, where the redevelopment proposed would bring significant environmental benefits.

22. The building is described in Section 5 of the P1 application form as an 'existing storage building.' Whilst the subject building may have been in use as a storage shed for home heating oil delivery vehicles and its use as such may have become redundant, the building itself is not redundant insofar as it is being used for storage and it clearly can continue to be used as such. A follow up site inspection 28th September 2016 confirms the details within the P1 Form in so far as the building is currently being used as a storage building.

23. Whilst the premises were previously used as a fuel delivery business there is no commercial activity currently on site. I have confirmed with Environmental Health that there were no complaints received in relation to the previous fuel delivery business.

24. It is stated that the proposed development will preserve the established vegetation and landscaping and that there is potential to enhance the biodiversity of the site through the augmentation of the existing native planting. Retention of existing boundaries and augmentation where necessary is a standard requirement for new development. It is considered that this in itself does not offer significant environmental benefits as required by policy.

25. The proposed replacement dwelling should be sited within the established curtilage of the existing building, unless either (a) the curtilage is so restricted that it could not reasonably accommodate a modest sized dwelling, or (b) it can be shown that an alternative position nearby would result in demonstrable landscape, heritage, access or amenity benefits. The proposed dwelling will be sited within the established curtilage; however, it is proposed to extend the curtilage into the field at the rear of the site.

26. The overall size of the new dwelling should allow it to integrate into the surrounding landscape and would not have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building. The proposed dwelling will have the same finished floor level (ffl) as the previously approved conversion scheme. It will, however, measure 8.9 metres in height from ffl in comparison with the previously approved ridge height of 6.7 metres. The proposal involves removing the existing roadside hedge and it will take time for a new hedgerow and additional planting to establish.

27. The design of the replacement dwelling should be of a high quality appropriate to its rural setting and have regard to local distinctiveness. The proposed design has an acceptable balance of solid wall to window and door openings, with chimneys located along the ridgeline at either gable end.

28. The proposed facing stonework is more suburban in character and a painted render on the main front elevation would be more appropriate for the locality,

with the subordinate sections, such as the side utility room and rear sunroom more suited to stone detailing. I note the comments in paragraph 8 of planning appeal 2014/A0114 in which it is stated that ‘such materials are not traditional in the countryside and are unacceptable.’

29. A safe access onto the public road will be achieved; however, a new roadside hedgerow will be required to the rear of visibility splays.

Integration and Design

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

31. This is a full application and detailed drawings have been submitted. As there is currently a substantial building on site it is not considered that a refusal reason based around design and integration could be sustained.

Rural Character

32. Policy CTY 14 – Rural Character states that planning permission will be granted for a building in the countryside where it does not cause a detrimental change to, or further erode the rural character of an area.

33. Again, as there is already a substantial building on site, it is contended that a refusal reason based on rural character could not be sustained.

Access Movement and Parking

34. PPS 3 – Access, Movement and Parking sets out policies to ensure that any new development does not create a traffic hazard and that any proposed development can have a safe access/egress onto the public road.

35. The site fronts onto the |Hillsborough Road and uses an existing access. Transport NI consider this application acceptable subject to standard outline conditions.

36. The proposal is therefore considered to be policy compliant with the provisions of PPS 3.

Conclusions

37. The proposed development is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY 1 and CTY 3 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building to be replaced is not redundant and its replacement would not bring significant environmental benefits and the proposed dwelling would have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building.

Recommendation

38. It is recommended that planning permission is refused.

Refusal Reason

39. The following refusal reason is recommended:

. The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY3 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the building to be replaced is not redundant and its replacement would not bring significant environmental benefits and the proposed dwelling would have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building.

Site Location Plan – LA05/2016/0530/F

Planning Policy Division

Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8GB Tel: 0300 200 7830

8th December 2016

Dear Sir/Madam

CONSULTATION ON PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION

I am writing to inform you that the Department for Infrastructure has issued a consultation paper on proposals to amend permitted development rights in respect of mineral exploration.

The purpose of the consultation is to obtain views on the Department’s proposals for amending permitted development rights, including removing permitted development rights for petroleum exploration from Class A of Part 16 of the Schedule to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015.

Copies of the Consultation Paper may be downloaded from the Planning Portal website at www.planningni.gov.uk or the Departmental website at www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk . Alternatively you can request a copy by telephone: (028) 90540571(text relay prefix 18001): by email: [email protected] or from the postal address below.

Review of Permitted Development Rights Consultation Planning Policy Division Room 1-18 Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8GB

The closing date for the receipt of comments is 3rd February 2017.

Yours faithfully,

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.planningni.gov.uk

ANGUS KERR Planning Policy Division Department for Infrastructure Planning Policy Division Room 1-01 Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8GB

APPENDIX 3PM List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 1

Application Y/2015/0079/F PAC 2016/A0026 Reference Reference Description of Change of use of part of Location Block 1 Cedarhurst Road Proposal warehouse to use as a Newtownbreda Factory Estate family adventure and Castlereagh BT8 7RH indoor trampoline centre. (Retrospective). Applicant WeAreVertigo Agent John Cummins

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to Policy OS4 of Planning Policy Statement 8 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation in that it will cause an unacceptable impact on the amenity of people living nearby by reason of the frequency and timing of the sporting activities proposed including the associated noise pollution and the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactory arrangements have been provided for car parking.

The proposal is contrary to Policy AMP7 of Planning Policy Statement 3 Access, Movement and Parking in that it has not been demonstrated adequate provision has been made for car parking associated with this proposed change of use.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 2

Application S/2014/0895/F PAC 2016/A0075 Reference Reference Description of Development of 10no. Location Lands to South of Gortmore Proposal Cat1 apartments in 2 no. Park and Ardane Gardens blocks and 1 no. Lisburn wheelchair adapted bungalow and associated site works and car parking. Applicant Habinteg Housing Agent Knox & Clayton Architects Association Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy OS1 of the Departments Planning Policy Statement 8, Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation in that the development would, if permitted, result in an adverse impact on the environmental quality of the urban area by reason of loss of existing open space and amenity land.

The proposed development is contrary to the SPPS and Policy QD 1 (a) of the Departments Planning Policy Statement 7: Quality Residential Environments, in that the development does not respect the surrounding context, and will result in unacceptable visual impact to the local character in terms of its, layout, scale, height, form, proportions, massing, and appearance.

The proposed development, if permitted would prejudice the outcome of the emerging policies in a local development plan that has not yet been approved or adopted

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 3

Application Y/2013/0245/F PAC 2016/A0101 Reference Reference Description of Erection of a single wind Location Land 240m to the North of 29 Proposal turbine generator, 30m Lisnabreeny Road, Belfast, BT6 to hub and 41.5m to 9SD. blade tip, meter cabinet and associated infrastructure. Additional information (Shadow Flicker Assessment) Applicant Rodney Young Agent Dr Roddy Yarr

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(a) and (vi) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy, as it has not been demonstrated that an unacceptable adverse impact on adjoining properties will not occur by way of noise.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(a) and (vi) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity by virtue of the loss of privacy or overshadowing of adjoining properties.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(b) and (i) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy, as it has not been demonstrated that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity and landscape character through materials, height and scale.

The proposal is contrary to Policy RE1(b) of Planning Policy Statement 18, Renewable Energy as the cumulative effect when considered with existing wind turbines and other installations already in the area will result in an unacceptable adverse impact on visual amenity and landscape character.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 4

Application LA05/2015/0770/F PAC 2016/A0108 Reference Reference Description of Application under Location Lands 457m N/NW of no 15 Proposal Section 54 of the 2011 Rusheyhill Road Stoneyford Planning Act to remove BT17 0NH conditions 3 and 4 (relating to noise complaint issues) of an approved single wind turbine (approval reference S/2013/0578/F) at 457m n/nw of no. 15 Rusheyhill Road, Stoneyford. Applicant Mr Desmond Smyth Agent Sarah McDowell

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and Policy RE1 of PPS 18 Renewable Energy in that the proposal involves the removal of conditions that if permitted, would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on Residential Amenity with respect to noise.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 5

Application LA05/2015/0698/A PAC 2016/A0117 Reference Reference Description of Hoarding Sign Location Lands approximately 13 metres Proposal west of postal No 10 Magheralave Meadows, Lisburn BT28 3NT Applicant Lagan Homes (Lisburn) Agent Alan Patterson Design LLP Ltd Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to Policy AD 1 section (i) of Planning Policy Statement 17, Control of Outdoor Advertisements in that it does not respect amenity when assessed in the context of the general characteristics of the locality.

