Development Management Officer Report Committee Application. Summary

Transcription

1 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: I/2015/0012/F Target Date: Proposal: Retention of below ground agricultural slurry tank with portal frame building over Referral Route: Planning Objections Location: To the rear of 15 Sunnyside Road Coagh Cookstown Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Donmac Farms 76 Drumenny Road Coagh Cookstown BT80 0HL Approve Agent Name and Address: Mr Paul Mallon 26 Derrychrin Road Coagh Cookstown BT80 0HJ Case Officer: Paul McClean Signature(s):

2 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F Site Location Plan Date of Site Visit: Case Officer Report Neighbour Notification Checked: Yes Representations: Letters of Objection 3 Summary of Issues Detremental impact on residential amenity by impact of odour/smell Son cannot rennovate property due to impacts of smell Dirt on public road from development These objections will be addressed later in my report Description of proposal This is a full planning application for the retention of below ground agricultural slurry tank with portal frame building over Characteristics of Site an Area

3 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F The site is roadside frontage, located approx. 35m east of No 7 Sunnyside Road. Coagh Village, as defined in the Coostown Area Plan 2010 is located approx. 3 km to the NW of the subject site. With an existing access from Sunnyside Road, the agricultural building and and underground slurry store is located in the middle of the site, between a direlect dwelling to the north, and an existing livestock building to the south. The northern section of the NW boundary of the site is defined by an existing 1.5m high hawthorn hedge, the middle section by a stepped concrete wall, the southern section by a 2.2m high concrete wall with corroguated sheeting on top. The roadside boundary is defined by an access point and mature tree and hedge growth. The eastern and southern boundaries are also defined by mature tree and hedge lines. The site and No. 7 Sunnyside Road is separated by a small field. No. 7 is a 2 storey farm house with associated outhouses and sheds. This dwelling was granted Permission under I/2010/0124/F for the proposed alterations to existing window openings with new roof and new access onto existing laneway on This permission has now expired. The area is rural and agricultural in character and is defined by dispersed single dwellings and farm holdings. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Area Plan Cookstown Area Plan the site is located on unzoned land in the open countryside. Relevant Site History I/2014/0059/CA- an enforcement case was opened on this site for an unauthorised slurry tank. The enforcement team sent a submissions notice to the land owner and enforcement action is pending subject to the outcome of this planning application. Key planning policy The Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) introduced in September 2015 is a material consideration in determining this application. The SPPS states that a transitional period will operate until such times as a Plan Strategy for the whole of the council area has been adopted. During the transitional period planning authorities will apply existing policy contained within identified policy documents together with the SPPS. Paragraph 1.12 of the SPPS states that any conflict between the SPPS and any retained policy must be resolved in the favour of the provisions of the SPPS. Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS21) is a retained policy document under SPPS and provides the appropriate policy context. Policy CTY1 of PPS21 sets out the types of development that are considered to be acceptable in the countryside. One of these is Policy CTY12 which allows agricultural development on active and established farm holdings subject to certain policy criteria being met. The applicant/agent has provided a P1C form which contains an agricultural business ID number. DARDNI has confirmed that the business ID has been in existence for more than 6 years and that the farmer is in receipt of single farm payment within the last 6 years therefore there is sufficient evidence that the farm is both established and active. The policy then lists 5 criteria that have to be met in order to meet policy (a) it is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding or forestry enterprise; The proposal is for an underground slurry store and agricultural building above. This proposal will contribute to the efficient use of the agricultural holding.

4 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F (b) in terms of character and scale it is appropriate to its location; The size and scale of the proposed underground slurry store and agricultural building above is similar in size, scale and design to other agricultural buildings within this area of countryside and throughout the Northern Ireland countryside. The materials used are acceptable and are typically the design of new agricultural buildings in the countryside. In terms of character and scale they are appropriate for their countryside location. (c) it visually integrates into the local landscape and additional landscaping is provided as necessary; The below ground slurry store and agricultural building is set between 2 buildings, an unoccupied dwelling and agricultural livestock building, and is well screened by existing mature vegetation along the site boundaries. The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of this area of countryside due to its size, scale, siting, and intervening vegetation. The access is from an existing access point and will not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity. (d) it will not have an adverse impact on the natural or built heritage; The proposal does not impact upon any natural or built heritage interests. The proposal will not have any adverse impact on any ASSI, N2K or non-designated sites, nor on any landscape or buildings of historic value. (e) it will not result in detrimental impact on the amenity of residential dwellings outside the holding or enterprise including potential problems arising from noise, smell and pollution. The nearest dwelling not associated with this farm holding is NO. 7 Sunnyside Road, an unoccupied property which is located approx. 35 metres to the east of the proposed development, and is surrounded by existing agricultural buildings and sheds. The owners of this property have objected to this planning application stating that their son intended to renovate this property and move into it, but that this was now not feasible due to the detrimental impacts posed by the proposed development. Concern about the state of the public road from this unauthorised development was also raised. Mid Ulster Environmental Health Department (EHD) were consulted on this development and initially stated that they had no objections as the nearest occupied property was over 150m from the application site. I reconsulted EHD and advised about No. 7 Sunnyside Road and its proximity to the site, the intention of the objectors son to live at this property, and that fact that there was a live planning permission for the renovation of No. 7. EHD provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide mitigation measures. On receipt of this information, EHD required an Odour Impact Assessment to be carried out. On 4/3/16 the applicant provided an Odour Assessment and Environmental Health were consulted for comment. On 18/04/16 EHD provided comment stating that they had no objections subject to the following condition; 'The slurry tank is operated in such a manner so as not to give rise to a nuisance issue at any nearby properties'. On discussion, it is my opinion that this condition does not meet the tests of a planning condition as it is not precise, time bound or enforceable. Should permission be granted it is suggested that this be included as an informative and that the boundary details shown in drawing No. 04 be conditioned to be complete within 3 months from the date of approval, and be permanently retained as shown thereafter. This boundary treatment will assist with reducing odour levels at No. 7. Due to comment from Environmental Health having no objections to this proposal, informed by the applicant carrying out an odour Impact Assessment, it is my view that impacts of this proposal on residential amenity will not be so great as to warrant refusing this application. The proposed slurry tank will be stirred for spreading a few times a year. It is reasonable to experience these smells from time to time in the countryside, and in light of Environmental Health comments I am of the opinion that this proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the

5 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F amenity of residential dwellings outside the holding or enterprise including potential problems arising from noise, smell and pollution. In terms of the objectors concerns about the dirt of the road, this can be addressed by separate legislation enforced by Transport NI. CTY11 then states where a new building is proposed applicants will also need to provide sufficient information to confirm all of the following: -there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used; I am satisfied that no other buildings on the farm holding are suitable for this proposal. -the design and materials to be used are sympathetic to the locality and adjacent buildings; This is covered in part (a) above. - the proposal is sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings. The building is located between 2 existing buildings on the holding. Other material consideration The site is not subject to flooding. There are no land contamination issues to be considere Summary of Recommendation: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. 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. 2. The existing natural boundaries, as indicated in green on drawing No. 01 date received 15th January 2015, shall be permanently retained unless otherwise agreed by Mid Ulster Council in writing. Reason: To assist with integration and visual amenity. 3. 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 be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of Mid Ulster Council. Any approved arboricultural work or tree surgery shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998, Recommendations for Tree Work. Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing trees and to ensure the development integrates into the countryside. 4. The boundary, indicated on drawings No. 02 rev1 and 04 which were date stamp nreceived 11th September 2015, shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this permission and shall be permanently retained at the heights indicated, unless otherwise agreed by Mid Ulster Council in writing. Reason: To assist with protecting existing residential and visual amenity.

6 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F Informatives 1. Subject to the above conditions the development shall be carried out in accordance with stamped approved plans No 01 and 03 which were date stamp received 15th January 2015, and, 02 rev1 and 04 which were date stamp received 11th September 2015, so as to ensure a satisfactory form of development. 2. This permission does not alter or extinguish or otherwise affect any existing or valid right of way crossing, impinging or otherwise pertaining to these lands. 3. This permission does not confer title. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that he controls all the lands necessary to carry out the proposed development. 4. The approval does not empower anyone to build or erect any structure, wall or fence or encroach in any other manner on a public roadway (including a footway and verge) or on any other land owned or managed by the Department for which separate permissions and arrangements are required. 5. Precautions shall be taken to prevent the deposit of mud and other debris on the adjacent road by vehicles travelling to and from the construction site. Any mud, refuse, etc. deposited on the road as a result of the development, must be removed immediately by the operator/contractor. 6. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that -Surface water does not flow from the site onto the public road -The existing roadside drainage is accommodated and no water flows from the public road onto the site -Surface water from the roof of the development hereby approved does not flow onto the public road, including the footway -The developer should note that this planning approval does not give consent to discharge water into a DRD Roads Service drainage system. 7. The Environmental health Department advises that; -The slurry tank is operated in such a manner so as not to give rise to a nuisance issue at any nearby property. -The below ground agricultural slurry tank should be designed, operated and maintained in a manner consistent with the Dard Publication The Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Prevention of Pollution of Water, Air and Soil. Signature(s) Date:

7 Application ID: I/2015/0012/F ANNEX Date Valid 15th January 2015 Date First Advertised 28th January 2015 ES Requested No

8 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Target Date: Proposal: Dwelling and garage Referral Route: Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Location: Adjacent to 7A Keady Road Upperlands This application is being presented to Committee as it is being recommended for refusal. Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Charlene O'Kane C/O 7A Keady Road Upperlands BT46 5SX REFUSE Agent Name and Address: Russell Finlay (Building Design Consultant) 350 Hillhead Road Knockloughrim Magherafelt BT45 8QT Executive Summary: Signature(s): Malachy McCrystal

9 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received Non Statutory NI Water - Single Units West - Consulted in Error Planning Consultations Non Statutory DARDNI - Coleraine Substantive Response Received Non Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Office Substantive Response Received Non Statutory DARDNI - Coleraine Substantive Response Received Representations: Letters of Support Letters of Objection Number of Support Petitions and signatures None Received None Received No Petitions Received

10 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures No Petitions Received Summary of Issues No representations have been received in respect of this proposed development. Description of proposal This is an outlie application for a site for a dwelling and garage linked to a farm business. Characteristics of the site and area The site is located at the north eastern side of a large road frontage field. The site is accessed via an existing laneway leading to one dwelling with a second laneway immediately adjacent to the south eastern side of the access lane and which serves 3 dwellings. The road frontage field rises up from the road level to the crest of a hill before falling away towards no.7a. There is a drop of 1.8m from the sites north eastern boundary down to finished ground level of No.7A which is a two storey detached dwelling. At present, when viewed from the Keady Road, only the top of the roof line of No.7A is visible due to the reduced ground levels which site well below the site levels. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations The proposal accords with the Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 insofar as it is for a dwelling in the rural area and is linked to an established farm business. The main policy considerations in the assessment of this application are:- CTY 10 Dwellings on Farms Planning permission will be granted for a dwelling house on a farm where all of the stated criteria are met:- the farm business is active and has been established for at least 6 years no dwellings or development opportunities in the countryside have been sold off from the farm holding within 10 years of the date of the application. This only applies from 25th November the new building will be visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm and the access should be taken from an existing lane. Consideration may be given to a site located away from the farm complex where there are no other sites available on the holding and where there are either :- demonstrable health and safety reasons; or verifiable plans to expand the farm business at the existing building group. DARD have advised that the farm business has been in existence for more than 6 years, and that the business has claimed SFP. A farm check has revealed no previous approvals on the farm holding or development opportunities which could have been disposed off since 25th November 2008.

11 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O The P1C submitted with the planning application does not state either the business owners name nor address. In addition, the farm maps provided do not include page 1 of 4 which presumably is the schedule of fields and would usually include the business owners name and address. While pages 2, 3 and 4 carry the name Mrs Marie O Kane, there is nothing to identify Mrs O Kanes address. Therefore in the event that the agent failed to provide this information, when requested on two occasions ie. telephone call on and on , I requested this information from DARD directly. DARD staff advised that Mrs O Kanes farm business address is 4 Dunglady Road, Upperlands. This address is positioned between fields 2, 5, 6 & 7 as indicated on page 2 of 4 of the farm maps and is 380m to the south east of the proposed site. From the farm maps provided, in addition to viewing aerial photographs of 4 Dunglady Road, it is clear that the farm buildings are located at 4 Dunglady Road. As well as being physically removed and not visually linked or clustered with the farm buildings, the proposed site is separated by the main Upperlands to Kilrea Road. The P1 planning application certificate has been completed at Certificate C and notice has been served on Brian O Kane who is stated as owner of the site. Furthermore the site location map has included the field containing the site and the field to the north east of No.7A within the blue line, indicating that these fields are owned/under the control of Mr O Kane. However, Mr O Kane is neither the farm business owner nor is he linked to that business. Therefore the dwelling at no.7a and the adjoining shed cannot be considered to be a group of buildings on the farm, nor can the proposed site be considered as being either visually linked or sited to cluster with a group of buildings on the farm. It should also be noted that the P1C has been signed by the agent and not by the farm business owner. Therefore it is not clear if the business owner is aware that the application is being linked to their farm business ID No. The agent was requested for a third time on to provide the outstanding information in relation to the above issues but has continually failed to provide any of this. CTY 13 Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside Due to the topography of the site and the surrounding land, a dwelling on the proposed site will appear above the crest of the hill without any form of back drop, either by way of landform or vegetation. Any dwelling even a dwelling with a 5.5m ridge height, would appear to be positioned on the crest with no landform nor vegetation to provide a backdrop and would therefore be prominent in the landscape. Given that a dwelling would appear to be sited on top of the crest, when viewed from the Keady Road, it would rely heavily on new landscaping to provide any sense of enclosure and to enable it to achieve any level of integration. Such landscaping would inevitably take a considerable time to mature and to achieve the desired effect. Any new dwelling on this site would suffer from the lack of an acceptable backdrop, thereby failing to blend with the landform. The proposed site for a dwelling therefore fails to integrate into the surrounding into the surrounding landscape. As discussed above, the proposed dwelling is not visually linked or clustered with an established group of buildings on the farm. CTY 14 Rural Character The proposed site is located at the north eastern end of a road frontage field which rises steeply from the road towards the site. Although there is a crest close to the site after which ground levels fall gently towards no.7a, any dwelling, even a dwelling with a 5.5m ridge height, would appear to be positioned on the crest with no landform nor vegetation to provide a backdrop and would therefore be prominent in the landscape.

