Committee Item 3.5 Application No La03/2018/0984/F Dea Dunsilly Committee Interest Addendum to Committee Report Recommendation Grant Planning Permission

COMMITTEE ITEM 3.5 APPLICATION NO LA03/2018/0984/F DEA DUNSILLY COMMITTEE INTEREST ADDENDUM TO COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSAL Proposed battery energy storage facility, new site access, lighting and CCTV columns and ancillary development SITE/LOCATION Lands at Doagh Road, Kells (approximately 137m North East of Kells Sub-Station and approximately 56m South West of 3 Whappstown Road) APPLICANT Kells BES Ltd AGENT Kells BES Ltd LAST SITE VISIT 16th November 2018 CASE OFFICER Glenn Kelly Tel: 028 903 40415 Email: [email protected]

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

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Following the publication of the Case Officers Report a number of additional objections have been received. A total of 32 new objections have been received against the proposal, bringing the number of objections to a total of 43.

In addition to points already made in previous objection letters, the following concerns have been raised; - Noise issues relating to the cumulative impact from the existing substation; - NIE are in the process of compiling a report on noise - Recommended Environmental Health noise conditions - Neighbour notification not carried out extensively enough - Privacy - Unreliable supporting information regarding the source of electricity to be stored - Government study on renewable energy - SONI consultation - Information not available on Planning Portal

Noise Impact A number of objectors have raised concerns that there is an ongoing noise report being compiled by Nothern Ireland Electricity (NIE) in relation to the existing electricity substation on the Doagh Road which is south of the application site. It is claimed that this report, although not completed, will raise noise issues in relation to the impact of the existing substation upon existing nearby dwellings and should be taken into account. It is also claimed that this report is being compiled on the request of the Council’s Environmental Health Section. It can be stated that Environmental Health has not requested such a report nor has it seen this report or a draft version. NIE were consulted on this current application and did not respond with any objections nor did they indicate that they were preparing a noise report on the existing nearby site. Notwithstanding this, the applicant’s noise report carried out a comprehensive background noise assessment over a period of days and nights and found no excessive background noise levels further stating that the volume of noise generated from this proposed battery storage development would fall under these background levels.

In relation to other nearby developments such as the current solar farm application, it is not envisaged this development will create substantially more noise than the battery storage development and again would be expected to be below or around background noise levels if it was to gain planning approval. Nearby windfarm developments are of a distance unlikely to create a noise issue to the nearby dwellings to this development.

With regards the conditions that Environmental Health has recommended relating to noise assessments, these are considered robust in insuring that the correct site specific levels of noise will be measured and that they must be to a desirable standard.

Having taken these new concerns into account, however in the absence of the noise report referred to by objectors, the arguments are considered to have little weight in the final decision making process and do not change the case officer’s original recommendation to approve.

Neighbour Notifications Objections are raised regarding the neighbour notification process and stating that further properties in the surrounding area should have been notified. It can be stated that the correct neighbour notification protocol for the Council has been followed. Any other properties in the surrounding area would have had notice of the application through local press adverts, therefore little weight can be afforded to this argument in the decision making process.

Privacy Objections are raised regarding the placing of security cameras on the site which may intrude upon the privacy of No.3 Whappstown Road. Security cameras would be considered a necessity to prevent trespassers and vandalism at the site and there is no evidence that they would be pointing in a direction towards a private property. If the objectors felt that cameras were intruding upon their privacy they would be advised to bring this to the attention of the PSNI. However, understanding the potential concern it would be reasonable to add a condition to the approval to ensure that all CCTV equipment be inward facing.

Unreliable Supporting Information Regarding the Source of Electricity to be Stored Numerous objections argue that the battery storage facility acts as an extension of surrounding renewable energy facilities. Although it can be said that the storage facility compliments the surrounding power generators including those with renewable themes, it could function without these power sources. The storage facility is not an “extension” of these sites and cannot be viewed as such, therefore little weight can be afforded to this argument in the final decision making process. Government Study on Renewable Energy One objector states that a government study is to be undertaken and is currently out for tender to look into the subject of renewable energy. No further evidence of this study has been provided, notwithstanding this, at this stage there would be no reason to withhold the issuing of this application due to what this paper may or may not say. The policy guidance prevails. Little weight can be afforded to this objection in the final decision making process.