The proposal is contrary to sections 6.56, 6.57 and 6.59 (Control of Outdoor Advertisements) of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that it does not respect amenity and would detract from the character of the place and surroundings of where it is displayed.

The proposed development is contrary to section 5.72 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that it will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 6

Application S/2011/0392/O PAC 2016/A0130 Reference Reference Description of Site for a farm dwelling Location 300 metres ESE of 16 Proposal and detached garage. Lurganure Road, Lisburn BT28 2TS. Applicant Mr William H Jordan Agent Planning Services

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the farm business is currently active and has been established for at least six years and that the proposed new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed dwelling is not visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 7

Application LA05/2015/0721/O PAC 2016/A0133 Reference Reference Description of 2 Proposed Dwellings Location 2 Antrim Road Proposal with associated works Lisburn Applicant E A Beatty Agent McCready Architects

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland and Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 in that it has not been demonstrated the proposed development will maintain or enhance the character of Wallace Park Area of Townscape Character, nor does it meet any of the exceptional circumstances in which proposals for the intensification of site usage in primarily residential parts of an Area of Townscape Character will be permitted.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy ATC2 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 6 Areas of Townscape Character in that it has not been demonstrated that the development maintains or enhances its overall character and respects the built form of the area.

The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Criteria H of Policy QD1 of Planning Policy Statement 7 due to the adverse impact on existing and proposed dwellings.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 8

Application LA05/2015/0726/F PAC 2016/A0152 Reference Reference Description of Demolition of existing Location 531 Saintfield Road Proposal retail buildings and Belfast erection of building providing care to the elderly within Class 3(b) of the schedule to the planning (Use classes) Order (NI) 2015 comprising bedrooms, day rooms, kitchens, offices, stores and ancillary accommodation, modification of an existing access to a public road and provision of area for car parking and servicing. Applicant Macklin Care Homes Agent Pragma Planning Limited Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to Paragraph 3.8 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and land use zoning CF09 of the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015 as the site is located on land zoned as existing employment land which should be retained to meet existing and future demand for Class B employment uses.

The proposal is contrary to Policy PED7 of Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning and Economic Development and Paragraph 6.89 of the SPPS as it will result in the loss of land zoned for Class B economic development uses and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal represents an exceptional circumstance that is compatible with the predominant industrial uses at this locality.

The proposal is contrary to Policy PED8 of Planning Policy Statement 4, Planning and Economic Development as its use will be incompatible with existing economic development uses and may prejudice their future operation.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY15 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside as it mars the distinction between the settlement limit of Carryduff and the surrounding countryside and it will result in urban sprawl.

The proposal is contrary to Paragraphs 4.24, 4.25 and 4.27 of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement as it has not been demonstrated that an acceptable site layout and design can be achieved on the application site.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 58 Appeals

Item Number 9

Application LA05/2015/0122/F PAC 2016/A0176 Reference Reference Description of Temporary Planning Location 1 Ballyvannon Road Proposal Permission for Mobile Upper Ballinderry Home BT28 2LB. Applicant John Farr Agent Robert Canning

Appeal Type Planning Refusal Refusal Reasons

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policies CTY1 and CTY9 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal is not for the provision of temporary residential accommodation pending the development of a permanent dwelling nor has the applicant provided compelling and site specific evidence that a residential caravan/mobile home is a necessary response to the particular circumstances and that genuine hardship would be caused if planning permission were refused.

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries/is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape.

List of Live Planning Application Appeals as of 15 December 2016

Section 60 Appeals (Non-Determination)

Item Number 1

Application LA05/2016/0371/F PAC Reference 2016/A0110 reference Description of Application under Location 151m South West of11 Proposal Section 54 of the 2011 Sheepwalk Road, Planning Act to remove Whitemountain Conditions 7 and 8 (the Lisburn Radar Mitigation Strategy conditions) of an approved single wind turbine (approval reference S/2013/0024/F) at 151m south west of 11 Sheepwalk Road, Whitemountain, Lisburn. Applicant Mr D McCourt Agent Sarah McDowell

Appeal Type Non-Determination of Recommendation Refusal Planning Permission Refusal Reasons Cited by way of Statement of Case

The proposal is contrary to the SPPS and Policy RE1 of Planning Policy Statement 18 – Renewable Energy in that it has not been demonstrated that the development will not have an unacceptable impact on aviation safety.

Chief Planner’s Office

All Heads of Planning (Northern Ireland) 71 Ebrington Square Derry~Londonderry BT49 6FA Tel: (028) 7131 413

Our reference: CPU1

Date: 15 December 2016

Dear Colleague

CHIEF PLANNER’S UPDATE

I am pleased to announce the launch of the first Chief Planner’s Update.

It is my intention to write to all Heads of Planning within councils in Northern Ireland to provide updates and guidance about various aspects of the planning system. This letter is the first of such updates which will be produced, as and when required, in order to provide information on particular planning issues relevant to councils.

The following is a summary of the main areas which may be of interest to you at this time.

Planning Legislation

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) The Department is currently working on the transposition of the planning requirements of the revised EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) into domestic subordinate legislation. Member States are required to implement the revised Directive by 16 May 2017. The directive introduces a number of changes to the EIA process. These include a requirement for the co-ordination of assessments under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives and the requirement to consider formalised monitoring conditions. The public consultation on the proposals to transpose the requirements of the revised EIA Directive into the Planning (EIA) Regulations (NI) 2017 launches today for a period of eight weeks ending on 9 February 2017.

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.planningni.gov.uk

Permitted Development In a speech to the Assembly on 6 June 2016, responding to a motion calling for the protection of Woodburn Forest, the Minister announced that he proposed to remove permitted development rights for oil and gas exploration. The Department launched a public consultation on 8 December 2016 detailing the proposed changes to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (NI) 2015. The consultation closes on 3 February 2017, details of which can be found on the Planning Portal at: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/news/dfi_planning_news/news_consultation- 2/news-consultation-pd-rights-mineral-exploration.htm

Planning Policy

On 27 September the Minister announced his intention to commence a review into strategic planning policy for ‘Renewable Energy’ and ‘Development in the Countryside’. This priority review of the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) is expected to be completed in 2018, subject to Executive Committee agreement. External consultants will provide specialist research and advice for this work and undertake the Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) on the Department’s behalf. The process to procure these services is well underway. There will be opportunities for stakeholder engagement and public consultation next year.

Planning Guidance

The Department has recently issued four Enforcement Practice Notes namely: An Introduction to Planning Enforcement, The Legislative Framework, Investigative Approaches and Enforcement Procedures. The Enforcement Practice Notes are designed to guide planning officers and relevant users through the planning enforcement processes and deal primarily with procedures as well as good practice. These documents can be accessed on the Planning Portal at: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/practice-notes/enforcement-practice- notes.htm

The Department has also published an ‘Overview of Planning Enforcement Responsibilities’ which seeks to inform users of the planning system that, following the transfer of most planning functions to district councils on 1 April 2015, a council has the primary responsibility for planning enforcement in its given administrative area. Overall, it highlights the planning enforcement powers and responsibilities of a council, the reserve powers of the Department, strategic policy relevant to planning enforcement and the requirement to be in compliance with European Union legislation and associated regulations in relation to the planning enforcement process. This document can also be viewed on the Planning Portal at: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/overview-planning-enforcement- responsibilities.htm

Development Plan

Councils working together Following several recent queries about how the Department envisages councils working together to deliver on the regional and sub-regional objectives, set out in the Regional Development Strategy (RDS), I want to clarify how I see this working in the new 2-tier system.

The RDS provides strong regional and sub-regional guidance and supports joint working between councils and contains a number of key elements which offer councils direction in this regard. These include:

• The Spatial Framework for Northern Ireland which divides the region into 5 components based on functions and geography;

• Guidance at two levels, namely, Regional Guidance that is to be applied to all parts of the region and Specific Guidance for each element of the Spatial Framework; and

• The Hierarchy of Settlements & Related Infrastructure Wheel which outlines the patterns of service provision and supporting infrastructure that are likely to be appropriate at different spatial levels including neighbourhoods, smaller towns, regional towns and cities and at a regional level.