12 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O The site will be accessed via the existing laneway leading to no.7a alongside which lies a second laneway leading to three additional dwellings. Therefore there is a public interest from these laneways. On approaching the point where the proposed site joins the existing laneway, any dwelling on the site would be intervisible with all four existing dwellings ie. no s 5, 5A, 7 and 7A in addition to the associated outbuildings. Therefore a dwelling on the proposed site would result in a suburban style of development when viewed with the existing buildings. PPS 3 - Access, Movement and Parking Transport NI advised that they have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. Consultation responses With the exception of DARD, all consultees have responded positively. Consideration The applicant has failed on two occasions to provide the necessary evidence as requested. This extends to :- an amended P1C form to include the name and address of the farm business owner; maps showing the location of the existing farm buildings; and page 1 of 4 of the farm maps. The site is located beside a dwelling and shed which do not form part of the farm business. It is stated on the P1 Planning Application Certificate that these buildings are owned by another party who is not linked to the farm business. The site does not satisfy the criteria of Policies CTY 10, CTY 13 or CTY 14 and therefore should be refused. Recommendation On consideration of the above, it is my opinion that planning permission should be refused for the proposed development for the following reasons:- Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Refuse for the reasons stated below Refusal Reasons 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY10 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an

13 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new building is visually linked or sited to cluster with an established group of buildings on the farm. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that: the proposed building is a prominent feature in the landscape; the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape; the proposed building relies primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration; the ancillary works do not integrate with their surroundings); the proposed building fails to blend with the landform, existing trees, buildings, slopes and other natural features which provide a backdrop; 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. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that: the building would, if permitted, be unduly prominent in the landscape; the building 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. Signature(s) Date:

14 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O ANNEX Date Valid 9th April 2015 Date First Advertised 23rd April 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 5 Keady Road Gorteade Swatragh The Owner/Occupier, 5A Keady Road,Gorteade,Upperlands,MAGHERA,Co. Londonderry,BT46 5SX The Owner/Occupier, 7 Keady Road Gorteade Swatragh The Owner/Occupier, 7A Keady Road,Gorteade,Upperlands,MAGHERA,Co. Londonderry,BT46 5SX The Owner/Occupier, 9 Keady Road Gorteade Swatragh The Owner/Occupier, 9A Keady Road,Gorteade,Swatragh,Londonderry,BT46 5SX, Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested Yes /No Planning History Ref ID: H/2004/0143/O Proposal: Site of bungalow and garage. Address: Adjacent to 9 Keady Road, Upperlands, Maghera Ref ID: H/1991/0491 Proposal: SITE OF REPLACEMENT FARM DWELLING Address: KEADY ROAD UPPERLANDS Ref ID: H/2003/0943/O

15 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Proposal: Site of dwelling. Address: Land in front of 7 Keady Road, Swatragh Ref ID: H/2004/1314/RM Proposal: Erection of dwelling and garage. Address: Land in front of 7 Keady Road, Swatragh Ref ID: H/1983/0226 Proposal: ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO BUNGALOW Address: 7 KEADY ROAD, UPPERLANDS Ref ID: H/2000/0432/F Proposal: Dwelling and Garage Address: 9 Keady Road Gorteade Upperlands Maghera BT46 5SX Ref ID: H/1995/0591 Proposal: SITE OF BUNGALOW Address: ADJ TO 7 KEADY ROAD UPPERLANDS Ref ID: H/1996/0253 Proposal: BUNGALOW AND GARAGE Address: KEADY ROAD GORTEADE UPPERLANDS Ref ID: H/2007/0242/RM Proposal: Dwelling and garage Address: Adjacent to No. 9 Keady Road, Upperlands, Maghera

16 Application ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Ref ID: H/2013/0393/F Proposal: Proposed change of house type and garage Address: Adjacent to no.9 Keady Road Upperlands, PG Ref ID: LA09/2015/0024/O Proposal: Dwelling and garage Address: Adjacent to 7A Keady Road, Upperlands, Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Farm Boundary Map Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

17 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: 3rd May 2016 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Target Date: Proposal: Detached Single Storey Stable and Store Block Location: 35m SE of 21 Drumconnor Road Drumconor Dungannon Referral Route:Contrary to Policy Recommendation: Refusal Applicant Name and Address: Mr Oliver Donaghy 24 Lisnagleer Road, Dungannon Agent Name and Address: CMI Planners Ltd Unit C5 The Rainey Centre Rainey Street Magherafelt BT45 5AG Executive Summary: Signature(s):

18 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Case Officer Report Site Location Plan Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Content Office Statutory Environmental Health Mid Content Ulster Council Statutory DARDNI - Omagh Advice Representations: Letters of Support Letters of Objection Number of Support Petitions and signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures Summary of Issues None Received None Received No Petitions Received No Petitions Received None Characteristics of the Site and Area The site comprises a small rectangular field situated directly adjacent to and south of number 21 Drumconnor Road. The field is relatively flat and at time of site visit was being grazed by a

19 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F donkey. It is bounded by high mature maple trees on all sides bar the roadside, which is defined by a post and wire fence and a few smaller trees. There is an agricultural gated entrance to the field in the SW corner of the field. The sites lies in the point of a triangle between the cookstown road to the east and the Drumconnor road to the West, number 21 Drumconnor road bounds the site to the north and to the south is another larger field also under the ownership of the applicant. Further south of this there is a new build house and two further houses. The site lies in the open countryside outside the settlement limits. The applicants home address and farm yard is located a short distance to the West along the lisnagleer road. The proposal seeks planning permission for a stable and store. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations PPS 1 General Principles PPS 3 Access, Movement and Parking PPS 21- Sustainable Development in the Countryside Building on tradition: A sustainable design guide for the Northern Ireland countryside Dungannon Area Plan 2010 Given the rural location of application site the nature of the proposal the application shall be assessed under Planning Policy Statement 21- Sustainable Development in the Countryside and in particular with the following; Policy CTY1- Development in the Countryside; Policy CTY 12; - Agricultural and Forestry Development Policy CTY13- Integration and Design of Buildings in the Countryside; and Policy CTY14 - Rural Character. Policy CTY1 provides clarification on which types of development are acceptable in the countryside, such as a dwelling on a farm, a dwelling to meet the needs of a non agri-business, a dwelling based on personal and domestic circumstances, a replacement dwelling or if the site could be considered a small gap site within a substantial and built up frontage. In this instance the application is for a farm building (stable) and therefore must be considered against Policy CTY12 of PPS21. This application proposes 3 stables for 3 donkeys, a store and associated works. The stables and store have a footprint of 91 metres squared and has a ridge height of 4 metres. Each stable measure 4 by 3.5 metres and the store is 5.5 by 5 metres. The applicant submitted a P1C form and farm maps and DARD have confirmed it is in existence over 6 years. In this case CTY 12 will be most applicable. CTY12 Agricultural and Forestry Development in PPS 21 sets out the requirements for development on an active farm. a) The agent has stated this proposal is necessary as there are no existing buildings on the farm to provide the required shelter for the applicant s donkeys. b) The building comprising the stables, store and covered area has a ridge height of 4 metres FGL and a footprint of approximately 90 metres squared. This proposal is not inappropriate in this location.

20 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F c) The siting of this proposal to the rear of the site and using the existing mature vegetation along the curtilage of No 21 and on the boundary to the East will aid its integration in to the landscape. d) There are no natural or built heritage issues with this site. e) The Environmental Health section of Mid Ulster Council were consulted and there are no concern about any impact this proposal may have on residential amenity. Applicants are also required to submit additional information when a new building is proposed. The agent was requested to submit evidence to support this application and further to this photographs and a statement were supplied. The agent stated that the applicant has 3 farm buildings all of which are in use and therefore suggests there are no suitable buildings existing on the farm holding. However, the 3 existing buildings are quite considerable in size and the photographs would suggest they contain plenty of space to house 3 donkeys. The design and materials of the proposal are acceptable in this location and would not cause any concerns. The main concern is the location of the site in that it is not located adjacent to the main farm holding. Upon inspection of the farm it is also evident that there is plenty of space within the ownership of the applicant to extend the existing buildings or to build a new stable next to the existing ones. Further to this, after group discussion it was also a concern that the proposed position of the stables if permitted result in a pattern of development which when considered with the existing dwellings allow for further development as an exception to CTY 8 of PPS 21, thus creating a ribbon of development along the Derrycrin Road which would result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside. In exceptional cases consideration may be given to an alternative site away from the existing farm, where it is proven that it is essential for the efficient functioning of the farm or there are demonstrable health and safety reasons. The applicant has failed to demonstrate either of these. There was no objections received from the neighbour notification or advertisement process. Transportni have no concerns regarding this proposal as an existing established access will be utilised. Environmental Health and DARD have no concerns. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: The main concern is the location of the site in that it is not located adjacent to the main farm holding. Upon inspection of the farm it is also evident that there is plenty of space within the ownership of the applicant to extend the existing buildings or to build a new stable next to the existing ones. Further to this, after group discussion it was also a concern that the proposed position of the stables if permitted result in a pattern of development which when considered with the existing dwellings allow for further development as an exception to CTY 8 of PPS 21, thus creating a ribbon of development along the Derrycrin Road which would result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside

21 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Refusal Reasons 1. The proposal is contrary to policy CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that it has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites available on the existing farm holding, nor do any health and safety reasons exist to justify an alternative site away from the existing farm buildings, or that the alternative site away from the farm is essential for the efficient functioning of the business. 2. The proposal is contrary to policy CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the applicant has not provided sufficient information to confirm that there are no suitable existing buildings on the holding or enterprise that can be used. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY 14 of Planning Policy Statement 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the dwelling would, if permitted result in a pattern of development which when considered with the existing dwellings allow for further development as an exception to CTY 8 of PPS 21, thus creating a ribbon of development along the Derrycrin Road which would result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside. Signature(s) Date:

22 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F ANNEX Date Valid 17th September 2015 Date First Advertised 28th September 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 19A Drumconnor Road,Drumconor,Dungannon,Tyrone,BT70 3LL, The Owner/Occupier, 21 Drumconnor Road Drumconor Dungannon Date of Last Neighbour Notification 28th September 2015 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: M/1998/0738 Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: APPROX 200M N.W OF 92 COOKSTOWN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1998/0738B Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 200M NW OF 92 COOKSTOWN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2006/0835/F Proposal: Retention of infill. Address: Land Adjacent to 21 Drumconnor Road, Carland, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/1517/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling - living accommodation Address: Adjacent to and South of 21 Drumconnor Road, Carland, Dungannon

23 Application ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Ref ID: LA09/2015/0817/F Proposal: Detached Single Storey Stable and Store Block Address: 35m SE of 21 Drumconnor Road, Drumconor, Dungannon, Summary of Consultee Responses Transportni have no concerns regarding this proposal as an existing established access will be utilised. Environmental Health and DARD have no concerns. Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03 Type: Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

24 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/0880/F Target Date: Proposal: Proposed new lounge and waiting area with external dining garden, associated toilets and serving area. Referral Route: 7 Objections to proposal received Location: Church Street Magherafelt BT45 6AP Recommendation: Approval Applicant Name and Address: Roland Graham 23 Church Street Magherafelt BT45 6AP Agent Name and Address: Newline Architects 48 Main Street Castledawson BT45 8AB Executive Summary: Signature(s): Lorraine Moon

25 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Add Info Requested Ulster Council Non Statutory NI Water - Multi Units West - Consulted in Error Planning Consultations Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received

26 Non Statutory NIEA Substantive Response Received Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received Statutory NIEA Content Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Add Info Requested Ulster Council Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection 7 Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and No Petitions Received signatures Summary of Issues Objections - 7 objections have been received in total, the main points raised in these are as follows: - Bats may be using the buildings on site for roosting and as such the objector feels a bat survey should be carried out. - noise pollution - light pollution - setting of listed building could be potentially affected - work already commenced prior to planning decision - overlooking - loss of privacy - smell - road safety issues - antisocial behaviour - litter Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposal site is within an existing food retail unit/restaurant in Magherafelt, the area is of a mixed use. The Terrace Hotel a three storey building is located directly opposite the proposal site. The adjacent property is to be included in this restaurant, its current use is that of a retail nature. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Planning Act (Northern Ireland ) 2011 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for N.I (planning for sustainable development) PPS 6 Planning, Archaeology _ the built heritage. Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 PPS 5 - Retailing and town centres