SONI Consultation An objector states that SONI should be consulted on the proposal. SONI were consulted on the proposal and did not offer any objections to the proposal. Therefore little weight can be afforded to the objection in the final decision making process.

Information not available on Planning Portal Objections have been raised that the Case Officer’s Report was not available on the Planning Portal. This is an accurate objection due to the fact that Committee reports are not placed on the portal prior to Committee meetings. However, the report was available on the Council’s website as is normal practice.

An objection has also been raised relating to the inaccuracy of the Case Officer Report relating to the nearby solar farm. This was a correct observation that an error had been made and it was described as an approved application rather than a current application. This has been noted.

All other points of objection have been assessed within the original case officer’s report.

CONCLUSION The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:  Objection letters have been received and considered. Little weight can be afforded to the majority of objections however it is deemed acceptable to add a condition stating that CCTV equipment shall be inward facing to protect neighbouring amenity.  It is considered that insignificant evidence has been provided to prove a cumulative issue regarding noise, particularly one that outweighs the submitted noise report and response from the Environmental Health Section.  Insufficient evidence has been provided to change the case officer’s original recommendation of approval

RECOMMENDATION : APPROVE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED CONDITIONS

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

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

2. The vehicular access, including visibility splays and any forward sight distance, shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No.03a bearing the date stamp 14th December 2018, prior to the commencement of any other development hereby permitted. The area within the visibility splays and any forward sight line shall be cleared to provide a level surface no higher than 250mm above the level of the adjoining carriageway and such splays shall be retained and kept clear thereafter.

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

3. The gradient of the access road shall not exceed 8% (1 in 12.5) over the first 5m outside the road boundary.

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

4. The development hereby permitted shall not become operational until effective vehicle wheel washing facilities have been installed and brought into operation for the lifetime of the development approved.

Reason: To prevent the carry-over of mud or debris onto the public road in the interests of road safety and convenience.

5. Within one month of the development first becoming operational (and at any other time requested by the Council), a sound power level test shall be undertaken, submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council which measures and reports:  The measured octave band sound power level (dB) from 31Hz to 8kHz for battery inverters, air conditioning units and substations installed at the development site;  The overall sound power level (dB) of battery inverters, air conditioning units and substations installed at the development site;  Details on how the measurement exercise was undertaken in accordance with all relevant standards and guidance.

The Council shall be advised in writing of the dates of the sound power level test at least 3 weeks prior to the event, to enable Officers to witness the measurement exercise.

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

6. If any of the measured sound power levels, either octave band or broadband, presented within the report required by condition 5 exceed any of the octave band or broadband sound power levels (dB) presented within Table 1 of “Document Number 04”, date-stamped received by the Council on 28 January 2019, the site shall cease to operate and shall not become operational again until the noise levels can be maintained below the predicted levels. Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

7. The development shall not become operational until a 3m high acoustic barrier is installed within the site at the location presented within Annex C, Appendix 4 of stamped Document Number 01, date-stamped received by the Council on 25th October 2018 and stamped Document Number 01. The barrier shall have a surface weight of not less than 15kg/m2, be of continuous, solid construction (i.e. no holes or gaps for sound to pass through), and so if it is a fence it should be of ship-lapped design.

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

8. The acoustic barrier required by condition 3 shall be erected prior to the development hereby permitted becoming operational and shall be maintained and kept in good order during the operational lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity.

9. During the construction phase of the development the applicant/appointed contractor must adhere to all the mitigation identified in Section 6 of the oCEMP dated December 2018.