Engagement between councils provides an opportunity to integrate Local Development Plan (LDP) aims and objectives with those of neighbouring plans and other strategies and promotes a more coherent, joined up approach to regional planning issues. Such cross boundary working also ensures that LDPs are compatible with one another and that areas of potential conflict are resolved prior to a Development Plan Document being submitted to the Department to cause an Independent Examination. Evidence of engagement and collaboration is important to demonstrate how a plan has had regard to other relevant plans and is an important aspect of plan soundness. Councils are encouraged to develop protocols for working together on cross boundary issues relevant to them. Ultimately, plans will be required to demonstrate that they are sound at Independent Examination which will include consideration of how the RDS has been taken into account and how cross boundary issues have been addressed.

Representations The Department would like to draw your attention to Development Plan Practice Note 9 and the associated Model Form for making representations at Annex A. This Practice Note has been updated to clarify the role of the Examiner in considering representations and is available on the Planning Portal at: http://authoring.epic.local/internet/index/advice/practice- notes/dppn9_representations_version_2_final-4.pdf

Councils may wish to publish this model form, or a similar form, on their individual websites to assist those wishing to make representations at the key stages of the plan process.

Annual Monitoring Your attention is also drawn to the requirement for councils to submit an Annual Monitoring report to the Department under Section 21 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and Regulation 25 of the Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. Councils should note that the Department will not require the submission of annual monitoring reports until local development plans are fully adopted.

Planning Case Law

The following judgment in the case of R (Wright) v Forest of Dean District Council [2016] may be of interest in relation to the issue of community benefits for a wind farm. http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news.aspx?id=4090

Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan

Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard and Economy Minister Simon Hamilton welcomed a decision by the High Court on 18th November 2016 in relation the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP).The suggested remedy, put forward by the departments jointly, was accepted by Justice Treacy. The proposed remedy focused on the only contested element of the Plan which related to the bulky goods restriction at Sprucefield regional shopping centre. The ruling confirms that the remaining policies within BMAP continue to apply and the Plan remains in force. However, the bulky goods restriction relating to Sprucefield should not be taken into account in informing planning decisions.

Other Government publications/initiatives

Launch of Rathlin Island Action Plan 2016-2020 On 21 September 2016, Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard, MLA, launched the Rathlin Island Action Plan 2016 – 2020. The Plan is supported by the Northern Ireland Executive and has a key role to play in securing Rathlin’s continued sustainable growth. It is an exemplar of collaborative working between the Northern Ireland Departments, the local council, the local community and other interested stakeholders. The Action Plan is available to view online at:

www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/rathlin-island-policy-and-action-plan

Review of Amplitude Modulation (AM) noise from wind turbines For your information, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, now part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), commissioned consultants, WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff, to undertake a review and produce a report on Amplitude Modulation (AM) noise from wind turbines. This report was published on 25 October 2016. The aim of the review was to conduct comprehensive research and provide recommendations for how AM noise from wind turbines might be controlled through the use of an appropriate planning condition. In undertaking their review, WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff worked closely with the Institute of Acoustics AM working group, who in August 2016, recommended a preferred metric and methodology for quantifying and assessing the level of AM in a sample of wind turbine noise data. The reports can be viewed at the following links: http://ioa.org.uk/sites/default/files/AMWG%20Final%20Report-09-08-2016_1.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-evidence-on-the-response- to-amplitude-modulation-from-wind-turbines

I hope you find this information useful. It is my intention to make this update, and all future Chief Planner’s Updates, available on the Planning Portal.

Yours sincerely

Fiona McCandless Chief Planner

Development Plan Practice Note

Submission and Handling of Representations

December 2016

Version 2

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Preamble

This Development Plan Practice Note is designed to guide planning officers and relevant users through the key requirements for the submission and handling of representations and deals primarily with procedures as well as good practice. It forms part of a series of practice notes stemming from the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 [the 2011 Act] and any related subordinate legislation. The emphasis is very much on advice but where explicit legislative requirements must be followed these will be made clear.

Where appropriate this practice note will therefore highlight:

• Relevant legislation; • Procedural guidance; • Definitions; • Best practice examples / relevant case law

This guidance is not intended to replace the need for judgement by planning officers involved in the local development plan making process. Nor is it intended to be a source of definitive legal advice. Reference should be made to the actual legislation referred to in this document and if any discrepancy or conflict exists between the practice note1 and legislation the provisions of the legislation will prevail.

1 Please ensure you are considering the most up to date version of Practice Note 9 available on the Planning Portal.

Version 2 / December 2016 1

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This practice note focuses on the submission and handling of representations2 related to a development plan document (DPD)3 i.e. the plan strategy and local policies plan, which when adopted comprise a local development plan (LDP) for a given council area. It deals with representations submitted under the 2011 Act and relevant subordinate legislation. The purpose of this practice note is to provide a consistent approach for the submission and handling of representations in order to assist councils in promoting and encouraging constructive engagement with members of the public and also to facilitate the consideration of representations at the independent examination (IE) stages of a DPD.

1.2 Although an IE is caused by the Department, it is carried out by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) or a person appointed by the Department4, who act as an independent examiner. The PAC will produce and publish its own procedures for an independent examination of Local Development Plans.

1.3 The submission of representations in relation to a DPD provides an opportunity for the public to influence the policies and proposals for the future planning and development within the relevant council area. It also aims to encourage public engagement and buy-in to the plan preparation process, which in turn helps to build consensus and promote a sense of ownership of a LDP.

2.0 Legislative context

2.1 Section 10 of the 2011 Act states that the council must submit every DPD to the Department for IE. However, before it does it must make documents, as prescribed by regulation 15 of The Planning (Local Development

2 References to representations include counter representations unless otherwise stated. 3 References to a DPD in this practice note are in effect references to a draft DPD unless otherwise stated. 4 Department means the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) unless otherwise stated.

Version 2 / December 2016 2

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (LDP Regulations), available for inspection to facilitate a public consultation and the submission of representations and counter representations.

2.2 Regulations 16 and 17 of the LDP Regulations set out the legal requirements for the public consultation and availability of representations relating to DPD.

2.3 Regulations 18 and 19 of the LDP Regulations set out the legal requirements for public consultation and availability of representations submitted relating to site specific policy representations i.e. counter representations.

2.4 Figure 1 outlines the key requirements for the submission and handling of representations to a development plan document in accordance with the LDP Regulations.

3.0 Public consultation and availability of a DPD

3.1 Public consultation provides an important and useful opportunity for the public to consider the council’s DPD. It also gives the local community the option of submitting written comments in relation to policies and proposals contained in the DPD.

3.2 Regulation 15 of the LDP Regulations states that the council must make available for inspection5 a copy of the DPD, the sustainability appraisal (SA)6 and such supporting documents as in the opinion of the council are relevant to the preparation of the LDP. It must also issue a document containing a statement indicating the period within which representations on the DPD may be made and give notice of the address to which representations can be sent. Copies of the DPD, SA, supporting documents, statement and notice must

5 Under Regulation 2 of the LDP Regulations, “inspection” means inspection by the public. 6 Refer to paragraph 4.6 (of this document).

Version 2 / December 2016 3

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

also be sent to the consultation bodies7. The council must give notice in the Belfast Gazette and by local advertisement8 of the availability of the titled DPD, together with a statement of the fact that the DPD is available for inspection and the places and times at which it can be inspected. The council may wish to make reference to the availability for inspection of the SA and the period within which representations on the DPD may be made. The council must publish the DPD, supporting documents and notice (of the address to which representations can be sent) on its website. The council may wish to make reference to the availability for inspection of the SA and the places and times at which it can be inspected (if not available on the council website) and to the period within which representations on the DPD may be made.

3.3 Regulation 16 of the LDP Regulations states that any person may make representations about a DPD. Any such representation must be submitted within the public consultation period of 8 weeks and sent to the address specified by the relevant council. Regulation 16(2) states that the 8 week period commences on the date the council complies with regulation 15(d), that is, giving notice in the Belfast Gazette and by local advertisement in relation to the availability for inspection of the DPD and the places and times it can be inspected.