27 The proposal site is an existing retail use within both buildings The proposal site is within the town centre boundary of Magherafelt, but outside the primary retail core. The majority of surrounding buildings are 2 storey buildings and of a mixed use. Site history - H/2007/1100/F approval was granted for 'mixed use development incorporating ground floor retail units at nos 17-21, first floor office accommodation at no.s and apartment to rear of 17-21' H/2007/0920/LBC approval was granted for the associated listed building consent to above. Consultee response: - Transportni were asked to comment and responded on with no objections to the proposal given that the two existing premises are of a retail nature and deliveries to both premises would have been on an ongoing basis, transportni would consider that there would be no expansion of business as such when the two buildings are combined. Environmental Health were asked to comment and responded initially on requesting a noise report, this was received and the consultee reconsulted, they responded on requesting amendments, this was requested and consultee reconsulted with the info, they responded on with suggested conditions and informatives. One of these was disputed by the agent and clarification was obtained from Environmental Health on NIEA were consulted and responded on requesting additional info/amendments, this info was submitted and the consultee reconsulted, they responded on with no objections. The proposal is for a small extension to the rear of an existing restaurant and a rear yard to become an outside seating area. Overall the proposal is relatively small in scale and the use of the premises has been previously established. With the inclusion of the consultees conditions I feel that any neighbouring properties and residents should be protected from any potential nuisances. The proposed development in my opinion does reflect the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment and sympathetic materials have been proposed on the submitted plans. Objections - 7 objections have been received in total, the main points raised in these are as follows: - Bats may be using the buildings on site for roosting and as such the objector feels a bat survey should be carried out. no evidence submitted of any bat activity by objectors and none was noted when on site as such it was felt acceptable for advice to be given to the applicant as to the protection of bats. - noise pollution the issue of noise pollution and smell was dealt with by Mid Ulster Environment Health and their subsequent mitigation measures and conditions should contain these however should there be any further issues Mid Ulster Council Environmental Health Department will be the authority to monitor, measure and deal with these issues. - light pollution it was considered that due to the proposed design that this would not be significant - setting of listed building could be potentially affected NIEA were asked to comment on this proposal and following discussions were content with the final proposed plans - work already commenced prior to planning decision- enforcement carried out a site visit and advised the applicant that any work carried out prior to planning permission being granted would be entirely at their own risk - overlooking due to the wall/barrier proposed its felt that this should not be an issue with the proposed design

28 - loss of privacy as mentioned above due to the proposed design this should not be an issue for any neighbouring properties - road safety issues Transportni were asked to comment and felt that the proposal would not create any additional transport or safety issues. - antisocial behaviour- no evidence of this has been submitted and it was not considered that this should be an issue with this existing use. - litter no evidence of this has been submitted and as this is not a take away restaurant it is not considered that this would be an issue. These points have all been considered in the assessment of this proposal and advice has been sought from the necessary consultees. The agent submitted amended plans showing the outside seating area to have the pod like covering removed but when told neighbours etc would need to be re-notified of these changes amendments were submitted on with the pod covering reinstated as the applicant wishes the application to be taken forward to committee this month due to licensing constraints. Recommendation: Approval Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Approval Conditions: 1. 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. 2. The level of noise emitted from the site should not exceed 52 db between hours and hours, Monday to Sunday and 47 db at any other time, as measured on the nearest occupied property. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby properties. 3. There shall be no delivery to the property before hours or after hours. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby properties 4. An accoustic barrier which provides at least 15dB reduction referred to in the Acoustic Report dated 4th January 2016 by Lester Acoustics shall be constructed and situated as per specifications of Project No. 660 Drawing No. PL04, dated March Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby residents.

29 5. As per the Acoustic Report dated 4th January 2016 the proposed fixed plant and equipment shall have a maximum single or combined level of LAr 86dB for evening time 3 metres and LAr 58dB night time at 3 metres. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby properties. 6. The proposed fire escape door in the southern boundary all shall be solid with a solid mass in excess of 25kg/m2 and shall be fitted with acoustic suppression seals to all jambs and the threshold. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby properties. 7. Any change in operating practise shall be subject to reassessment of noise impact. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of residents in adjoining and nearby properties. 8. Any signage/advertisement proposal must be installed within the traditional timber shop front backboard fascia above the window and door opening. Reason: To protect against all inappropriate location which would obscure, overlap, or cut into the architectural detailing of the building. 9. Materials of signage must be either of the individual lettering type or hand painted lettering on the background fascia. Reason: To protect against detailed design which is out of keeping with the architectural design of the building in terms of proportions and materials. 10. Any illumination of the signage must be by a slim profile horizontal LED strip fitting incorporated into the traditional timber shop fascia length and cornice line and pelmet. Reason: To protect against the use of an inappropriate or unduly prominent means of illumination. Informatives 1. The applicant is advised to ensure that all plant and equipment associated with the proposed is so situated operated and maintained as to prevent the transmissions of odour. 2. a) Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPSS) - Planning for Sustainable Development. b) Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) - Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage. c) Consultation Guide: Required Environmental Information, A guide to supporting information required for effective consultations (Section 16) d) BS 7913:2013, Guide to the conservation of Historic Buildings. e) Consultation Guide: Historic Buildings _ Energy Efficiency, A Guide to Part F of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations f) Technical Notes - hnical

30 3. We would advise the applicant that Bats are a European protected species (EPS) and are protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended), known as the Habitat Regulations and therefore the applicant should be satisfied that they comply with these Regulations at all times. 4. This permission does not alter or extinguish or otherwise affect any existing or valid right of way crossing, impinging or otherwise pertaining to these lands. 5. This permission does not confer title. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that he controls all the lands necessary to carry out the proposed development. Signature(s) Date:

31 ANNEX Date Valid 24th September 2015 Date First Advertised 12th October 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 15 Church Street, Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 17 Church Street Town Parks Of Magherafelt Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 25 Church Street Town Parks Of Magherafelt Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 27 Church Street Town Parks Of Magherafelt Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 27 Church Street,Town Parks Of Magherafelt,Magherafelt,Londonderry,BT45 6AP, The Owner/Occupier, 29 Church Street, Magherafelt David McKee 29 King Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AR Damian McKee 31, King Street, Magherafelt, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, BT45 6AR The Owner/Occupier, 4 Kings Street, Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 6 Kings Street, Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 8 Kings Street, Magherafelt M O'Neill The Owner/Occupier,. A concerned resident The Owner/Occupier, J Walls Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested Yes /No

32 Planning History Ref ID: H/2012/0255/LBC Proposal: Change of use from Art Gallery and Gym on 1st floor to Restaurant, work to include removal of stud wall to internal storage areas on ground floor, no change to external finishes Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, CG Ref ID: H/1989/0080 Proposal: SITE OF BUNGALOW Address: KILREA ROAD TYANEE PORTGLENONE Ref ID: H/1994/0015 Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Address: 4-8 KING STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1983/0176 Proposal: CONVERSION OF VACANT DWELLING AND SHOP TO SNOOKER ROOM AND FLAT Address: 27 AND 29 CHURCH STREET, MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1981/0400 Proposal: CONVERSION OF DWELLING INTO TWO FLATS Address: 29 CHURCH STREET, MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1982/0193 Proposal: CONVERSION OF SHOP AND DWELLING INTO 2 FLATS Address: 27/29 CHURCH STREET, MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1981/0399 Proposal: CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO HOT FOOD BAR Address: 27 CHURCH STREET, MAGHERAFELT

33 Ref ID: H/1989/0357 Proposal: ADDITIONAL TOILET,STORAGE AREA TO RESTAURANT Address: 23 CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1989/0039 Proposal: NEW SHOP/POST OFFICE AND EXTENSION TO HOUSE Address: 5 MAIN STREET DESERTMARTIN Ref ID: H/1989/0035 Proposal: CONVERSION OF SHOP TO RESTAURANT Address: 23 CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/2003/1114/F Proposal: Change of use from restaurant premises to ground floor aromatherapy shop and 1st floor gymnasium inclusive of shop frontage alterations. (Amended proposal). Address: 23/25 Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/2003/1115/LB Proposal: Change of use from restaurant premises to ground floor aromatherapy shop and 1st floor gymnasium inclusive of shop frontage alterations. Address: 23/25 Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/2012/0141/F Proposal: Proposed material change of use from art gallery and gym to resturant Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AP, PG Ref ID: H/2007/0920/LB Proposal: Mixed used development incorporating ground floor retail units at 17-21, first floor office accommodation and apartment to rear of 17-21

34 Address: Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/2007/1100/F Proposal: Mixed use development incorporating ground floor retail units at nos 17 to 21, first floor office accommodation at nos 17 to 21 and apartment to rear of 17 to 21 Address: Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/1993/0035 Proposal: 4 NO APARTMENTS (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) Address: CHURCH ST MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1992/0030 Proposal: 4 DWELLING UNITS Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1993/0034 Proposal: 4 NO APARTMENTS Address: CHURCH ST MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1992/0031 Proposal: 4 DWELLING UNITS (LISTED BUILDING) Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: LA09/2015/0880/F Proposal: Proposed new dining room and bar with external dining garden and associated toilets Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AP,

35 Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 03 Type: Proposed Elevations Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Site Layout or Block Plan Status: Submitted Drawing No. 04 Type: Proposed Floor Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 05 Type: Existing Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

36 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/0996/LBC Target Date: Proposal: Internal fit out of 19 with demolition and replacement of rear return for structural reasons Referral Route: 7 objections received Location: Church Street Magherafelt BT45 6AP Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Roland Graham Church Street Magherafelt APPROVE Agent Name and Address: Newline Architects 48 Main Street Castledawson BT45 8AB Executive Summary: Signature(s): Lorraine Moon

37 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Non Statutory NIEA Substantive Response Received Representations: Letters of Support Letters of Objection Number of Support Petitions and signatures None Received None Received No Petitions Received

38 Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures Summary of Issues 7 Objections to proposal No Petitions Received Characteristics of the Site and Area Existing restaurant on site with adjacent retail building proposed to be incorporated into the restaurant. The site is within a mixed use are of Magherafelt. Consultation with NIEA as listed building. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations PPS 6 - Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage The proposal site is an existing retail use within both buildings The proposal site is within the town centre boundary of Magherafelt, but outside the primary retail core. The majority of surrounding buildings are 2 storey buildings and of a mixed use. Site history - H/2007/1100/F approval was granted for 'mixed use development incorporating ground floor retail units at nos 17-21, first floor office accommodation at nos and apartment to rear of 17-21' H/2007/0920/LBC approval was granted for the associated listed building consent to above. Consultee response: - NIEA were consulted and responded on requesting additional info/amendments, this info was submitted and the consultee reconsulted, they responded on with no objections subject to conditions and informatives. The proposal is for a small extension to the rear of an existing restaurant and a rear yard to become an outside seating area. Overall the proposal is relatively small in scale and the use of the premises has been previously established. With the inclusion of the consultees conditions I feel that any neighbouring properties and residents should be protected from any potential nuisances. The proposed development in my opinion does reflect the listed building in terms of scale, height, massing and alignment and sympathetic materials have been proposed on the submitted plans. Objections - 7 objections have been received in total, the main points raised in these are as follows: - Bats may be using the buildings on site for roosting and as such the objector feels a bat survey should be carried out. - noise pollution - light pollution - setting of listed building could be potentially affected - work already commenced prior to planning decision - overlooking - loss of privacy - smell - road safety issues

39 - antisocial behaviour - litter These points have all been considered in the assessment of this proposal and advice has been sought from the necessary consultees. The agent submitted amended plans showing the outside seating area to have the pod like covering removed but when told neighbours etc would need to be renotified of these changes amendments were submitted on with the pod covering reinstated as the applicant wishes the application to be taken forward to committee this month due to licensing constraints. Recommendation: Approval of Listed Building Consent. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Approval Conditions: Conditions 1. Any signage/advertisement proposal must be installed within the traditional timber shop front backboard fascia above the window and door opening. Reason: To protect against all inappropriate location which would obscure, overlap, or cut into the architectural detailing of the building. 2. Materials of signage must be either of the individual lettering type or hand painted lettering on the background fascia. Reason: To protect against detailed design which is out of keeping with the architectural design of the building in terms of proportions and materials. 3. Any illumination of the signage must be by a slim profile horizontal LED strip fitting incorporated into the traditional timber shop fascia length and cornice line and pelmet. Reason: To protect against the use of an inappropriate or unduly prominent means of illumination. Informatives 1. a) Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPSS) - Planning for Sustainable Development. b) Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) - Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage. c) Consultation Guide: Required Environmental Information, A guide to supporting information required for effective consultations (Section 16) d) BS 7913:2013, Guide to the conservation of Historic Buildings. e) Consultation Guide: Historic Buildings _ Energy Efficiency, A Guide to Part F of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations 2006.

40 f) Technical Notes - hnical Signature(s) Date:

41 ANNEX Date Valid 21st October 2015 Date First Advertised 2nd November 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: H/2012/0255/LBC Proposal: Change of use from Art Gallery and Gym on 1st floor to Restaurant, work to include removal of stud wall to internal storage areas on ground floor, no change to external finishes Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, CG Ref ID: LA09/2015/0880/F Proposal: Proposed new lounge and waiting area with external dining garden, associated toilets and serving area. Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AP, Ref ID: LA09/2015/0996/LBC Proposal: Internal fit out of 19 with demolition and replacement of rear return for structural reasons Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AP, Ref ID: H/1989/0080

42 Proposal: SITE OF BUNGALOW Address: KILREA ROAD TYANEE PORTGLENONE Ref ID: H/1994/0015 Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Address: 4-8 KING STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1989/0357 Proposal: ADDITIONAL TOILET,STORAGE AREA TO RESTAURANT Address: 23 CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1989/0039 Proposal: NEW SHOP/POST OFFICE AND EXTENSION TO HOUSE Address: 5 MAIN STREET DESERTMARTIN Ref ID: H/1989/0035 Proposal: CONVERSION OF SHOP TO RESTAURANT Address: 23 CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/2003/1114/F Proposal: Change of use from restaurant premises to ground floor aromatherapy shop and 1st floor gymnasium inclusive of shop frontage alterations. (Amended proposal). Address: 23/25 Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/2003/1115/LB Proposal: Change of use from restaurant premises to ground floor aromatherapy shop and 1st floor gymnasium inclusive of shop frontage alterations. Address: 23/25 Church Street, Magherafelt

43 Ref ID: H/2012/0141/F Proposal: Proposed material change of use from art gallery and gym to resturant Address: Church Street, Magherafelt, BT45 6AP, PG Ref ID: H/2007/0920/LB Proposal: Mixed used development incorporating ground floor retail units at 17-21, first floor office accommodation and apartment to rear of Address: Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/1993/0098 Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO ART GALLERY AND PICTURE FRAMING WORKSHOP Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1993/0099 Proposal: CHANGE OF USE TO ART GALLERY AND PICTURE FRAMING(LBC) Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/2007/1100/F Proposal: Mixed use development incorporating ground floor retail units at nos 17 to 21, first floor office accommodation at nos 17 to 21 and apartment to rear of 17 to 21 Address: Church Street, Magherafelt Ref ID: H/1993/0035 Proposal: 4 NO APARTMENTS (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) Address: CHURCH ST MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1992/0030 Proposal: 4 DWELLING UNITS Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT

44 Ref ID: H/1993/0034 Proposal: 4 NO APARTMENTS Address: CHURCH ST MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: H/1992/0031 Proposal: 4 DWELLING UNITS (LISTED BUILDING) Address: CHURCH STREET MAGHERAFELT Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

45 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F Target Date: Proposal: Proposed new access to 4No. proposed dwellings (approval I/2014/0089/F) Westbury Way Referral Route: Letter of objection Location: Land adjacent to Westbury Gardens Cookstown Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Titanic Suites Belfast Ltd 32 Sweep Road Cookstown BT80 8JW Approve Agent Name and Address: Henry Marshall Brown Architectural Partnership 10 Union Street Cookstown BT80 8NN Case Officer: Paul McClean Signature(s):

46 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Neighbour Notification Checked: Yes Representations: Letters of Objection 1 Summary of Issues No 8 Westbury Gardens raise concern that a significant piece of their land has been included on the site location plan No. 01 dated 10/11/15. This will be address later in my report. Description of proposal This is a full planning application for a proposed new access to 4No. proposed dwellings (approval I/2014/0089/F). Characteristics of Site and Area The proposed site is located within the settlement limits of Cookstown, outside the town centre boundary. The site is located within the western edge of Cookstown settlement. The south western corner of the site is partly located within an area zoned for Recreation and Open Space (R1 - Land west of Westbury Drive & Adair Gardens/Avenue) and also within a Local Landscape Policy Area 1 (Ballinderry River Local Landscape Policy Area) as zoned under Cookstown Area Plan The north western section of the site abuts an area zoned for Car Parking and also a Walkway/Cycle Route under Cookstown Area Plan The north western section of the site is located within Flood 04. The remainder of the site is zoned as white land. The site forms a small triangular parcel of land to the rear of an existing housing development (Westbury), consisting of mixed house types and apartments.