Reason: To avoid adverse effects on the site integrity of Lough Neagh and Lough Beg Ramsar/SPA and Rea’s Wood and Farr’s Bay SAC.

10. Once a contractor has been appointed, a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be submitted to the the Council at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of construction to ensure effective avoidance and mitigation methodologies have been planned for the protection of the water environment.

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

11. The existing hedgerow along the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the site as indicated on the approved plan 19A, date stamped 14th December 2018 shall be retained at a minimum height of 4 metres and trees within the hedgerow a minimum height of 7 metres, and shall be allowed to grow on or as agreed in writing with the Council

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of screening to the site.

12. Proposed planting shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing 19A date stamped 14th December 2018. Planting shall be carried out in the first available season after operation commences of the works hereby approved. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree, shrub or hedge, that tree, shrub or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Council, seriously damaged or defective, another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Council gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape. 13. All camera equipment on the site shall be positioned inwards and shall not direct beyond the boundary of the application site.

Reason: In the interests of privacy and amenity of the nearby residential properties. COMMITTEE ITEM 3.1 APPLICATION NO LA03/2018/0350/F DEA MACEDOM COMMITTEE INTEREST CALLED IN BY CLLR DAVID HOLLIS RECOMMENDATION GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSAL Construction of premises for sale of hot food for consumption off the premises SITE/LOCATION Site adjacent to and South West of 1 Abbott's Cross Newtownabbey APPLICANT James Braniff AGENT Architectural Design Consultant LAST SITE VISIT 22nd May 2018 CASE OFFICER Alicia Leathem Tel: 028 90340416 Email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND Since the preparation and publication of the Case Officer’s Report there has been an additional letter of objection submitted to the Council. This objection has been uploaded to the Planning Portal. A summary of the key points of objection, which were not addressed within the Case Officer’s Report and consideration of the issues is provided below.

REPRESENTATION A summary of the key points of the additional objection letter is provided below:  Precedent;  Empty Outlets;  Vermin; and  Decrease in Value of Property

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Precedent A proposal for the ‘Erection of premises for sale of hot food for consumption off the premises’ (Planning reference U/2012/0215/F) has already been approved on this application site, in January 2013. As each planning application received by the Council is assessed on its own merits, with a decision being made based on relevant policies, the development plan prevailing at that time and other material considerations, it cannot be said that the approval of this development will automatically lead to the granting of planning permission for any similar proposals submitted in the surrounding area.

Empty Outlets The claim by objectors that there are already vacant units at Abbots Cross that could accommodate the proposal has not been substantiated nor would it be a requirement to demonstrate that a new build was the only alternative. Two separate planning applications for the erection of the building have already been approved (in June 2011 and January 2013). The first permission granted the use as a retail unit with the second allowing a take away to occupy the building. The floorspace created by this proposal is 60sqm; the impact of which can be absorbed without dominating the local centre in the visual sense.

Vermin As the proposal is essentially for a hot food take away, with no seating being provided either inside or outside the building, it is considered that the majority of those visiting the premises will be consuming their purchases elsewhere. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to generate a substantial amount of litter, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of vermin being attracted to the premises. Furthermore, there is an enclosed bin storage area to the rear of the building, capable of accommodating two 600 cubic litre bins, which, when adequately serviced and maintained, will prevent a nuisance arising from vermin. Every business has a legal duty of care to dispose of waste through a licensed waste carrier. If the owner/occupier fail to take adequate measures to stop the property becoming infested with rats or mice, statutory action can be taken against them.

Decrease in Value of Property The perceived impact of a development upon neighbouring property values is not generally viewed as a material consideration to be taken into account in the determination of a planning application. In any case no specific or verifiable evidence has been submitted to indicate what effect this proposal is likely to have on property values. As a consequence there is no certainty that this would occur as a direct consequence of the proposed development nor any indication that such an effect in any case would be long lasting or disproportionate. Accordingly it is considered that this issue should not be afforded determining weight in the determination of this application.