3.4 Regarding the submission of ‘late representations’, regulation 17(2) of the LDP Regulations states that the council ‘need not’ comply with the requirement to make representations available for inspection if they have not been submitted within the specified period. It will be a matter for each council to determine if or how such representations should be considered.

7 Refer to Regulation 2 of the LDP Regulations for list of consultation bodies. 8 Under Regulation 2 of the LDP Regulations, “local advertisement” means an advertisement for two successive weeks in at least one newspaper circulating in the district of the council.

Version 2 / December 2016 4

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Figure 1: Key requirements for the submission and handling of representations to a development plan document

Version 2 / December 2016 5

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

4.0 Requirements for the submission of a representation and counter representation

4.1 In order to help eliminate the potential submission of unsubstantiated and speculative representations, and in terms of good practice, the council may wish to set out requirements for the submission of representations in a guidance document in order to facilitate the management and consideration of all representations submitted on a DPD.

4.2 Requirements for the submission of representations should encourage more comprehensive and relevant feedback from the public to help facilitate more effective engagement and appropriate consideration of issues raised by ensuring that consideration is given to the implications of any proposed changes to the DPD. Consequently, this should help to shorten the length of the IE and lead to a speedier delivery and adoption of a DPD.

Representation / counter representation9 submission should be submitted in full

4.3 Any representation submitted to the council within the specified 8 week public consultation period should be submitted in full. This requirement will help to enhance the quality and efficiency of the decision-making process as it will enable all information to be considered by all parties involved from the outset to help ensure a fairer, more comprehensive and thorough debate10 of issues at IE. It should also prevent delay as the council should not need to seek further information or clarification from those who submitted representations. It is important to note that there will be no further opportunity to submit additional information, unless requested to do so by the independent examiner.

9 A counter representation may only be made about a site specific policy representation. Refer to section 8.0 of this document. 10 Under section 10(7) of the 2011 Act, “Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan document must (if that person so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.” This ‘right’ to appear and be heard applies to a person who has made a representation seeking to change a development plan document, but does not apply to a person who has made a counter representation. However, an independent examiner may invite anyone to appear before and be heard at the examination if the examiner thinks that person’s oral evidence is likely to materially assist in determining the soundness and sustainability of the development plan document.

Version 2 / December 2016 6

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Representation / counter representation should demonstrate soundness

4.4 Soundness involves testing the principles, content and preparation processes of the DPD against a list of key agreed criteria. Criteria will relate to how the plan has been produced, the conformity of the DPD with central government plans, policy and guidance, and the coherence, consistency and effectiveness of the content of the DPD.

4.5 As the main purpose of the IE is to determine whether the development plan document is ‘sound’, any person(s) wishing to make a representation to any part of a DPD should do so on the grounds of soundness11. Any representation proposing a change to a DPD must demonstrate why the document (stating the exact paragraph, policy etc) is not sound or how any proposed changes would make the DPD sound. The representation must include details on the proposed change as well as provide evidence to justify the change in terms of the tests of soundness.

Representation / counter representation should demonstrate how it meets the requirements of sustainability appraisal

4.6 A representation seeking a change to the DPD should indicate how the proposed change(s) meet the requirements of the sustainability appraisal12 and demonstrate how their proposed alternative is more appropriate in meeting the sustainability objectives of the DPD. Sustainability appraisal (SA) is a concept which involves assessing the social and economic effects of development plans in addition to environmental effects. Sustainability appraisal covers the requirements of the SEA Directive13 as well as a wide range of sustainable development issues.

11 Development Plan Practice Note 6: Soundness. 12 Development Plan Practice Note 4: Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment. 13 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

Version 2 / December 2016 7

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

5.0 Use of standard or model forms for the submission of representations and counter representations

5.1 In order to ensure consistency of approach, anyone making representations to a DPD, or counter representations to site specific policy representations, should be encouraged to do so using a standard form. An example of a model form for the submission of a representation and counter representation is provided at Annex A and B, respectively.

5.2 The council may wish to prepare an accompanying explanatory note in relation to the requirements for the submission of representations as set out in section 4.0. In particular, it may be helpful to provide some information on the tests of soundness to assist in the completion of the form. The council may also wish to make copies of its standard or model form available at its principal council offices, such other places within the council district as the council considers appropriate and its website.

5.3 The council may wish to make every effort to ensure that any forms submitted are completed accordingly, particularly as there will be no further opportunity to add to, or expand on a representation once submitted, unless requested to do so by the appointed independent examiner.

6.0 Availability of representations on a DPD

6.1 Regulation 17 of the LDP Regulations sets out the requirements for the availability for inspection of representations received during the specified public consultation period on a DPD.

6.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after the expiry of the 8 week public consultation period, the council must make a copy of all the representations received during the public consultation period, as referred to in regulation 16(2), available for inspection at its principal council office and any other place within the district that the council considers appropriate, as well as a document containing a statement indicating the time within which counter-

Version 2 / December 2016 8

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

representations may be made and a notice of the address to which counter representations can be sent. Furthermore, the council must publish the representations on its website and give notice in the Belfast Gazette and by local advertisement of the fact that representations are available for inspection and the places and times at which they can be inspected. The council may wish to make reference in the Belfast Gazette and by local advertisement and on its website to the statement and notice.

6.3 The council must also notify the consultation bodies and also any person who has made (and not withdrawn) a representation in accordance with regulation 16 of the LDP Regulations of the fact that representations are available for inspection and the places and times at which they can be inspected.

6.4 Although all representations which have been received during the public consultation period must be made available for inspection, the council may wish, at this stage, to identify those representations in support and those which seek a change to the DPD. This exercise may help to satisfy the requirements of regulation 18 of the LDP Regulations in relation to the receipt of counter representations on site specific policy representations14 i.e. those representations seeking a change to the DPD.

7.0 Representations (counter representations) on a site specific policy representation

7.1 Regulation 2 of the LDP Regulations states:

“site specific policy” means a policy in a development plan document which identifies a site for a particular use or development.

“site specific policy representation” means any representation which seeks to change a development plan document by-

(a) adding a site specific policy to the development plan document; or

14 Refer to paragraph 7.1 (of this document).

Version 2 / December 2016 9

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

(b) altering or deleting any site specific policy in the development plan

document.

7.2 Regulations 18 and 19 set out the requirements for the submission and availability of counter representations. A counter representation provides an opportunity for the public to consider potential changes proposed by representations to the DPD and allow them to respond to these representations if they so wish.

8.0 Public consultation on site specific policy representations (counter representations)

8.1 Regulation 18 of the LDP Regulations states:

(1) any person may make representations about a site specific policy representation (counter representations). (2) counter representations must be: (i) made within a period of 8 weeks starting on the day the council complies with regulation 17(1)(a);,and (ii) sent to the address and person (if any) specified in regulation 17(1)(a)(iii). (3) counter representations must not propose any further changes to the development plan document.

8.2 The period for the receipt of counter representations on site specific representations only does not provide a further opportunity to make representations on site specific policies within the DPD.

8.3 As any representations seeking changes to a DPD should have already been submitted at this stage, a counter representation should be specifically related to a site specific policy representation and indicate the reasons for doing so in terms of soundness and sustainability of the development plan document. Counter representations supporting a site specific policy representation

Version 2 / December 2016 10

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

should not be considered, nor should counter representations proposing alternative sites or proposing any other changes to DPD.

9.0 Availability of representation (counter representation) on a site specific policy representation

9.1 Under regulation 19 of the LDP Regulations, any counter representation received must be made available for inspection by the council as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the 8 week public consultation period (as referred to in regulation 18(2)(a)). The council is required to make a copy of counter representations available for inspection during normal office hours at its principal office, and such other places within the district as the council considers appropriate; and publish this information on its website.

9.2 Regarding the submission of ‘late counter representations’, regulation 19(2) of the LDP Regulations states that the council ‘need not’ comply with the requirement to make counter representations available for inspection if they have not been submitted within the specified period. It will be a matter for each council to determine if, or how, such counter representations should be considered.