47 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F The proposed site is located immediately south of Adair Gardens (larger detached properties on generous plots), located at a much lower level. Westbury Gardens (two-storey semi detached properties on modest plots) is located immediately east of proposed site. The site incorporates some land n the site of 3 No. apartments within the Westbury development (higher density with communal parking, accessed off Westbury Way). Ballinderry River flows west of proposed site. The SW part of the site is occupied by LLPA 1 and R1 as defined under Cookstown Area Plan Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Planning History I/2008/0496/F- approval granted for 4 No apartments on 27th October 2009 on subject site. I/2014/0089/F- approval granted for 4 No. dwellings on (access from Westbury Gardens) The principle of residential development has been established on this site. Area Plan Cookstown Area Plan 2010: the site is located within the development limits of Cookstown on unzoned land. Therefore there is a presumption in favour of acceptable forms of development. The area is defined mostly by residential development therefore this proposal is considered to be an acceptable land use in this area. Key Planning Policy The proposal is for an alternative access arrangement to that which was granted approval under I/2014/0089/F. The proposed access is via Westbury Way between a block of apartments and No. 8 Westbury Gardens. Transport NI has been consulted and they have no objection to the proposed access in terms of road safety. There is adequate linkage to public transport in the area and there is provision for walking and cycling in the area. Adequate provision for parking is provided. The proposal will continue from an existing access point and there will be no detrimental impacts on the character of the area. In my view the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on existing or proposed residential amenity. The private amenity space of No 8 Westbury Garden is protected by existing vertical fencing. Traffic will pass through an existing parking area to the east of an existing apartment block. With only 4 additional dwelling being accessed, it is my view that this traffic will not have a detrimental impact on existing or proposed amenity, above what was previously granted under I/2014/0089/F. Policies within PPS3 Access, Movement and Parking are not offended. Other material considerations A letter of objection has been received from No 8 Westbury Gardens, raising concern that a significant piece of land has been included on the sit location plan No. 01 dated 10/11/15. The applicant was alerted about this objection an provided an amended plan drawing No. 01 rev1 which excluded the piece of land in question. All neighbours, including the objector, were notified about the amended plans and no further representation was made.

48 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F I am content that the site is located on unzoned land as defined within the Cookstown Area plan The site is not accessible to the general public and is not currently used as an area of open space. The policies of PPS8 are not offended by this proposal. The site is not subject to flooding and there are no land contamination or human health issues to consider. Summary of Recommendation: That permission be granted subject to the following condition. Conditions 1. 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. Signature(s) Date:

49 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F ANNEX Date Valid 10th November 2015 Date First Advertised 23rd November 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 10 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 11 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 11 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 12 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 13 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 14 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 15 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 16 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 16 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 17 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 18 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 18 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 20 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 22 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 24 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 26 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 28 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 30 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, Doris and MacMahon Solicitors 63, James Street, Cookstown, Tyrone, Northern Ireland, BT80 8AE The Owner/Occupier, 7 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF,

50 Application ID: LA09/2015/1091/F The Owner/Occupier, 8 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WE, The Owner/Occupier, 9 Adair Gardens,Sullenboy,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8PS, The Owner/Occupier, 9 Westbury Gardens,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, The Owner/Occupier, 9 Westbury Way,Gortalowry,Cookstown,Tyrone,BT80 8WF, Date of Last Neighbour Notification 7th March 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested NA No

51 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Target Date: Proposal: Ground mounted solar farm (4.9mw) and associated infrastructure Referral Route: Significant application for the Mid Ulster Area. Location: Land 330m South of 32 Altmore Road Pomeroy Recommendation: APPROVAL Applicant Name and Address: Gaelectric Renewables Energy Devts Ltd Portview House Thorncastle Street Ringsend Dublin 4 Agent Name and Address: Clyde Shanks Ltd 5 Oxford Street Belfast BT1 3LA Executive Summary: This is a proposal for a ground mounted solar farm of 4.9mw. No objections have been received and consultees have no issues. Signature(s):

52 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received Non Statutory NIEA Substantive Response Received Statutory NIEA No Response

53 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Non Statutory Non Statutory NI Water - Strategic Applications Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Considered - No Comment Necessary Substantive Response Received Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Non Statutory Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - Headquarters Non Statutory NIEA Substantive Response Received Non Statutory Rivers Agency No Objection Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory Non Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Office Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council DARDNI - Countryside Management Branch Shared Environmental Services Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - Headquarters DCAL- Inland Fisheries Group DARDNI - Fisheries Division Foyle Carlingford & Irish Lights Commission Advice Substantive Response Received /Substantive Response Received Substantive Response Received Substantive Response Received No Objection No Objection Substantive Response Received Representations: Letters of Support Letters of Objection Number of Support Petitions and signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures None Received None Received No Petitions Received No Petitions Received

54 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located at Lands 330m South of 32 Altmore Road, Pomeroy. It is located between Altmore and Inishative Road. The area of the site in total is 16.23ha. It is currently agricultural land in the open countryside. Part of the access (which has been constructed) is existing to service a substation and as part of the approved Inishative wind farm (K/2006/1793/F). No access upgrade works are required. The site is approx 5km from Pomeroy and 13km from NW Dungannon. The site compromises of 5 fields, which are covered in sparse grass and rushes. The site sits in a valley and the land falls from the SE to NW towards the north of the site. The surrounding area is rural in character, with dwellings and farm complexes. There is a manmade lake to the North known as Altmore Fisheries, Open farm. There is an approved windfarm located to the west of the site (6 turbines). K/2013/0272/F is a recent approval for an increase in the turbine heights to 120.5m Planning Assessment of Policy Background An EIA Determination was submitted for this proposal under LA09/2015/0923/DETEIA and it was decided that an Environmental Statement was not required on 8 January 2016, as it was considered all issues could be dealt with without the need for an ES. The current proposed development, was the exact same as the EIA scoping application, and falls under part 3a of Sch 2 of the EIA Regulations (NI) The proposal raises some potentially significant environmental impacts due to its size, scale and nature. It is not considered the impact of the proposal is so significant that it merits having an Environmental Statement. The issues arising are able to be dealt with through the normal planning making process. Planning Assessment of Policy Until the Council adopts its new local development plan, planning applications will continue to be assessed against the provisions of the DOE's plans and planning policy statements which contain the main operational planning policies for the consideration of development proposals. Cookstown Area Plan As the application lies in the open countryside the proposal falls under the assessment of the following policies; SPPS document published in September 2015 consolidates 20 publications into one document and sets out strategic subject planning policy for a range of planning matters. In relation to renewable energy the aim is to facilitate the siting of renewable proposals in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve NI's renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. Until a plan strategy for the whole of the council area has been adopted planning applications will be assessed against existing policy (other than 1, 5 & 9) together with the SPSS.

55 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F PPS1 - General Principles, states all development must be in conformity with this policy. The guiding principle stated that there is a presumption in favour of development unless the proposal will cause demonstrable harm. PPS2 - sets out the planning policies for conservation, protection and enhancement of our natural heritage. PPS3 - sets out planning policies for vehicular and pedestrian access, transport assessment and protection of transport routes and parking. PPS6 - sets out planning policies for the protection and conservation of archaeological remains and features of the built heritage. PPS15 - to minimise flood risk to people, property and the environment. PPS18 - Renewable energy outlines the planning policy for development that generates energy from renewable sources. Policy RE1 - Renewable Energy Development sets out the criteria which development that generates energy from renewable sources are assesses against Under PPS21, Policy CTY1, Development in the Countryside, states that planning permission for non-residential development for renewable energy projects in accordance with PPS18 which will be demonstrated below; PPS18 - Renewable energy outlines the planning policy for development that generates energy from renewable sources. Policy RE1 - Renewable Energy Development sets out the criteria which development that generates energy from renewable sources are assesses against. In addition to PPS18, the Best Practice Guidance to PPS18 Renewable Energy has also been taken into account assessing the proposal. The policy states that development for renewable energy will be permitted where the proposal will not have an adverse impact on; (a) public safety, human health or residential amenity It is considered that the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings will not be adversely affected by the granting of planning permission by way of nuisance from odour, noise or glint and glare. The panels produce no noise. A noise impact assessment was submitted and considered by Environmental Health. They are satisfied that target noise levels of 30dB and 35dB for night-time and day time respectively at the nearest residential properties will protect the amenity of residents and a condition will be attached to this effect. It is concluded there would be no substantial nuisance to any nearby residents. The nearest dwellings are approx. 235m away and it is considered this separation distance, along with the intervening vegetation and topography of the land will ensure there is no unacceptable impact on neighbours. No neighbours raised any objections. (b) visual amenity and landscape character; The application site is located within the open countryside. The site is not located in any AONB's or other designated landscapes. It is located within LCA 44 Slievemore. This is characterised as a marginal upland landscape with a diverse pattern and undulating topography. This would not be regarded as an overly sensitive landscape. The proposal would not result to significant detrimental impact with only transient views on short sections along Altmore and Inishative Road.

56 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F From a site visit it is evident the views would be intermittent due to the distance they are set back from the Inishative Road and Altmore Road AND the topography of the land. Existing and proposed vegetation along field boundaries will aid with screening. The solar farm to a certain degree will blend into the existing landscape due to the nature of not protruding very high on the land, with the maximum height above ground to be 2.6m. Panels are angled at between 20 and 30 degrees. The landscaping plan shows existing vegetation surrounding the site will be retained. It also shows proposed indigenous hedgerows. There is a dense forest area to the east of the site and to the SE along the access, which is part existing, lessening the impact for a solar farm in this location. Landscaping ensures augmentation in areas where there is currently less vegetation which lessens critical views. There is a wind farm to the west of the site (K/2006/1793/F) currently under construction for 6 turbines, which uses part of the access for this application. This part of the access and substation have been built and would be the most visible part of the access, with the proposed section set further back having less of an impact. There has been a recent approval under K/2013/0272/F for an increase in the turbine heights to 120.5m.The solar farm will have less of an impact than a wind farm and the existing wind farm can be viewed in the same context as the site. (c) Biodiversity, nature conservation or built heritage interests; Although the solar panels will be located on agricultural land, sheep grazing could still take place while the solar farm is in operation, thus creating a dual use of the lands. The proposed layout allows for both access and light for existing pasture land to continue to grow which ensures a grass area is maintained which can continue to be used for farming purposes. There would be no demonstrable harm to Biodiversity, nature conservation or built heritage interests with the proposal and there are no archaeological sites or special interest within the site. The Natural Environment Division (NIEA) have considered the impacts of the proposal on River Foyle and Tributaries of SAC and ASSI Owenkillen River SAC/ASSI and Lurgylea ASSI and are content the proposal will not have any adverse impact on these. They are content the Ecological Appraisal report shows there will be no impact on newts in the locale. A condition has been provided to protect breeding waders. DARD - Countryside Management Branch had advised tree planting should be native/conifer species, it is hawthorn and blackthorn which are proposed and are native. New planting should be a mix of planting. Restoration of any areas disturbed during the construction process will be undertaken immediately following the construction period, and this will largely be grass seeding with the 'green' expected within 2 months. The landscaping plan will be adequate to aid with screening of the solar farm proposal. (d) local nature resources; Rivers Agency has assessed the flood and drainage risk assessment and state it is appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed development and the risks involved. The site is hydrologically connected to the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC, a site of European importance. The Outline Construction Environmental Management plan submitted by the applicant details the control measures to be put in place to prevent degradation or pollution of the adjacent water courses. Provided the appointed contractor complies with the OCEM no impacts are expected.