CONCLUSION There is no change to the recommendation to grant planning permission for the proposed development and the proposed conditions remain unchanged from the publication of the Case Officer’s Report.

RECOMMENDATION : GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

COMMITTEE ITEM 3.7 APPLICATION NO LA03/2018/1128/O DEA AIRPORT COMMITTEE INTEREST ADDENDUM TO COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSAL Infill dwelling and garage SITE/LOCATION Between no. 31 and 29a Ballyarnot Road, Muckamore, Antrim APPLICANT Mr J Simpson AGENT W M McNeill LAST SITE VISIT 21.01.2019 CASE OFFICER Ashleigh Wilson Tel: 028 903 Ext40429 Email: [email protected]

ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING ISSUES/MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Members since the preparation and publication of the case officers report additional information and supporting evidence has been submitted by the applicant’s agent on 11 March as to why the application should be considered acceptable in principle.

The supporting statement includes the Land Registry map for No. 31 Ballyarnot Road. This confirms that the curtilage for No. 31 does not include the land immediately to the southwest of the dwelling, despite there being no boundary between these on the ground or on the Ordnance Survey Map. It is therefore likely that the site frontage is ten (10) metres rather than the forty (40) metre frontage stated in the case officer report.

‘Building on Tradition’ states on Page 71 that ‘a gap site can be infilled with one or two houses if the average frontage of the new plot equates to the average plot width in the existing ribbon.’ Notwithstanding the applicant’s information, which asserts that the frontage of No. 31 is eight (8) metres, the frontage of No. 29 is seventy-six (76m) and the frontage of No. 29a is forty (40) metres, this results in an average plot width of 41metres. The proposed frontage of the application site measures 21.5 metres, which does not therefore respect the average plot width along this ribbon of development. Within the Supporting Statement ‘Building on Tradition’ is quoted from Page 71 where it states ‘When a gap is more than twice the length of the average plot width in the adjoining (my emphasis) ribbon it is often unsuitable for infill with two new plots’. The applicants agent contends that in this case the adjoining (my emphasis) ribbon would refer only to Nos. 29A with a frontage of 40m and No. 31 with a frontage of 8 metres giving an average plot width of 24metres. It is contested that the adjoining ribbon is taken to be the entire ribbon being relied upon in order to obtain an infill dwelling under Policy CTY 8 and as stated above the proposed plot size is not in keeping with the average plot size within this ribbon of development. The supporting statement outlines that a built up frontage can have staggered frontages to the road. While this is accepted the new conceptual sketch provided by the applicant’s agent for information purposes only highlights the contrived nature of the site and limited separation distances, which again is not characteristic of the existing spacing between dwellings and would undoubtedly impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling No. 31 as it would be enclosed on two sides by the proposed dwelling.

Since the original case officer report was prepared, DfI Rivers have now responded indicating that they have no objections to the proposed development subject to there being a working strip of 5-10 metres long the northwest boundary of the site where there is a culverted watercourse. As a consequence the reason for refusal on surface water drainage can be removed. The reason for refusal in relation to the loss of amenity space to No. 31 has also been removed given the agents assertions that the application site does not form part of the residential curtilage of No. 31 Ballyarnot Road.

CONCLUSION There is no change to the recommendation to refuse planning permission for the proposed development although the reasons for refusal have been amended and are set out below.

RECOMMENDATION : REFUSE OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION

PROPOSED REASONS OF REFUSAL 1. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policies CTY1 and CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement and it fails to meet with the provisions for an infill dwelling in accordance with Policy CTY8 of PPS21.

2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY 13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside as the site is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for a building to integrate.

3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement and Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal, if permitted, would further erode the rural character of the area due to a build-up of development.

4. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement as the development, if permitted, would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of existing residents at No.31 Ballyarnot Road through overlooking and privacy intrusion.

5. The proposal is contrary to the provisions contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that it has not been demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects on the proposed property in terms of noise disturbance and odour from the nearby poultry sheds.