10.0 Handling of representations and counter representations

10.1 As it is likely that the council may receive a large number of representations, it is important that appropriate arrangements are set up to facilitate the management and consideration of such information. If the council has provided a standard or model form for the submission of representations and counter representations respectively, then this should help it to not only focus on the type and nature of information required, but also provide a consistent format to facilitate the subsequent organisation and management of information received. If a representation has been made without using a standard or model form, or without completing it in full, then the council would

Version 2 / December 2016 11

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

be advised to classify the representation by paragraph, policy, proposals map, site location and soundness test number and to identify any changes being sought to the DPD before submitting it to the Department for IE. Likewise, if a counter representation has been made without using a standard or model form, or without completing it in full, the council would be advised to supply the reference number of the representation to which the counter representation relates before submitting it to the Department for IE.

10.2 Representations and counter representations made to the council must be considered before a council submits a DPD to the Department for IE (regulation 20(1) of the LDP Regulations). It is important that representations and counter representations should be carefully analysed in order to avoid the potential for misunderstandings, mistakes and abortive work manifesting during the IE. To meet the demands of analysis and consideration the council would be advised to set up a database to manage the information received and keep a record of its correspondence between persons who have submitted representations and counter representations, relevant consultation bodies, and any other person(s) involved in the process.

10.3 Where a database is set up it is recommended that it includes the information listed in Annex C. It would be advantageous for a database to be structured so that the reporting output of representations is capable of being listed in a variety of ways, including by person who made a representation, soundness test order, policy order and paragraph order, and so that counter representations can be linked to representations and vice versa. It would also be advantageous for the database information to be presented in the form of a spreadsheet (electronic), with no in-built macros or formulae, and be capable of being copied, filtered and modified. It is recommended that the spreadsheet (electronic) be submitted to the Department along with the relevant DPD and the other documents.

10.4 An accurate and comprehensive database would also help to facilitate the council’s consideration of issues raised and help to meet the requirements of regulation 20 of the LDP Regulations in relation to the submission of the DPD

Version 2 / December 2016 12

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

for independent examination. In particular, regulation 20(2)(g) of the LDP Regulations requires the council to prepare a statement setting out the number and a summary of the main issues raised in representations and counter representations submitted in accordance with regulation 16(2) and regulation 18(2) of the LDP Regulations, respectively.

10.5 It is important to make clear ahead of the IE stage, that as well as the submission of representations and counter representations to the Department for IE in accordance with regulation 20(2)(h), the council must also submit such supporting documents as in the opinion of the council are relevant to the preparation of the DPD in accordance with under regulation 20(2)(i). This would include topic papers and rebuttal evidence that the council wants to have considered at the IE. When the Department causes an IE to be carried out in relation to a DPD, the independent examiner must be in possession of all the documents required under regulation 20(2), which includes representations, counter representations and the council’s supporting documents. No further information / evidence will be looked at by the examiner during the IE unless he/she specifically asks for it to be submitted15.

10.6 Following the council’s consideration of representations and counter representations, there may be instances where it may wish to amend the DPD to take account of issues raised prior to its submission for independent examination. However, this should only happen under exceptional circumstances, particularly as the DPD should already have been prepared whilst taking account of the tests of soundness. The council must demonstrate that an amended DPD is sound and meets all other statutory requirements. This should help to reduce the potential for any unforeseen issues which need to be addressed at such a late stage of the DPD process.

10.7 However, in instances where the council considers the DPD to be fundamentally unsound and cannot be amended, it should withdraw it in accordance with section 11 of the 2011 Act and regulation 23 of the LDP Regulations prior to its submission for independent examination. Following

15 Refer to paragraphs 4.3 and 5.3, part 6 of Model Form for the Submission of a Representation at Annex A and part 5 of Model Form for Submission of a Counter Representation at Annex B (of this document).

Version 2 / December 2016 13

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

this and depending upon the nature of the issues, the council must amend the DPD and repeat the relevant statutory requirements as set out in the 2011 Act and LDP Regulations.

11.0 Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

11.1 As well as complying with the legislative requirements for representations for a DPD, the council must comply with any provisions contained within the agreed SCI in relation to the involvement of the community in the preparation of a LDP.

12.0 Timetable

12.1 Under section 7(1) of the 2011 Act the council must keep under review the timetable for the preparation and adoption of its LDP. The council should consider progress made in relation to the timetable and revision is provided for under regulation 7(5) of the LDP Regulations.

Version 2 / December 2016 14

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Annex A

Model Form for the Submission of a Representation to a Development Plan Document

Council Logo Ref: Local Development Plan Date Received: Representation Form (for official use only) (Plan Strategy or Local Polices Plan) (delete where appropriate)

Name of the Development Plan Document (DPD) to which this representation relates

Please return completed form to XXXX by Time/Date/Year

Please complete separate form for each representation

SECTION A

1. Personal Details 2. Agent Details (if applicable)

Title First Name

Last Name

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Post Code

Telephone Number

E-mail Address

Version 2 / December 2016 15

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

SECTION B

Your comments should be set out in full. This will help the independent examiner understand the issues you raise. You will only be able to submit further additional information to the Independent Examination if the Independent Examiner invites you to do so.

3. To which part of the DPD does your representation relate?

(i) Paragraph

(ii) Policy

(iii) Proposals Map

(iv) Site Location ______

4(a). Do you consider the development plan document (DPD) is:

Sound Unsound

4(b). If you consider the DPD to be unsound, please identify which test(s) of soundness your representation relates, having regard to Development Plan Practice Note 6:

Soundness Test No.

5. Please give details of why you consider the DPD to be unsound having regard to the test(s) you have identified above. Please be as precise as possible.

If you consider the DPD to be sound and wish to support the DPD, please set out your comments below:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary) Version 2 / December 2016 16

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

6. If you consider the DPD to be unsound, please provide details of what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD sound.

Please note your representation should be submitted in full and cover succinctly all the information, evidence, and any supporting information necessary to support/justify your submission. There will not be a subsequent opportunity to make a further submission based on your original representation. After this stage, further submissions will only be at the request of the independent examiner, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies at independent examination.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

7 If you are seeking a change to the DPD, please indicate if you would like your representation to be dealt with by:

Written Oral Representation Hearing

Please note that the Department will expect the independent examiner to give the same careful consideration to written representations as to those representations dealt with by oral hearing.

Signature: Date:

Version 2 / December 2016 17

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

Annex B

Model Form for the Submission of a Counter Representation

Council Logo Local Development Plan (LDP) Ref:

Counter Representation Form Date Received:

Plan Strategy / Local Polices Plan (for official use only) (delete where appropriate)

Name of the Development Plan Document (DPD) to which this counter representation relates

Please return completed form to XXXX by Time/Date/Year

Please complete separate form for each counter representation

SECTION A

1. Personal Details 2. Agent Details (if applicable)

Title First Name

Last Name

Job Title (where relevant)

Organisation (where relevant)

Address Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Post Code

Telephone Number E-mail Address

Version 2 / December 2016 18

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

3(a) Have you submitted a representation to the council regarding this development plan document?

Yes No

3(b) If yes, please provide Reference No. and summary of issue raised in your representation.

Counter Representation

Any person may make a counter representation in relation to a representation seeking a change to a DPD. The purpose of a counter representation is to provide an opportunity to respond to proposed changes to the DPD a result of representations submitted under Reg 15 and 16 of The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015.

A counter representation must not propose any further changes to a DPD.

4. Please provide the reference number of the representation to which your counter representation relates to.

5. Please give reasons for your counter representation having particular regard to the soundness test identified in the above representation.

Please note your counter representation should be submitted in full and cover succinctly all the information, evidence, and any supporting information necessary to support/justify your submission. There will not be a subsequent opportunity to make any further submissions based on your original counter representation. After this stage, further submissions will only be at the request of the independent examiner, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies at independent examination.

Version 2 / December 2016 19

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Signature: Date:

Version 2 / December 2016 20

Development Plan Practice Note 9 Submission and Handling of Representations

ANNEX C

List of representation information for database

Where a council sets up a database to manage representations, it is recommended that it includes the following information:

(a) Name of Local Development Plan (b) Name of Development Plan Document (Plan Strategy or Local Policies Plan) (c) Representation reference number (d) Date representation received (e) Name of person making representation (f) Address of person making representation (g) Contact details for person making representation (h) Name of agent (if any) (i) Address of agent (j) Contact details for agent (k) Plan paragraph (l) Plan policy (m) Plan proposals map (n) Site Location (o) Soundness test number (p) Consider DPD to be sound or unsound (q) Soundness issue raised (r) Cross reference to relevant counter representations

All of the above listed information items can be drawn from the Model Form for the Submission of a Representation to Development Plan at Annex A.