57 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Shared, Environmental Services, having considered the nature, scale, timing, duration and location of the project it is concluded that, provided the following mitigation is conditioned in any planning approval, the proposal will not have an adverse effect on site integrity of any European site. Mitigation will be, as requested, included through provided conditions. In terms of air quality solar PV panels are seen as being 'clean' and will therefore have no impact on this natural resource. (e) public access to the countryside; The access is part existing, leading to a Gaelectric substation and the remainder beyond this point is proposed. Due to its distance set back from the road and existing mature forest vegetation it will have a limited impact on the locale. The solar farm will use much of the infrastructure approved as part of the wind farm K/2006/1793/F, which is currently under construction. This will include the constructed entrance from Inishative Road, internal access and the electricity substation. This will significantly reduce the potential impact of the proposed solar farm. Transport NI have no objection subject to conditions. Other Material Considerations The wider environmental, economic and social benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations that should be given appropriate weight in determining whether permission should be granted. The benefits of renewable energy is that it will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and bring diversity and security of supply to our energy infrastructure. It also helps NI achieve its targets for reducing carbon emmissions and will reduce environmental damage such as that caused by acid rain. DETI made comment they have responsibility for encouraging renewable electricity generation in NI and would therefore be supportive of this proposal as it will contribute to the NI Strategic Energy framework's target of 40% of its electricity consumption from renewable sources by The solar farm would support the landowner in accordance with paragraph 1.3 of PPS 18 and Policy CTY 11 of PPS 21 in that it would create a form of rural diversification in addition to introducing an alternative revenue stream. Furthermore, there would be direct and indirect employment opportunities during the manufacturing of the components, construction and operational phases. Over the 30 year life span of the development, the landowner will gain significant rental payments and solar rental income is considered a favourable revenue by banks and lenders within the agricultural sector. In this case the solar farm would produce approx 4,400 MWh of electricity per year, which is enough to power 1,175 homes. Approximately 20 temporary jobs will be created during the construction process, in addition the portfolio of solar projects being brought forward will create the need for an Operations & Maintenance role in the Company s Belfast office. No objections have been received in relation to the application. The proposal meets with the listed criteria in PPS18, Policy RE1 and the consultation responses do not give rise to any concerns.

58 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Approval with conditions is recommended. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Conditions 1. As required by Article 34 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time Limit. 2. A Finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) must be submitted by the final appointed contractor to the Planning Department at least eight weeks before works commence. The CEMP should reflect mitigation identified in the OCEMP and any additional information submitted in connection with the planning application. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Department. Reason: To remove pollution risks to the environment and to ensure that the appointed contractor undertaking the work is informed of all the risks associated with the proposal and is aware of the steps required to implement the mitigation measures. 3. If pre construction works are scheduled between 1 March - 31 August in any year, a preconstruction check shall be carried out by a qualified ornithologist. In the event of the discovery of curlew an 800m buffer would be required between any works and any Curlew nest/ perceived centre of the breeding territory. Reason: To protect breeding waders. 4. The vehicular access, including visibility splays of (2.4m * 60.0m) and any forward sight distance shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No. 10 bearing the date stamp 29/01/16, 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. 5. 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 Department. 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.

59 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Reason: To ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly identified, and protected or appropriately recorded. 6. 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. 7. Method of Works 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. The Method of Works Statement should include pollution prevention measures to protect groundwater and the water environment for the construction, deconstruction and operational phases of the proposal. Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the protection of the water environment 8. The existing natural screenings of this site and those proposed, as indicated on the approved plan 03 date stamped 10 November 2015 shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation shall be given to Mid Ulster Council in writing. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside and to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site. 9. 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 Mid Ulster 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 Mid Ulster Council it gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a high standard of landscape. 10. All above ground structures shall be dismantled and removed from the site 30 years from the operational date when the development is commissioned. Twelve months prior to decommissioning a decommissioning plan shall be submitted to Mid Ulster District Council for their approval, and all works shall be carried out in accordance with that plan. Reason: To restore the habitat and maintain the landscape quality of the area. 11. The Rating Level LArTr (to include the impulsivity and tonal penalty) of the noise emanating from the approved scheme, shall be: 30dB LAeq night time 35dB LAeq daytime as measured at the nearest residential property, which is lawfully existing at the time of consent. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential properties.

60 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Signature(s) Date:

61 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F ANNEX Date Valid 10th November 2015 Date First Advertised 23rd November 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 147 Lurgylea Road, Dungannon, Co Tyrone The Owner/Occupier, 147a Lurgylea Road, Dungannon, Co Tyrone The Owner/Occupier, 32 Altmore Road,Altmore Alias Barracktown,Pomeroy,Dungannon,Tyrone,BT70 2UN, The Owner/Occupier, 36 Altmore Road,Altmore Alias Barracktown,Pomeroy,Dungannon,Tyrone,BT70 2UN, The Owner/Occupier, Altmore Fisheries And Open Farm Altmore Road Pomeroy Date of Last Neighbour Notification 24th November 2015 Date of EIA Determination 8th January 2016 ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: K/2006/1793/F Proposal: Amendment to proposal for a windfarm including a reduction from 8 to 6 wind turbines (hub height not exceeding 64m, blade diameter not exceeding 71m), amended layout, electrical substation with control building (dimensions and location), one meteorological pole (not exceeding 80m high), construction, extension and upgrading of internal site tracks and associated works Address: Inishative Road, Sixmilecross, Omagh (land between Ballygawley and Pomeroy, approximately 1.5km north of Altmore Forest, Townland of Inishative) Ref ID: K/2011/0115/F Proposal: Variation of Condition 21 of existing approval (K/2006/1793/F) to increase the operationl lifetime of the windfarm Address: lands north of 110 Inishative Road, Inishative, Sixmilecross, BT79,

62 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Ref ID: M/2007/0154/Q Proposal: Site - Caravan Park Address: Altmore Fisheries & Caravan Park Ref ID: M/2008/1180/Q Proposal: Established Caravan Park & Trout Fishery Address: Caravan Park & Trout Fishery at Altmore Road, Pomeroy Ref ID: M/1989/0422 Proposal: Open farm fishery,car park,cafe,site and toilets Address: ALTMORE ROAD ALTMORE DUNGANNON Ref ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Proposal: Ground mounted solar farm and associated infrastructure Address: Land 330m South of 32 Altmore Road, Pomeroy, Ref ID: K/2013/0272/F Proposal: Non-compliance with conditions 4, 5, 6, 8 and 26 of Inishative Wind Farm approved under K/2006/1793/F (re noise conditions, model type and turbine height) Address: Inishative Wind Farm, Inishative, Inishative Road, Sixmilecross, Omagh, Co Tyrone (lands north of 110 Inishative Road, Sixmilecross, Omagh) BT79 9HT, PG Ref ID: LA09/2015/0921/PAD Proposal: Proposed Solar Farm Entered as a PAD in Error - LA09/2015/0923/DETEIA Address: Lands South of 32 Altmore Road, Pomeroy, Ref ID: LA09/2015/0923/DETEI Proposal: Proposed solar farm Address: Lands South of 32 Altmore Road, Pomeroy,

63 Application ID: LA09/2015/1096/F Summary of Consultee Responses No objections, relevant conditions have been provided.

64 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Target Date: Proposal: Proposed two storey dwelling with garage Referral Route: Refusal is recommended. Location: Adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park Killybracken Road Granville Dungannon Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Jim Fay 16a Killybracken Road Granville Dungannon REFUSE Agent Name and Address: Peter Mc Caughey 31 Gortnasaor Dungannon BT71 6DA Executive Summary: General principle is acceptable but concern is raised about the culverting of a drain. Signature(s):

65 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory Rivers Agency Statutory Rivers Agency Advice Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection No Petitions Received and signatures Summary of Issues Whetehr the culverting of a ditch can be justified. Characteristics of the Site and Area Characteristics of Site/Area The application site is located just outside the development limits of Granville and is a disused piece of waste land. A pair of semi-detached dwellings are located adjacent to the site and on the opposite side of the road a sheltered accommodation block has recently been constructed. A screen of trees exists along the southern boundary. The site benefits from outline consent to construct a dwelling (M/2014/0188/O). The site is within the rural remainder however the settlement limit is immediately adjacent, the settlement contains a mix of commercial and residential properties. A culverted drain runs along the south east boundary.

66 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Description of Proposal Reserved Matters approval is sought to construct a two storey detached dwelling with attached garage. The dwelling would have a footprint measuring 10.7m wide x 9.8m deep. The main ridge would be 8.3m in height with a 1 ½ to the side to a height of 6.1m in a chalet style with a front dormer window. The main section of the dwelling would have a gabled roof with font gable feature and bay window feature. The house would be set back in the site with a garden to the front and rear and with a central driveway provided access and egress to the highway. Summary of Issues In line with statutory consultation duties as part of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) 2015 an advert was placed in local newspapers and adjoining land owners were consulted by letter. No representations were received. As stated outline consent has been granted and therefore the general principle of a new dwelling on this plot is agreed. The siting, design, scale, landscaping and access as laid out as the outline conditions can be determined here. Consent was granted for a dwelling outside the settlement limits and therefore PPS21 is relevant to any decision making. However the scheme is not of a nature which would deem it in compliance with PPS21. There were other material considerations justifying consent such as visual benefits from redevelopment. It is not considered that it is necessary therefore to judge this proposal strictly against PPS21 and as the site is on the very edge of settlement it can be judged in relation to the existing form and pattern of development. In terms of site layout the house would be set back further into the plot than its immediate neighbour but the general principle of this raises no issues. This means that the bulk of private amenity space would be created to the front and whilst greater seclusion and privacy would be to the rear this in itself would not be a reason to refuse consent. In terms of neighbour amenity there would only be potential impact on the immediate neighbour to the North West but a reasonable separation distance exists. The proposal would not appear overbearing or unneighbourly when viewed from this property. The only real issue is that a side facing first floor window could give rise to overlooking and in that regard it is deemed necessary to condition the window as obscure glazed. This is a secondary window serving the room and not entirely necessary that it remains clear glazed. An amended scheme could agree its relocation to the rear. From a design viewpoint the dwelling is typically suburban but as stated it is not considered appropriate to assess it under PPS21. The design is not dissimilar to the pair of semi-detached houses adjacent to the site and in the overall context of the immediate vicinity it raises no issues and conforms to the existing pattern of development. The visual amenity of the area and indeed the countryside would be maintained. A plan has been submitted indicating the means of access to the site and the proposed visibility splays achieving 60.0m x 2.4m x 60.0m. This is considered acceptable and Transport NI has no objection to the scheme subject to a condition agreeing these splays. Parking for two vehicles would be achievable on site. In terms of landscaping the site would be laid to lawn with new fencing erected and the hedging along the south eastern side retained. Existing and proposed vegetation can be agreed by

67 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM condition and as submitted this is generally acceptable. Proposed site levels are also acceptable. Culverted Drain The Rivers Agency has also been consulted as part of this application process and provided the following response; The western boundary of the site lies adjacent to an open watercourse which is undesignated under the terms of the Drainage (NI) Order It is recommended that the applicant carries out a Drainage Assessment that demonstrates that the proposal site are not likely to be subject to flooding from any other source or cause flooding elsewhere (refer to Planning Policy Statement 15 section FLD 3 development beyond floodplains). At this site there may be potential flood risk from infilling that may impede natural overland flow paths, artificial drainage systems and infrastructure failure. During a site visit culverting of the adjacent watercourse had taking place. Schedule 6 was previously granted at this location however has now lapsed. The applicant may be in breach of PPS 15, FLD 4 which states that the planning authority will only permit the artificial modification of a watercourse, where the culverting of a short length of a watercourse is necessary to provide access to a development site or that a specific length of watercourse needs to be culverted for engineering reasons. Under the terms of Schedule 6 of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973, any proposals either temporary or permanent, in connection with the development which involves interference with any watercourses such as culverting, bridging, diversion, building adjacent to or discharging storm water etc requires the written consent of Rivers Agency. This should be obtained from our Armagh Office, 44 Seagoe Industrial Estate, Seagoe Lower, Craigavon, BT63 5QE. This remains the only issue with the proposed development. In a letter submitted to the council on the applicant s agent explained that the reason for the culverting was on health and safety grounds. However this does not seem a valid reason and not one of the exceptions listed within policy FLD4. The council has advised in a letter dated that the best course of action is to rectify the works on site. The submission of a Drainage Assessment would only allow the availability of sufficient information to make a decision, as opposed to justifying a culverting of a drain. The culverting is not needed for access and there appears to be no good engineering reason for the works. As advised to the applicant there is a lack of information to make an informed decision but furthermore there appears to be no valid reason for this culverting. The scheme at present is considered contrary to planning guidance contained in PPS15, Policy FLD4, and the refusal of planning permission is justified on this ground. As a way forward it is recommend that the applicant rectifies the work on site and removes this one barrier to the granting of consent as even the submission of a Drainage assessment may not necessarily justify the culverting having regard to adopted policy in PPS15. As things stand planning permission should, it is recommended to members, be refused for this reason. Conclusion The general principle of the development and details is considered acceptable. However there seems no justification for a culverting which is contrary to planning policy and it is therefore recommended that consent is refused.

68 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Refusal is recommended. Reason for Refusal: 1. Insufficient information has been submitted to make an informed judgement as to whether the scheme as presented could lead to increased flood risk on or off site or whether a culverting could be justified. The proposed development is therefore contrary to planning guidance contained in PPS15, policy FLD4. 2. The culverting of the drain along the boundary of the site cannot be justified in policy terms, is not seemingly required for access or for engineering reasons, and as such is contrary to adopted policy in PPS15, policy FLD4 which allows culverting only in exceptional circumstances. Signature(s) Date:

69 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM ANNEX Date Valid 20th November 2015 Date First Advertised 30th November 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 1 Killybracken Road, Granville, Dungannon The Owner/Occupier, 1 Killyveen Park, Killybracken Road, Dungannon Date of Last Neighbour Notification 20th January 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: M/2013/0049/RM Proposal: Proposed Car Wash Address: Adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park Killybracken Road Granville Dungannon, PG Ref ID: M/1978/0565 Proposal: NEW FARM DWELLING HOUSE Address: 50 GRANVILLE ROAD, DERRYVEEN, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1999/0938/F Proposal: 2 no semi detached dwellings Address: 70 metres south west of 62 Granville Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/1999/0114 Proposal: Proposed 2 No. Semi-detached Dwellings Address: 70M SOUTH WEST OF 62 GRANVILLE ROAD DUNGANNON

70 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Ref ID: M/1995/6010 Proposal: Green Field Site Granville Dungannon Address: Granville Dungannon Ref ID: M/1979/0669 Proposal: PROPOSED BUNGALOW Address: GRANVILLE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1999/0601/F Proposal: Housing Development Address: 70 metres South-West of of 60 Granville Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2014/0188/O Proposal: Proposed two storey dwelling and garage Address: Adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park, Killybracken Road, Granville, Dungannon, PG Ref ID: M/2010/0368/O Proposal: Proposed car wash. Address: Adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park, Killybracken Road, Granville, Dungannon,Co Tyrone BT70 1AN Ref ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Proposal: Proposed two storey dwelling with garage Address: Adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park, Killybracken Road, Granville, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2004/0100/Q Proposal: Housing development Address: Granville, Dungannon

71 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Ref ID: M/1997/0101 Proposal: Site for dwelling Address: 70M SW OF 62 GRANVILLE ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2004/0377/O Proposal: 1 No.Dwelling house Address: adjacent to 1 Killyveen Park, Killybracken Road, Granville, Dungannon Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title

72 Application ID: LA09/2015/1147/RM Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 05 Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 01A Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 04 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

73 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1170/F Target Date: Proposal: Agricultural shed for storage of farm machinery Referral Route: Refusal is recommended. Location: 180m SSE of no 1 Tullybrae Manor Aughnacloy Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Samuel Patterson 1 Tullybrae Manor Caledon Road Aughnacloy BT69 6HP REFUSE Agent Name and Address: Sam Smyth Architecture Unit 45D Dungannon Enterprise Centre 2 Coalisland Road Dungannon BT71 6JT Executive Summary: Proposal for an agricultural shed where it has not been proven to be necessary for the efficient use of the holding and where issues of road safety would result owing to access being gained through a residential development. Signature(s):

74 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory DARDNI - Omagh Advice Statutory Statutory Advice and Guidance NI Transport - Enniskillen Office NI Water - Single Units West - Planning Consultations Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Advice Content Substantive Response Received Representations: Letters of Support Letters of Objection Number of Support Petitions and signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures Summary of Issues None Received None Received No Petitions Received No Petitions Received Whetehr the proposed development complies with adopted policy in PPS21 and specifically policy CTY12. Characteristics of the Site and Area Characteristics of Site/Area The application site is located on the outskirts of Aughnacloy, with the North West corner of the field just touching the development limits of the village. The site is accessed from the main A28 protected route through a part completed development of houses which includes finished and

75 occupied dwellings and closer to the site the foundations for other properties. The submitted site is a flat agricultural field of approximately 0.4 hectares and is demarcated by post and rail fencing with an entrance gate towards the centre. There are two residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the site. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Description of Proposal The applicant seeks consent to construct a building within the field to store agricultural machinery. The building would have a floor area measuring 33.0m x 15.0m and would have an eaves level of 6.0m and a ridge level of 8.1m. The building would be finished in cladding with reinforced concrete walls. Three roller shutter doors would be provided in the flank elevation for machinery access and 4 door entrances for individuals/farm operatives. Summary of Issues In line with statutory consultation duties as part of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) 2015 an advert was placed in local newspapers and adjoining land owners were consulted by letter. No representations were received. There is no relevant planning history. The building is required to store agricultural machinery and in that respect the policy context is provided by CTY12 of Planning Policy Statement 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside (PPS21) Agricultural and Forestry Development. The policy firstly requires that the holding is active and established. Dard Maps and a P1C form have been submitted providing details of the farm business and it is evident that the business is active and established and this has been confirmed by a consultation response received from Dard on 08 March A Supporting Statement has been submitted rationalising this submission. It is stated that this is the nearest available site to the applicant s dwelling on the main Caledon Road which is necessary in terms of accessibility and security. Other fields would require longer journeys and this field is a poorer quality than others under ownership therefore being more suitable to lose from grazing land to built form. Need It is also a requirement of policy that the building is necessary for the efficient use of the holding and that no suitable buildings exist on the holding which can be used. In terms of what has been submitted it is difficult for the proposal to meet both arms of this requirement. Firstly, no details have been provided of existing buildings under ownership and why they are unsuitable for such storage or could not be adapted. It is evident from the submitted site plan that a group of buildings are located close to the applicant s house on the Caledon Road but no further details are provided. The Council must be satisfied that no existing buildings exist to meet this need and that the building is evidently necessary. The question must be asked as to how the need has been met to this point or whether there has been a change in circumstances which has resulted in an increased need to store machinery. What is proposed to store machinery/fodder is not a small building and one would imagine that such an increased need would follow some trigger event. It is noted that land farmed around Aughnacloy amounts to circa 10 Acres, with more land farmed near Coleraine (Macosquin) and it is difficult to see what the trigger event would have been.

76 It is not considered that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that this building is necessary for the efficient use of the holding nor that the need cannot be met with existing buildings under ownership. In this respect it is also difficult to fully assess whether there is the potential to cluster the proposed shed with existing buildings under ownership. On consideration of the farm maps this does not seem to be an option. Siting & Design Any new building in character and scale must be appropriate to its location and the design sympathetic to the locality and adjacent buildings. It is generally accepted that by their nature such buildings will be large and bulky in appearance. In this case the building would be in low lying land and although close to the development limit would not blur the line between settlement and countryside. The proposed materials are suitable for an agricultural building. Some existing screening exists on the boundaries and more could be agreed by condition. Whilst it could be argued that the additional entrance doors in the flank elevations of the building stray from a traditional design for such storage buildings and is somewhat commercial in appearance it is considered that this design is generally acceptable. A condition preventing the use of the building for other uses other than agricultural storage can be placed on any approved scheme, although it is accepted it would be difficult to prevent other uses if the agricultural need ceased. The siting and design can be agreed as suitable and in line with countryside policies which encourage integration. Balanced against any impact should be the desire to support the local farming industry/community when suitable. Amenity The building would be located in close proximity to two residential dwellings and potential impact on amenity must be assessed. The building would be used to store heavy machinery which has the potential to create excessive noise nuisance, notwithstanding that conditions could potentially be used to control hours of use etc. the environmental health section of the council has no objection to the scheme as long as the building is used for the said purpose and not for the housing of livestock. As any approval could be conditioned to prevent this it is considered that impact on amenity could be kept to an acceptable. Highway Safety The development would result in access being gained through the existing residential development site between the applicant s dwelling and the proposal site. Transport NI has raised concern that such an arrangement is in contravention of policies adopted within PPS3 Access, Movement & Parking in that the use of the road for farm vehicles would prejudice road safety and the width of the road is unsuitable for larger farm vehicles. Policy AMP2 states; Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the intensification of the use of an existing access, onto a public road where: a) such access will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic;. It can be accepted that the use of such a road by heavy vehicles could be prejudicial to road safety along the internal road of a development of houses. Furthermore concern has been raised by Transport NI about the restrictive width of the carriageway given that it will be used by heavy vehicles. The concern expressed with regards to the access arrangements to the site is shared in this case and is considered a valid reason to withhold consent. Conclusion

77 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development is necessary for the efficient use of the holding and that no suitable buildings already exist. There is also a concern with regards to highway safety. It is therefore recommended that consent is refused. Should Members be minded to grant consent it is recommended that conditions relating to future use, hours limiting operations and movements are considered necessary. However the recommendation is that consent is refused for the reasons outlined in the preceding text. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Refusal is recommended for the reasons outlined above. Conditions/Reasons for Refusal: Refusal Reasons 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development is necessary for the efficient use of the agricultural holding. Furthermore no details have been provided for the council to discount the use or adaption of existing buildings for the proposed use. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to adopted policy guidance contained in PPS21, policy CTY The proposed development would result in vehicle access being gained through a residential site and owing to the likely nature of the vehicles and the characteristics of the carriageway this is considered an unsatisfactory arrangement which would be prejudicial to road safety contrary to guidance contained in PPS3, policy AMP2. Signature(s) Date:

78 ANNEX Date Valid 25th November 2015 Date First Advertised 7th December 2015 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 1 Tully Meadows Tully Aughnacloy The Owner/Occupier, 16 Tulllybrae Manor The Owner/Occupier, 18 Tullybrae Manor,Tully,Aughnacloy,Tyrone,, The Owner/Occupier, 2 Tully Meadows Tully Aughnacloy The Owner/Occupier, 3 Tully Date of Last Neighbour Notification 4th December 2015 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: M/2004/0472/RM Proposal: proposed dwelling house Address: 180m south east of 49 Caledon Road, Aughnacloy Ref ID: M/2003/0198/O Proposal: Dwelling Address: 180m SE of 49 Caledon Road, Aughnacloy Ref ID: M/2006/0307/RM Proposal: Proposed dwelling house Address: 300m South East of No 49 Caledon Road, Aughnacloy

79 Ref ID: M/2002/0734/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 180m South east of 49 Caledon Road Aughnacloy Ref ID: LA09/2015/1170/F Proposal: Agricultural shed for storage of farm machinery Address: 180m SSE of no 1 Tullybrae Manor, Aughnacloy, Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title

80 Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type:

81 Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Site Layout or Block Plan Status: Submitted Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

82 Application ID: LA09/2015/1266/F Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1266/F Target Date: Proposal: Reconstruction of existing footpaths to extend existing parking arrangements (amended address) Location: Front of Knockmoy Park and side of 17 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland Referral Route: Objection received Recommendation: Approval Applicant Name and Address: Northern Ireland Housing Executive The Housing Centre 2 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8PB Agent Name and Address: NIHE/Property Services (South) Marlborough House Central Way Craigavon BT64 1AJ Executive Summary: Signature(s):

83 Case Officer Report Site Location Plan Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection 1 Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures

84 Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures No Petitions Received Summary of Issues One objection has been received. The objection has been signed by 4 residents of the area stating that the proposal will not enhance parking within the area. The proposal does however increase the parking by 6 bays within the area, therefore it will somewhat ease the parking problem. Characteristics of the Site and Area The red line of the site includes numbers 17 to 22 Knockmoy Park, and the existing adjoining footpaths on either side of the terrace. The dwellings consist of a row of red brick houses with white upvc windows and doors, dark tiled roofs and small front and larger rear gardens. To the side of number 17 and number 22 Knockmoy terrace there is a wide footpath approx metres deep. There is parking in the North West corner and the South East corner. The site lies within the settlement limit of Coalisland just off the main Gortgonnis Road. The site is predominantly residential with the house types including terraced rows and semi detached, the majority of which are red brick. The site is just South East of the town centre, there are playing fields to the north and a sewage works and treatment plant to the south. The proposal seeks planning permission for the reconstruction of an existing footpath to allow for further car parking spaces. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Regional Development Strategy. Dungannon Area Plan 2010 The site is identified as white land within the Town Centre Boundary of Coalisland and outside an Area of Townscape Character PPS 1:General Principles. PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking. There is no relevant planning history. Consideration Full permission is sought for the addition of 6no parking bays and some minor upgrades to the existing footpath at 17 and 22 Knockmoy Park, Coalisland. The additional spaces will result in a section of approx. 24m long by 2.5 metres deep of the existing footpath on each side being removed and new landscaping and resurfacing works being carried out behind to upgrade the exiting footpaths. Other improvements proposed include; re positioning of existing man holes, new asphalt surface, new kerbing to retain new raised footpaths. The proposed works and finishes will be in keeping with the existing area. There will be no significant loss of landscape and the proposal will not cause any detriment to visual/residential amenity. One objection has been received signed by 4 residents. The objection has been raised from the resident of no.2, 4 Knockmoy terrace which faces the proposed new parking and no.s 3, 5

85 Knockmoy Park. This objection has stated that this proposal will not enhance parking arrangements in the area as their only issue and failed to give any more detail. The proposal increases the number of parking bays in the area by 6, therefore enhancing the parking arrangements by allowing 3 more cars to park safely at each end of Knockmoy Park. Roads Service have been consulted and have no objections. Approval is recommended. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Conditions 1.As required by Article 34 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: Time Limit. Informatives 1. This permission does not confer title. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that he controls all the lands necessary to carry out the proposed development. 2. This permission does not alter or extinguish or otherwise affect any existing or valid right of way crossing, impinging or otherwise pertaining to these lands. 3. The approval does not empower anyone to build or erect any structure, wall or fence or encroach in any other manner on a public roadway (including a footway and verge) or on any other land owned or managed by the Department for Regional Development for which separate permissions and arrangements are required 4. Not withstanding the terms and conditions of the Councils approval set out above, you are required under Article inclusive of the Roads (NI) Order 1993 to be in possession of the Department for Regional Development s consent before any work is commenced which involves making or altering any opening to any boundary adjacent to the public road, verge, or footway or any part of said road, verge, or footway bounding the site. The consent is available on personal application to the Roads Service Section Engineer, whose address is Main Street, Moygashel, Dungannon. A monetary deposit will be required to cover works on the public road. Signature(s) Date:

86 ANNEX Date Valid 16th December 2015 Date First Advertised 28th December 2015 Date Last Advertised 25th January 2016 Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 1 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 1 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 10 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 10 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 11 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 12 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 13 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 14 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 15 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 16 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 17 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 18 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 19 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 2 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 2 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 20 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 21 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 22 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 23 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 3 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland

87 JUSTINE CONEY 3 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 30 Knockmoy Park,Gortgonis,Coalisland,Tyrone,BT71 4LU, The Owner/Occupier, 4 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 4 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 5 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 5 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 6 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 6 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 7 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 7 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 8 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 8 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 9 Knockmoy Park Gortgonis Coalisland The Owner/Occupier, 9 Knockmoy Terrace Gortgonis Coalisland Ann McCausland Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested Yes Planning History Ref ID: M/1998/0745 Proposal: Proposed extension to dwelling Address: 17 KNOCKMOY PARK COALISLAND Ref ID: M/2002/1296/F Proposal: Provision of bitmac residential parking to front of dwellings, accessed via ramped entrance- Amended Scheme Address: Front of No.'s and Knockmoy Park, Coalisland