It would be advisable for the database to be capable of including counter representation information in a similar way to representations and be cross referenced to them, and such information can be drawn from the Model Form for the Submission of a Counter Representation to Development Plan at Annex B.

Version 2 / December 2016 21

Planning Guidance Team

Planning Policy Division Department for Infrastructure Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8GB

Tel: 0300 200 7830 Email: [email protected]

APPENDIX 2

Scheme of Delegation: Delegation of Planning Applications and Enforcement XX 2016

www.lisburncastlereagh.gov.uk

Scheme of Delegation: Delegation of Planning Applications and Enforcement

The scheme of delegation for the determination of planning applications was agreed by the Council at its meeting on Tuesday, 20 December 2016 and was approved by Central Government on XXX. The approval is in accordance with Section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The scheme of delegation takes effect from XXX.

Part A – Mandatory Applications to be determined by the Planning Committee of the Council

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

 Applications which fall within the Major category of development (as defined by the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015);  Applications made by the Council or an Elected Member of the Council.  Applications relating to land in which the Council has an interest.

Part B – Delegated Applications

Applications shall be delegated for determination by the authorised officer of the Council.

All local development applications will be delegated for approval or refusal with the exception of:

 Applications which are significant departures from the Local Development Plan and which are recommended for approval.  Applications submitted by the Council, senior Council staff, members of Council staff involved in the consideration of planning applications, a Planning Officer or their immediate families, or the immediate family1 of an elected Member.  Applications which the Council considers should be referred to Committee for determination. A sound planning reason must be given for such a referral.  Applications where the Head of Planning or other delegated officer considers that the proposal merits consideration by the Committee.  Any application that the authorised officer is minded to approve under terms of this scheme of delegation, but which is the subject of an extant objection from a statutory consultee.  Any application where a legal agreement is required.  An application which has an associated application (which falls within the Major category of development (as defined by the Planning (Development Management) Regulations 2015) which is being determined by the Planning Committee.  Any application in a rural setting which consists of five or more dwellings.

Part C – Enforcement and consideration of other Planning Matters

In addition to determining planning applications, the Council will also have to administer the enforcement of planning and the processing of other planning consents. Part 4 Section 7 (4) (b) Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 allows a Council committee to delegate to an officer of the Council.

Matters to be considered and determined by the Planning Committee of the Council  Determination of a request to revoke or modify planning permission

Matters to be delegated to the authorised officer

 The making of a Tree Preservation Order.  Confirmation of a Provisional Tree Preservation Order.  The serving of a provisional Tree Preservation Order.  The investigation of breaches of planning control proceedings through the issuing of planning contravention notices, temporary stop notices, enforcement notices, stop notices, breach of condition notices, fixed

1 Immediate family for the purposes of this Scheme of Delegation refers to wife/Husband/partner, son(s), daughter(s)

penalty notices, Replacement of Trees Notice and all other powers under Part 5 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 including powers of entry. Commencement of proceedings in a magistrates court and application to the High Court for an injunction..  Determination of any application for a certificate of lawful development.  Determination of applications for Alternative Development Value.  Determination of any application for listed building consent.  Determination of any application for conservation area consent.  Determination of any application for advertisement consent.  Determination of any application for carry out works to trees.  Determination of any hazardous substance consent.  Determination of Applications for Non Material Changes  Precise wording of Conditions/Refusal reasons relating to local applications in accordance with section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.  Precise wording of Conditions/Refusal reasons relating to major applications in accordance with section 7 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.  Power to formulate decision notices following decisions made in principle by the Planning Committee.  To issue Environmental Impact Assessment screening and scoping opinions in accordance with legislative requirements.  Making of an order to revoke or modify a planning permission  The power to defend a Planning Appeal  The obtaining of information under section 240 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011  Determination of a request for Correction of Errors in decision documents is currently legislated for  Negotiating the terms of a Planning Agreement under section 76 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

Part D – Publicity

On adoption of this scheme of delegation the Council made a copy available on the Council’s website at www.lisburncastlereagh.gov.uk. A copy is also available for inspection at Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, Co Antrim, BT27 4RL

Part E – Review

This Scheme of Delegation will be subject to review by the Planning Committee periodically.

APPENDIX 3

Protocol for the Operation of the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee

Contents

Page

Purpose of Protocol 1

Remit of Planning Committee 1

Size of the Planning Committee 1

Frequency of Meetings 2

Schemes of Delegation 2

Enforcement 2

Referral of Delegated applications to Committee 2

Format of Planning Committee meetings 4

Pre-determination hearings 5

Public Speaking 6

Committee Decisions 7

Deferrals 9

Site Visits 10

Review of Decisions 11

Legal Adviser 11

Review of Protocol 11

Training 12

PURPOSE OF THE PROTOCOL

1. The purpose of this Protocol is to outline practical handling arrangements for the operation of Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council’s Planning Committee.

2. The Protocol should be read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Council’s Standing Orders and the Code of Conduct for Councillors. It is not intended to replace either document.

REMIT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Development Plan

3. The Planning Committee’s role in relation to the Local Development Plan is to approve the Plan before it is passed by resolution of the full Council. The Committee will also have an oversight role to ensure that the Local Development Plan is monitored annually, particularly in terms of the availability of housing and land for economic development. The Committee will also need to ensure that the Plan is reviewed every 5 years, giving consideration to whether there is a need to change the Plan strategy or zonings, designations and policies.

Development Management

4. The main role of the Planning Committee in relation to development management is to consider planning applications made to the Council as the Local Planning Authority and decide whether or not they should be approved. The Planning Committee will have full delegated authority, meaning that the decisions of the Planning Committee will not go to the full Council for ratification.

Enforcement

5. The enforcement of planning controls will be delegated to appointed Officers, with the Planning Committee receiving regular reports on the progress of enforcement activities.

SIZE OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

6. There is no simple link between the size of a committee and its efficiency and effectiveness. Best practice recommends that a planning committee should consist of between 20-50% of a council’s members and that there should be a quorum. A quorum, as outlined in the Council’s Standing Order, is required for the Planning Committee to convene. Business shall not be transacted unless 50% of the Members of the Committee are present.

7. The Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee will comprise 11 Members with no substitutions permitted.

8. The Head of Planning (or deputised officer) is expected to attend all Planning Committee meetings, in addition to Planning Officers presenting their Reports.

FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS

9. In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, Planning Committee meetings will usually be held on a monthly basis. The Planning Committee will normally meet on the first Monday in every month. The Committee shall from time to time fix its own day and hour of meeting and notify the Council. Committee meeting dates and times are published on the Council’s website at least 10 days in advance. The Schedule of Applications to be determined by the Planning Committee is posted to the Council’s Website at least 5 days in advance of the meeting.

SCHEME OF DELEGATION

10. A Scheme of Delegation is where decision making for local applications is delegated to an appointed Officer rather than the Council, thereby enabling speedier decisions and improved efficiency. Section 31(1) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires a council to produce a Scheme of Delegation for operation in its area.

11. The Council’s Planning Scheme of Delegation relates only to applications falling within the category of local development as defined under regulation 2 of The Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. Certain statutory restrictions that apply to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation prevent certain types of applications from being delegated to Officers, thereby requiring them to be determined by the Planning Committee. These restrictions are set out in Part A of the Council’s approved Scheme of Delegation.

12. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation is approved by the Department for Infrastructure in accordance with section 31 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

13. In accordance with regulation 10 of the Planning (Development Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, the Scheme is available to view on the Council’s website www.lisburncastlereagh.gov.uk. A copy is also available at the Island Civic Centre, The Island, Lisburn, Co Antrim, BT27 4RL.

14. The Scheme of Delegation will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains current and relevant.

ENFORCEMENT

15. Planning Officers will prepare a quarterly report on the progress of formal enforcement cases which will be circulated to all Members of the Council, detailing the number of notices issued, and convictions obtained, as opposed to providing details of individual cases.