88 Ref ID: M/2005/2035/F Proposal: Construction of new footpath and parking bays for 12 vehicles Address: Knockmoy Terrace, Coalisland Ref ID: LA09/2015/1266/F Proposal: Reconstruction of existing footpaths to extend existing parking arrangements Address: Front of Knockmoy Park and to the side of 17 Knockmoy Terrace, Gortgonis, Coalisland, Summary of Consultee Responses Transport NI have no concerns Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02A Type: Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

89 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2015/1285/RM Target Date: Proposal: Proposed storey and a half dwelling with gable projection, rear projection, car port and domestic double garage Referral Route: Location: 300m SW of 275 Newtownsaville Road Augher Proposal for a replacement dwelling which although will result in the loss of some vegetation can be justified as submitted for the reasons outlined below. These being the backdrop of trees framing critical views, the retention of a number of trees and location of large farm buildings nearby, and the distance the house would be set from the road. Recommendation: Approval Applicant Name and Address: John and Leanne Robinson 14 Tychany Road Garvaghy Dungannon BT70 2EB Agent Name and Address: Neil Irvine Design Limited Unit 5 The Buttermarket 132 Main Street Fivemiletown BT75 0PW Executive Summary: Proposal for a replacement dwelling which although will result in the loss of some vegetation can be justified as submitted for the reasons outlined below. These being the backdrop of trees framing critical views, the retention of a number of trees and location of large farm buildings nearby, and the distance the house would be set from the road. Signature(s):

90 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection No Petitions Received and signatures Summary of Issues Whether the removal of some vegetation can be justified and whether the size of the replacement is acceptable having regard to adopted policy. Characteristics of the Site and Area Characteristics of Site/Area The application site is accessed down a long, single, farm track off Newtownsaville Road and is occupied by a number of small structures located within a copse of trees. The dwelling to be replaced is therefore set in a mature site surrounded by many deciduous trees and bushes. The site also contains accompanying outbuildings. The old dwelling was considered to be in a poor state of repair but retaining all the attributes of a dwelling with many walls, window and door openings intact. The dwelling was a single storey structure, this can be ascertained by the gable height.

91 Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Description of Proposal Consent is sought under Reserved Matters to replace the built form on site with a new detached dwelling and garage. The building would be two storey with a ridge level measuring 7.7m from ground level. The main body of the house would be L shaped with a single storey carriage arch style link connecting to a garage with a floor area measuring 11.4m x 7.4m. The garage would have a ridge level measuring 6.4m from ground level. The house would be finished in render with a slate roof. The plans indicate that some of the copse of trees, around the existing structures, would have to be removed to facilitate the new dwelling. Summary of Issues In line with statutory consultation duties as part of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) 2015 an advert was placed in local newspapers and adjoining land owners were consulted by letter. No representations were received. In 2014 outline permission was approved which agrees the principle of a new dwelling (M/2014/0451/O). The proposal is for a replacement dwelling and in such instances the policy context for decision making is provided by PPS21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside with particular reference to policies CTY1 & CTY3 Replacement Dwellings and rural design and character policies CTY13 & CTY 14. Clarification on the interpretation of PPS21 was provided in July 2013 by a Written Ministerial Statement and this is another material planning consideration, notwithstanding the fact that this statement does not alter the existing policy. In September 2015 the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) was adopted and contains a section on development in the countryside. The Officer s Report rationalising the outline consent must also be assessed. The site is located in the countryside, as identified in the Dungannon and South Tyrone Area Plan 2010, however there are no specific policies within this area plan which relate to the proposal. The first consideration however is policy CTY3 which deals specifically with replacement dwellings. As the principle of a replacement has already been agreed this does not form part of the assessment in this case. It has previously been accepted that the building on site constitutes a dwelling such as to benefit from this policy allowance. Size and Siting of Replacement The first test of the policy, once the principle has been agreed, is that the dwelling is accommodated within the established curtilage. Owing to the passage of time and vegetation growth around the existing dwelling it is difficult to clearly establish the original curtilage. However the proposed curtilage is not excessive in size and largely located in the position of the original dwelling. The proposed curtilage is deemed acceptable. The policy also requires that the replacement dwelling would visually integrate and would not have a significantly greater impact than the existing dwelling. It is noted in the Delegated Report for the outline approval that it was concluded that the site could accommodate a small two storey dwelling. A condition was also placed on the outline approval limiting the ridge height of any replacement to 7.5m above the finished floor level. The report did at various junctures highlight the fact that this was a mature site. As highlighted above the submitted plans indicate that the group of trees currently providing some of the screening would have to be removed. The

92 issue for consideration is therefore whether what is proposed can be considered as a modest two storey structure not having a significantly greater impact in terms of integration whilst being mindful that screen cover will have to be removed. A Site Appraisal Statement has been received in support of the application and the retention of the building in its present location. It is firstly stated that a condition was attached to the outline approval which required the removal of the existing dwelling and that some of the more mature trees are intertwined with the buildings and would be lost in meeting the requirements of this condition. This could conceivably be the case as submitted photographs do show the existing buildings with trees growing amongst them. In further support of this proposal, critical views of the site from Tullycorker Road would be framed with a row of trees and existing agricultural buildings in the foreground. There is also some tree cover along the eastern boundary of the field to provide a backdrop. Whilst the more prominent trees in this group would be removed, when viewed from Newtownsaville Road the trees to the west of the position of the existing house and the tree line along the eastern boundary of the site would help with screening the development. Furthermore the land from Newtownsaville Road to the site raises steadily at first and then plateaus further back. This would mean that the proposed dwelling would be obscured by the lay of the land and screen cover which would not be removed. The house would also be set some 180m from Tullycorker Road and the tree lined approach along the access lane would also provide a more screened appearance from views along Newtownsaville and Tullycorker Road. Whilst there could be some concern about skyline development it is considered that the site characteristics, existing screening, the topography of the immediate area and the fact that it will be difficult to retain all trees around the development site the proposal and the removal of some trees can, on balance, be justified. Design In terms of design the dwelling has been modelled as a two storey farmhouse albeit with an attached garage and single storey side projection. Some traditional elements such as the half dormer windows to the front and side and integral chimneys are evident and the general design is difficult to find serious fault with. The roof is not excessively dominant and the detailing not over fussy. The height is generally as agreed at outline stage and the proposed curtilage is reasonable. The linking of the garage to the main house breaks up the form to some degree. Whilst it could be argued that the linking of the garage to the main house results in a bulky structure which could benefit from a set back and detached garage, it is considered that the characteristics of the site can justify this scheme. Amenity of Neighbours In terms of neighbour amenity, there are no immediate neighbours, the nearest being along the same lane but in excess of 100m away and therefore there is no impact to assess. Highway Safety/Parking/Services Transport NI have advised that the access to the highway is sub-standard and it is advisable that means are achieved to improve visibility. Conclusion The proposed development can be justified in policy terms. It is therefore recommended that consent is granted subject to conditions.

93 Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Consent is recommended. Conditions/Reasons for Refusal: Conditions 1. As required by Section 62 of the Planning Act 2011 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: Time limit. 2. The proposed residential curtilage to serve the dwelling shall be as outlined in Green on the submitted plan numbered 01 and bearing the date stamp 21 DEC 2015 and the remainder of land shown under ownership shall remain in agricultural use. Reason: In order to limit impact on the rural character of the area. 3. Within the first available planting season following the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the landscaping scheme for that dwelling, as detailed on drawing No 03A bearing the stamp dated 21 MAR 2016 shall be provided in accordance with the accompanying Landscape Schedule as detailed on the submitted schedule numbered 04 and bearing the date stamp 21 DEC Any tree, shrub or plant that dies within the first 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the same location with a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the visual amenity of the countryside and to aid with the visual integration of the scheme hereby approved. Informatives 1. This notice relates to the submitted drawings numbered 01, 02, 03A _ The Department for Regional Development s Transport NI has pointed out that the existing vehicular access to the development is sub-standard and that, in your interests and that of other road users, measures should be taken to provide acceptable visibility.

94 Signature(s) Date:

95 ANNEX Date Valid 21st December 2015 Date First Advertised 11th January 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 275 Newtownsaville Road, Augher Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested 14 th January 2016 No Planning History M/2014/0451/O Outline consent granted. Summary of Consultee Responses Transport Ni advice about access to the site. Drawing Numbers and Title

96 Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03A Type: Proposed Elevations Status: Submitted Drawing No. 04 Type: Landscaping Schedule Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

97 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: 3rd May 2016 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Target Date: Proposal: Proposed change of use of domestic garage to a part time hairdressers (treatment by appointment only) Referral Route: Recommended for refusal Location: 3 Ronan Manor Ballyronan Recommendation: REFUSAL Applicant Name and Address: Amanda Coleman 3 Ronan Manor Ballyronan BT45 6GB Agent Name and Address: McGurk Architects 33 King Street Magherafelt BT45 6AR Executive Summary: Signature(s): N.Hasson

98 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Case Officer Report Site Location Plan Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and No Petitions Received signatures Summary of Issues No representations have been made. Advice Page 2 of 7

99 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located within the settlement development limit of Ballyronan, as defined by the Cookstown Area Plan The site is currently a two storey detached dwelling and detached garage within an existing residential development. The garage is a modest sized building measuring 6 metres by 4 metres. The garage is located to the rear of the dwelling. There are no designations on the site. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Proposal: The proposal is a full application for change of use from a domestic garage to a part time hairdresser (treatment by appointment only). There is no proposed change to the external appearance of the building. Site History: Planning permission for the housing development was approved on 17/1/02 under planning reference I/1999/0464/F. Representations: No representations have been received. Development Plan and Key Policy Considerations: Cookstown Area Plan 2010 Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) Planning Policy Statement 3 - Access, Movement and Parking. Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning and Economic Development The proposal lies within the development limit of Ballyronan, as defined by the Cookstown Area Plan PPS 4 - Planning and economic development (Annex A) provides guidance on Homeworking. The key policy test in this case to determine whether or not the application actually requires planning permission. Where the business activity increases and the non-residential use ceases to be ancillary, a material change of use has occurred for which planning permission is required. It is my opinion that a material change of use has occurred as the proposal involves the installation of specialist equipment not normally found in a dwelling and the layout of the room is such that it could not easily revert to residential use at the end of the working day. The conversion of the garage into a hairdressers includes the installation of two hairdresser chairs and wash basins typical of any hairdressers. Furthermore, the building would cease to be used as a garage. The proposal could not therefore be regarded as homeworking and would require planning permission. A hairdressing use is classified as a shop and falls under Class A1 of the Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 and therefore the main policy guidance will be the SPPS. The SPPS places a high importance on town centres and the role they play in bringing people together and creating a sense of community and place. The SPPS emphasises the importance of planning in supporting the role of town centres and contributing to their success. Its aim is to support and sustain the town centres and encourage development in order to enhance their attractiveness, by promotion of the town centre as the appropriate first choice location of retailing. Page 3 of 7

100 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F The overarching aim of the SPPS is that the retailing will be directed to the town centres. Furthermore, the SPPS encourages the retention and consolidation of existing district and local centres as a focus for local everyday shopping and ensure the role is complementary to the role and function of the town centre. The applicant has not made a case to support the need for a hairdressers in this location. It would have to be demonstrated that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Cookstown Town Centre and the local centre of Ballyronan. The applicant has failed to show that there is a need for this development in this residential area and that there are no existing vacant and suitable premises in the town centre or local centre. The proposed use is out of character with the residential area and the comings and goings of clients, albeit by appointment, is likely to have a detrimental effect on the amenity enjoyed by neighbours. Under the provisions of the SPPS, development which is likely to result in the deterioration of residential amenity is likely to be unacceptable. Section 45 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 directs that where an application is made for planning permission, the council 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. Policy SETT 1 of the Cookstown Area Plan 2010 provides guidance on development proposals within settlement limits. Visually, the proposal is sensitive to the size and character of the settlement as there is no change to the external appearance of the building. However, the proposal for a change of use to a hairdressers is not acceptable as the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding local area. The proposal does not respect the opportunities and constraints of this particular site as it is located within an existing residential area and there may be a detrimental impact on residential amenity arising from the change of use. On balance, it is my opinion that the proposal does not meet the policy tests of SETT 1. In terms of access and car parking, Transport NI were consulted and had no objections. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: It is my opinion that this proposed development should be refused, having regard to the local development plan and other material considerations. Refusal Reasons 1. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that the development would, if permitted, be likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres as it does not make use of existing vacant premises in existing centres. 2. The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that the development would, if permitted, lead to a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Signature(s) N.Hasson Date: 21/4/16 Page 4 of 7

101 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F ANNEX Date Valid 15th January 2016 Date First Advertised 25th January 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 1 Ronan Manor Ballyronan More Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 5 Ronan Manor Ballyronan More Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 6 Quay Court,Ballyronan More,Ballyronan,Magherafelt,Londonderry,BT45 6GY, The Owner/Occupier, 6 Ronan Manor Ballyronan More Magherafelt The Owner/Occupier, 7 Quay Court,Ballyronan More,Ballyronan,Magherafelt,Londonderry,BT45 6GY, The Owner/Occupier, 8 Quay Court,Ballyronan More,Ballyronan,Magherafelt,Londonderry,BT45 6GY, Date of Last Neighbour Notification 8th February 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: I/2001/0456/F Proposal: Proposed Housing Development Address: Adjacent to Guasson Villas Ballyneill Road Ballyronan Ref ID: I/1999/0464/F Proposal: Proposed Housing Development Address: Shore Road, Ballyronan Ref ID: I/2001/0253/Q Proposal: Housing Development Address: Ballyneill Road Ballyronan Page 5 of 7