REFERRAL OF DELEGATED APPLICATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Weekly list of new planning applications validated

16. The Planning Unit will issue a weekly list of newly validated planning applications to all members of Council by email on the first working day following the week in which

they were validated. The list sets out the local applications to be determined by Planning Officers in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

17. Members of the Council can request that a delegated (local) application be ‘called in’ to the Planning Committee for determination. Valid and credible planning reasons explaining why the application should be determined by the Planning Committee must accompany all requests for an application to be referred to the Committee.

18. All such requests must be submitted to the Planning Unit via email to the [email protected] inbox (the words ‘Referred to Planning Committee for determination’ should be cited in the subject field). All emails received will be acknowledged. A Member has 14 working days, from the date of the email notification sent to Members under paragraph 18 above, in which to submit a request.

19. A Senior Planning Officer will liaise with the Chairman of the Planning Committee to determine whether the reasons which have been set out in the request constitute valid and credible planning reasons so as to merit referral to the Planning Committee. If the reasons do not constitute valid and credible planning reasons the Member will be advised accordingly. A Senior Planning Officer shall liaise with the Vice Chair of the Committee if it is the Chairman who has made the request for the referral or if the Chairman has a declarable interest in the application.

Weekly List of Delegated Applications with recommendation to refuse/objections received

20. Where applications have been delegated to Officers and the decision is to refuse planning permission, Members of the Council will be notified by email of the recommendation and the reason for the recommendation. If objections have been received, Members of the Council will be notified by email of the nature of the objections and how they have been considered. If considered appropriate, Members can then request that an application be ‘called-in’ to the Planning Committee for determination. Valid and credible planning reasons explaining why the application should be determined by the Planning Committee must accompany all such requests.

21. In such cases, Members must submit a request to the Planning Unit via email to the [email protected] inbox (the words ‘called in to the Planning Committee for determination’ should be cited in the subject field) clearly stating the planning reason(s) for the request. Valid and credible planning reasons must accompany all requests for an application to be ‘called-in’ to Planning Committee. A Member has 5 working days from the date of the email notification sent to Members under paragraph 22 above in which to submit a request.

22. In either of the above circumstances an authorised Planning Officer will then liaise with the Chairman of the Planning Committee to determine whether the reasons which have been set out constitute valid and credible planning reasons so as to merit referral to the Planning Committee. If the reasons do not constitute valid and/or credible planning reasons the Member will be advised accordingly. .A Planning

Officer shall liaise with the Vice Chair of the Committee if it is the Chairman who has made the request for the referral or if the Chairman has a declarable interest in the application.

23. Where an application is to be presented to the Planning Committee for determination, the Development Management Report will be released on request two working days (Thursday) prior to the scheduled Committee meeting.

24. Where a request for an application to be removed from the delegated list to enable revised drawings to be considered/meeting to be facilitated, is agreed with the Chair, the recommendation when reached will be placed onto a subsequent weekly list.

25. A notification email will be issued to all Members on a weekly basis to advise which applications have been ‘called-in’ to Planning Committee.

26. The delegated authorised Officer or nominee at the appropriate level may also consider it prudent to refer a delegated application to the Planning Committee for determination. Where the delegated authorised Officer considers it prudent to refer a delegated application to Committee, the matter will be discussed and agreed with the Chair

FORMAT OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS

27. Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council will operate its Planning Committee in accordance with its own Standing Orders. The Schedule of Applications to be determined by the Planning Committee will be posted to the Planning Portal website on the Monday of the week prior to the Committee Meeting.

Standard Items

28. The agenda will allow for the inclusion of the following items:

. Notice of meeting; . Apologies; . Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting; . Declaration of Interests; . Schedule of Planning Applications; . Development Plan Issues and . Enforcement Matters.

Committee Papers

29. All Planning Committee Members will be sent an agenda in advance of the Committee meeting. The following papers (where appropriate) will also be provided:

. Minutes of the previous meeting for approval as a complete record; . Details of Local Development Plan issues;

. Details of relevant Enforcement Matters; . Details of proposed Pre-determination hearings; . Schedule of Applications to be Determined (including those brought back following deferral) for consideration by the Committee; . Details of applications of regional significance which will have an impact upon the Council area and the Council is a statutory consultee or where it may wish to make a representation; and . Performance Management Reports.

30. A Pre-Planning Committee Meeting may be held with the Chair and Vice Chair and other officials in advance of the scheduled Committee meeting taking place.

31. Where necessary, Officers will prepare an addendum report to provide Members with any relevant updates since the agenda was issued.

32. Planning Committee meetings will be open to the public except when access may be restricted in accordance with section 42 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

Declaration of Interests

33. At the beginning of every meeting, Members will be asked to declare whether they have a pecuniary and/or significant private or personal non-pecuniary interest in any item on the agenda. Should a Member declare such an interest they must leave the meeting room for the duration of that item. Members will then be invited to return to the meeting room and notified of the Committee’s decision before the meeting recommences.

34. Where a Member, in advance of the relevant Committee meeting has taken a firm view on a planning application (in essence they have “pre-determined” the application) that Member should make an open declaration at the beginning of the relevant meeting and leave the meeting for that entire item. Once discussions are complete, the Member(s) will be invited to return to the meeting. Notification of the Committee decision will be provided to the Member(s) before the meeting reconvenes.

PRE-DETERMINATION HEARINGS

35. The Planning Committee has a mandatory requirement to hold pre-determination hearings for those major applications which have been referred to the Department for Infrastructure for call-in consideration but returned to the Council for determination. The pre-determination hearing should be heard by the Planning Committee and the related application should be decided by the Planning Committee .

36. The Council may also hold pre-determination hearings, at their own discretion, where it is considered necessary to take on board local community views as well as those in support of the development. In deciding whether to apply discretion, Members will take into account the following:

. Relevance of the objections in planning terms; . The extent to which relevant objections are representative of the community, particularly in the context of pre-application community consultation and . The numbers of representations against the proposal in relation to where the proposal is and the number of people likely to be affected by the proposal.

37. Applicants and those who have submitted relevant representations will be afforded an opportunity to be heard by the Council before it takes a decision. When holding a pre-determination hearing, the procedures will be the same as those applied to normal Planning Committee meetings. The Planning Officer will produce a report detailing the processing of the application to date, and the planning issues to be considered. In circumstances whereby the Committee decides to hold the hearing on the same day as it wishes to consider and determine the application, the report to Members will also include a recommendation.

38. Pre-determination hearings should take place after the expiry of the period for making representations on the application but before the Committee meets to discuss the application. Whilst the Committee will endeavour to hold its pre- determination hearings out with the Committee meeting at which the application will be considered, it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

PUBLIC SPEAKING

Procedures for Public Speaking

39. The following procedures will apply to Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee meetings:

Registering Requests

. Requests to speak should be received in writing to the Planning Unit or by email to the [email protected] no later than 12 noon on the Friday prior to the scheduled Committee meeting.

. The request should state whether they wish to speak in support or in opposition to a planning application.

. Late requests may be accepted by the Chair in exceptional circumstances only.

Circulation of Information

. All relevant information should be made available to the Planning Officer as part of the planning application.

. When a request to speak is made to the Planning Unit, any written information that the speaker wishes to circulate to Members of the Planning Committee, must also be provided at this time. Any written or visual information received after this time will not be circulated unless it is agreed by the Chair.

. No documentation must be circulated at the meeting to Members by speakers.

. MPs/MLAs and all Members may attend and speak about an application. They will be afforded 5 minutes to address the Committee. In addition, members of the public in support or objection to the proposal will also be permitted to address the Committee. One person from those objecting to the proposal and one person in support of the proposal will be allowed to speak. Members of the public will be afforded 5 minutes to address the Committee.

. Where there is more than one request by members of the public in support or objection to the proposal to speak, the time allocation will be shared or one person can be appointed to speak.

. If an objector speaks, the applicant will be allowed to respond even if they have not registered to speak in advance.

. Applications where members of the public in support or objection to the proposal have registered to speak will be taken first.

Questions of Clarification

. Members of the Planning Committee can seek clarification from those individuals who have addressed the Committee. Members must not enter into a debate on any issue raised;

. When invited by the Chair, Planning Officers can address any issues raised and Planning Committee Members can question Planning Officers through the Chair.

40. The Chair may agree to accept representations outside these procedures

COMMITTEE DECISIONS

41. The main role of the Planning Committee is to consider applications made to the Council as the Local Planning Authority and decide whether or not they should be approved.

Committee Decision Making Options

42. The Committee will discuss applications presented to it before taking a vote on one of the following options:

. Approve the application with conditions as recommended; . Approve the application with amended conditions; . Approve the application with the precise wording of conditions to be delegated to an authorised Officer;

. Approve the application with conditions to be drafted by an authorised officer and approved by Members at the next Planning Committee meeting; . Refuse the application for the reasons recommended; . Refuse the application with additional or different reasons recommended; and . Defer the application to allow additional information/clarification to be provided or site visit to be arranged.

43. Any additional conditions/reasons for refusal must be proposed and seconded before being voted on by Members.

44. Members must be present for the complete discussion on the item otherwise they cannot take part in the debate or vote on that item.

45. The Chair of the Planning Committee has a casting vote.

Decisions Contrary to officer recommendation

46. The decision as to whether planning permission should be approved or refused lies with the Committee. The views, opinions and recommendations of Planning Officers may on occasion be at odds with the views, opinions or decision of the Planning Committee or its Members. This is acceptable where planning issues are finely balanced.

47. The Committee can accept or place a different interpretation on, or give different weight to the various arguments and material considerations.

48. If the Committee is minded to make a decision contrary to officer recommendation then:

 The proposer of the motion to go against the Planning Officer’s recommendation, or the Chairman, should state the planning reasons for the proposed decision before a vote is taken. The reasons should be clear, credible and be material planning considerations;  The Planning Officer present at the meeting should be given the opportunity to comment upon whether the proposed reasons for the decision are credible and/or valid and, if an approval is proposed, to recommend appropriate conditions;  A detailed minute of the Committee’s reasons for departing from the recommendation should be taken and a copy placed on the application file.

Appeal contrary to officer recommendation

49. In the event of an appeal against a refusal of planning permission contrary to Officer recommendation, the Committee should decide who should attend the appeal to defend the decision. The following options are available:

. Council shall require Planning Officers to prepare the case for written submission and/or attend the appeal even if it is against their recommendation;

. Members who proposed and seconded a motion to refuse contrary to officer recommendation may be called as Council witnesses; and

. Planning consultants or a different Planning Officers from those who made the original recommendation may be used.

Decisions Contrary to Local Development Plans

50. Planning decisions should be taken in accordance with the Local Development Plan (in so far as material to the application) unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

51. If a Committee Member proposes, seconds or supports a decision which is contrary to the Local Development Plan or which will significantly prejudice the implementation of the Local Development Plan’s objectives and policies they will need to provide valid and credible planning reasons to justify their decision and/or clearly explain why their decision will not significantly prejudice the implementation of the Local Development Plan’s objectives and policies.

52. If the decision would significantly prejudice the implementation of the current and/or emerging Local Development Plan’s objectives and policies then the Planning Officer must be given the opportunity comment on the reasons provided by Members under paragraph 53 above and on whether the decision requires referral to the Department for Infrastructure.

53. The reasons for any decisions which are made contrary to the Local Development Plan will be formally recorded in the minutes and a copy place on the application file.

DEFERRALS

54. The Planning Committee can decide to defer consideration of an application to the next meeting for the following reasons:

. For further information; . Further negotiations; or . For a site visit.

55. Members should be aware that deferrals will inevitably have an adverse effect on processing times, and therefore should be an exception. Deferral of a decision to a later Committee meeting can however be used to allow time for reflection, where the Committee is minded to refuse a proposal against officer recommendation. This can allow time to reconsider, manage the risk associated with the action, seek legal advice, and ensure that Officers can provide additional reports and draft reasons for refusal.

SITE VISITS

56. It is recognised that on occasion, Members of the Planning Committee may request an opportunity to visit a site to help them better understand the details of a development proposal in the context of the application site and the surrounding land and buildings and to more fully understand the issues raised by all interested parties.

57. The decision to undertake a Committee site visit will involve prior consultation with the Planning Committee Chairperson.

58. It is important that requests for site visits are handled in a consistent and organised manner, and that administrative and procedural arrangements on site are understood. The reasons for a site visit should be clearly stated and minuted.

59. Site visits form part of the meeting of the Planning Committee and Members intending to declare a pecuniary and/or significant private or personal non-pecuniary interest in an application or who have predetermined an application should not attend the site visit. Members should make every effort to attend, so that they understand the issues when the matter is considered at the following Planning Committee meeting.

60. Members are reminded of the planning standards for processing major planning applications set out in the Local Government (Performance Indicators and Standards) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015.

Arranging a site visit

61. Where a site visit is agreed, a Planning Officer will contact the applicant/agent to arrange access to the site. Invitations will be sent to Members of the Planning Committee. Only Members of the Planning Committee, Planning Officers and Council Officials will be permitted to attend the site visit. The full Planning Committee should attend unless there are good reasons not to. It is important that Planning Committee Members do not carry out their own accompanied site visits.

62. A record of the date of the site visit, attendees and any other relevant information will be retained.

Site Visit Procedure

63. The Chairperson of the Planning Committee will oversee the conduct of site visits. They will start promptly at the time notified to Members and interested persons. At the request of the Committee Chairperson, the Planning Officer may be invited to describe the proposal to Members. Whilst Committee Members will be expected to be familiar with the Planning Officer’s report, plans/drawings may be used where necessary.

64. The Planning Officer may indicate ‘matters of fact’ in relation to the proposal and surrounding land which Members can then take account of. Through the Committee Chairperson, Members can ask the Planning Officer for factual clarification on any planning matter relating to the proposal or surrounding land, such as distances to adjoining properties or the location of proposed car parking.

65. At no time during the site visit should Members debate the merits of the planning application. To do so out with the Planning Committee meeting might imply that Members had made their minds up.

66. At no time during the site visit should the applicant, their agent, any objector or any other Member of the public be allowed to address Members. The public right to address the Planning Committee does not arise until the item is reached on the Committee agenda.

67. In order to assist Members to retain their objectivity, they should keep together in one group with the Chairperson, Planning Officers and Council Officials and should avoid breaking away into smaller groups. Once the site visit is concluded, Members should leave the site promptly.

Record Keeping

68. The Planning Officer will keep a record of Member’s attendance at the site visit and will pass this information to the Planning Committee Clerk for minute purposes. The Planning Officer will also prepare a written report on the site visit. This report will be presented to the next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled to discuss the particular application.

REVIEW OF DECISIONS

69. Best practice suggests that in order to assess the quality of decision making, Members should inspect a sample of implemented planning decisions on an annual basis. It is therefore intended that Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council’s Planning Committee will on an annual basis inspect a sample of implemented planning decisions. In addition, to give assurances that the Scheme of Delegation is operating effectively, this inspection will also include a sample of decisions delegated to officers. Procedures will be prepared to assist with this review.

LEGAL ADVISER

70. The Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee will have access to legal advice on planning matters at each of its meetings.

REVIEW OF PROTOCOL

71. The reform of local government saw the majority of planning functions transfer to local Councils in April 2015. This Protocol will therefore be monitored and procedures reviewed as necessary to ensure that they remain current and relevant to the operational needs of the Lisburn & Castlereagh City Council Planning Committee.

TRAINING

72. A Member shall not participate in decision making at meetings of the Planning Committee if they have not attended the training prescribed by the Council. Members of the Planning Committee shall also endeavour to attend any other specialised training sessions provided, since these are designed to extend the knowledge of the Member on planning law, regulations, procedures and development plans and to generally assist the Member in carrying out their role properly and effectively.

APPENDIX 4

Planning Services - April 2016 to March 2017 Month:- Nov-16

Department Annual Budget Total Actual Total Budget to date & Committed Variance Expenditure:

Planning 1,834,590 1,262,633 1,258,766 (3,867)

Total Expenditure: 1,834,590 1,262,633 1,258,766 (3,867)

Income:

Planning (1,400,000) (1,368,330) (1,196,871) 171,459

Total Income: (1,400,000) (1,368,330) (1,196,871) 171,459

Overall Net Position:

Planning 434,590 (105,697) 61,895 167,592

Total Net Overall Position 434,590 (105,697) 61,895 167,592