102 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Ref ID: I/1999/0055 Proposal: Proposed Site for Housing Development Address: ADJACENT TO GUASSON VILLAS BALLYNEILL ROAD BALLYRONAN Ref ID: I/1977/0450 Proposal: LICENSED RESTAURANT AND RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION BY CONVERSION OF Address: BALLYRONAN, MAGHERAFELT Ref ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Proposal: Proposed change of use of domestic garage to a part time hairdressers (treatment by appointment only) Address: 3 Ronan Manor, Ballyronan, Summary of Consultee Responses Consultation: Transport NI and MUDC Environmental Health were consulted on the development. Neither consultee had any objection to the development. Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Proposed Floor Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03 Type: Existing Floor Plans Status: Submitted Page 6 of 7

103 Application ID: LA09/2016/0044/F Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department: Page 7 of 7

104 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Target Date: Proposal: Detached single storey domestic garage Referral Route: Approval with objection Location: 14 Martinvale Park Maghera Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: Tom Scullion 2 Fallaghloon Road Maghera BT46 5JS Approval Agent Name and Address: M.J Fullerton Design 12 Rainey Court Magherafelt BT45 5BX Executive Summary: Signature(s): Sean Diamond

105 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection 1 Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and No Petitions Received signatures Page 2 of 7

106 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Summary of Issues: Subsidence and Proximity to the Common Boundary Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located within the development limits of Maghera in accordance with Magehrafelt Area Plan The site is located within an existing residential Martinvale Park and is located within corner plot with a detached chalet bungalow on each side of the plot. Construction is underway for the semi-detached dwellings approved under H/2014/0155/F. To the north of the site is a further residential development (McKenna Rise) which sits at a considerably lower level. To the east of the site is agricultural land that is outside the development limits of Maghera. Martinvale Park has a distinctive style of dwelling all being detached chalet type Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations The Proposal The application proposes a single garage 6.2m x 4.1m with a 4.3m ridge height. The walls finishes are marble chipping render, smooth plaster plinth, bands and quoins and the roof finish is brown non profile tiles. Relevant Site History: H/2014/0155/F - 2 no. Dwellings. Approved 7th July Representations: 6 neighbour s notification letter were sent to the occupier of 12, 16, 18 & 21 Martinvale Park, Maghera and 5 & 7 McKenna Rise, Maghera. 1 letter of representation has been received from Mr David McConaghie who resides at No 5 Mckenna Rise, the dwelling located to the rear of the proposed garage, points raised: Possibility of subsidence. The proposal is located too closed to the boundary to enable sound foundations to be achieved. In response to the Mr McConaghie objection s letter the agent makes the following comment: The ground levels and the existing retaining wall to the rear of the application site has not been altered in any way from the approval granted for application H/2014/0155/F. The proposed garage is located a minimum of 2.7m from the common boundary. The location of the garage will lessen pressure on the existing retaining wall. The comments raised by the objectors are not planning matters and fall within the remitted of Building Control. Consideration of Objection The proposal sits approximately 1.4m higher than the objector s property and 2.7m from the common boundary. A 1.2m retaining wall has been constructed just beyond the rear boundary. The retaining wall forms part of the approval under H/2014/0155/F and helps provide level rear amenity area. I am satisfied the proposal is located sufficiently from the common boundary and will not have a detrimental impact on the objector s property. Ultimately it falls within the remit of MUDC Building Control Department to oversee construction of the garage and ensure foundations are located on a sound footing. Development Plan and Key Policy Consideration: Decisions must be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Local Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Magherfelt Area Plan 2015: The site is located within the development limits of Maghera and is identified as white land. There are no other designations on the site. Page 3 of 7

107 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F SPPS Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland: sets out that Planning Authorities should be guided by the principle that sustainable development should be permitted, having regard to the local development plan and other material considerations unless the proposed development will cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. Until a Plan Strategy for the whole of the Council Area has been adopted planning applications will be assessed against existing policy (other than PPS 1, 5 & 9) together with the SPPS. Addendum to PPS 7 - Residential Extensions and Alterations Policy EXT I: Residential Extensions and Alterations. Policy EXT1 of the Addendum to Planning Policy Statement 7 Residential Extensions and Alterations sets out the criteria for residential extensions and alterations. The policy states that planning permission will be granted for a proposal to extend or alter a residential property subject to meeting four criteria been met. The garage is fairly standard in terms of massing and scale and the materials and the design are in keeping with the existing dwelling. The proposal is set back 2.7m from the rear boundary at its nearest and 1.5m from the side boundary. The proposal does not adversely affect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents due to adequate separation distances and the existing semi-mature vegetation along the rear boundary. The proposal will not cause the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, trees or other landscape features which contribute significantly to local environment. A small amount of rear amenity will be taken by the proposal, however I am satisfied that sufficient space will be retained for a recreational and domestic purposes. Incurtilage parking and the manoeuvring of vehicles will not be impacted by the proposal. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: That planning permission be approved subject to the following conditions Conditions 1. 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. Informatives 1. This permission does not alter or extinguish or otherwise affect any existing or valid right of way crossing, impinging or otherwise pertaining to these lands. 2. This permission does not confer title. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that he controls all the lands necessary to carry out the proposed development. 3. This permission authorises only private domestic use of the proposed garage and does not confer approval on the carrying out of trade or business there from. 4. This determination relates to planning control only and does not cover any consent or approval which may be necessary to authorise the development under other prevailing legislation as may be administered by the Council or other statutory authority. Signature(s) Date: Page 4 of 7

108 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F ANNEX Date Valid 20th January 2016 Date First Advertised 1st February 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 12 Martinvale Park Moneymore Maghera The Owner/Occupier, 16 Martinvale Park,Moneymore,Maghera,Londonderry,BT46 5BF, The Owner/Occupier, 18 Martinvale Park Moneymore Maghera The Owner/Occupier, 21 Martinvale Park,Moneymore,Maghera,Londonderry,BT46 5BF, The Owner/Occupier, 5 Mckenna Rise,Moneymore,Maghera,Londonderry,BT46 5BL, The Owner/Occupier, 7 Mckenna Rise,Moneymore,Maghera,Londonderry,BT46 5BL, Date of Last Neighbour Notification 22nd March 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: H/1992/0260 Proposal: HOUSE WITH GARAGE Address: SITE 18 MCKENNAS' RISE STATION ROAD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1998/0640 Proposal: 2 DWELLINGS AND GARAGES Address: SITE 15 & 18 MARTINVALE STATION ROAD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1999/0606 Proposal: 2 NO. DWELLINGS & GARAGES Address: SITES 11 & 19 MARTINVALE STATIONROAD MAGHERA Page 5 of 7

109 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Ref ID: H/1995/0547 Proposal: AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING ROADS LAYOUT Address: MARTINVALE STATION ROAD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1991/0123 Proposal: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PHASE 2 Address: STATION ROAD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1992/0481 Proposal: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Address: STATION RD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1981/0276 Proposal: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT - POSITIONING OF ROAD Address: STATION ROAD, MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1974/0317 Proposal: DWELLING HOUSE Address: STATION ROAD, MAGHERA Ref ID: H/1992/0625 Proposal: AMENDED ACCESS TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Address: MCKENNAS RISE STATION RD MAGHERA Ref ID: H/2014/0155/F Proposal: 2 no. Dwellings. Address: Site Nos 14 & 16, between 12 & 18 Martinvale Park, Maghera, BT46 5BF, PG Page 6 of 7

110 Application ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Ref ID: LA09/2016/0070/F Proposal: Detached single storey domestic garage Address: 14 Martinvale Park, Maghera, Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. Type: Status: Submitted Drawing No. 02 Type: Elevations and Floor Plans Status: Submitted Drawing No. 03 Type: Roads Details Status: Submitted Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department: Page 7 of 7

111 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: 3rd May 2016 Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F Target Date: Proposal: Proposed retrospective planning for change of use of part of domestic garage to storage and display area for home based catalogue sales business Referral Route: Recommended for refusal Location: To the rear of 11a Strawmore Road Draperstown Recommendation: REFUSAL Applicant Name and Address: Mrs D Boyle 11a Strawmore Road Draperstown Magherafelt BT45 7JE Agent Name and Address: D.M Kearney Design 2A Coleraine Road Maghera BT46 5BN Executive Summary: Signature(s): N. Hasson

112 Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection No Petitions Received and signatures Summary of Issues No representations received. Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located approximately 500 metres west of the settlement limit of Draperstown in the open countryside, as defined by the Magherafelt Area Plan The site is located within the existing curtilage of a dwelling at 11A Strawmore road. No. 11A is a detached bungalow with a Page 2 of 6

113 Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F detached garage. The garage measures approximately 8.8 m x 6 m. The total area of the garage measures approximately m2. The garage has been subdivided into two separate rooms, a domestic garage area and a display / storage area for a retail business. The display / storage area measures approximately m2. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Proposal: The proposal is for retrospective change of use of part of domestic garage to storage and display area for home based catalogue sales business. Site History: H/2001/0482/O and H/2001/0725/RM was approved for a dwelling and garage on the site. Representations: No representations have been received. Development Plan and Key Policy Considerations: Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning and Economic Development Planning Policy Statement 21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside The proposal lies within the open countryside, as defined by the Magherafelt Area Plan PPS 4 - Planning and economic development (Annex A) provides guidance on Homeworking. The key policy test in this case to determine whether or not an application actually requires planning permission. Where the business activity increases and the non-residential use ceases to be ancillary, a material change of use has occurred for which planning permission is required. It is my opinion that a material change of use has occurred as the layout of the room is such that it could not easily revert to residential use at the end of the working day. Shelves have been installed within the room and a variety of items have been set out for display. The layout of the room would appear to indicate that the room is used primarily for display of goods rather than storage. It is my opinion that this would not be ancillary to the primary residential use of the dwelling and garage. The unit could easily exist independently of the dwelling. The proposal could not therefore be regarded as homeworking and would require planning permission. The existing use as a display / storage area would be classified as a shop and falls under Class A1 of the Planning (Use Classes) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 and therefore the main policy guidance will be the SPPS. As the site lies within the countryside, PPS 21 would also provide policy on the suitability of the proposal. The SPPS places a high importance on town centres and the role they play in bringing people together and creating a sense of community and place. The SPPS emphasises the importance of planning in supporting the role of town centres and contributing to their success. Its aim is to support and sustain the town centres and encourage development in order to enhance their attractiveness, by promotion of the town centre as the appropriate first choice location of retailing. The overarching aim of the SPPS is that the retailing will be directed to the town centres. Furthermore, the SPPS encourages the retention and consolidation of existing district and local centres as a focus for local everyday shopping and ensure the role is complementary to the role and function of the town centre. Page 3 of 6

114 Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 defines a range of development that may be acceptable in the countryside and it includes the conversion and re-use of existing buildings, which are assessed under policy CTY 4. The justification and amplification of policy CTY 4 indicates that retailing, unless small scale and ancillary to the main use, will not be considered acceptable under this policy. As already discussed, it is my opinion that the retailing use is not ancillary to the main use as a dwelling, therefore policy CTY 4 would not apply to this development. Consequently, this type of development would not be acceptable in principle in the countryside. Section 45 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 directs that where an application is made for planning permission, the council 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. There are no specific policies within the Magherafelt Area Plan for this type of development in this location. I have no ecological, flooding or road safety concerns. The applicant has made a case to support the proposal in this location. The applicant has health issues which affect her ability to work away from home. A doctor s letter was supplied to the council to support this. My key consideration is how much, if any, weight should be attributed to these personal circumstances. It is my opinion that the applicant s circumstances are a material consideration and should be attributed some weight. Prevailing planning policy would indicate that the development proposal is unacceptable in a countryside location and it is my opinion that the planning policy would outweigh the applicant s personal circumstances in this case. Neighbour Notification Checked YES Summary of Recommendation: It is my opinion that this proposed development should be refused, having regard to the local development plan and other material considerations. Refusal Reasons 1.The proposal is contrary to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement in that the development would, if permitted, be likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres as it does not make use of existing vacant premises in existing centres. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY 1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement. Signature(s) Date: Page 4 of 6

115 Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F ANNEX Date Valid 28th January 2016 Date First Advertised 8th February 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, Date of Last Neighbour Notification Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: H/2001/0482/O Proposal: Site of dwelling Address: 140m NW of 8 Strawmore Road, Draperstown Ref ID: H/2001/0725/RM Proposal: Dwelling & Garage. Address: 140 Metres North West Of 8 Strawmore Road, Draperstown Ref ID: LA09/2016/0100/F Proposal: Proposed retrospective planning for change of use of part of domestic garage to storage and display area for home based catalogue sales business Address: To the rear of 11a Strawmore Road, Draperstown, Summary of Consultee Responses Transport NI were consulted on the development and had no objections. Page 5 of 6

116 Application ID: LA09/2016/0100/F Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Proposed Plans Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department: Page 6 of 6

117 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O Target Date: Proposal: Dwelling and garage Referral Route: Application recommended for refusal. Location: Site adjacent to 98 and 210m South of 100 Cookstown Road Dungannon Recommendation: Refusal. Applicant Name and Address: David Dobson 98 Cookstown Road Dungannon BT71 4BS Agent Name and Address: Seamus Donnelly 80A Mountjoy Road Aughrimderg Coalisland BT71 5EF Executive Summary: The proposed development is considered unsuitable as an infill development as the gap could accommodates more than two properties. It is therefore recommended that application is refused. Signature(s):

118 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and No Petitions Received signatures Summary of Issues No representations received. Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located in a rural area and outside the settlement limits of Cookstown as defined within the Cookstown Area Plan. It is situated between the A29, Cookstown Road which is a busy trafficked road and a narrow slip road which adjoins the Drumconnor Road. The site is adjacent to an existing dwelling no.98 Cookstown Road which is under the ownership of the applicant and an agricultural field adjacent to the north. Further south there is a dwelling, no.92 Cookstown Road, to the north a garden centre with a horticultural shed, and a dwelling no.100 Cookstown Road. The site accessible via a field gate from the slip road off the Cookstown Road. It is at a lower level to the Cookstown Road and has hedgerows to the site boundaries. Immediately north of the site there is an agricultural field which is associated with a garden centre and is subject of planning application LA09/2016/0211/O. Description of the Proposal Dwelling and Garage History Page 2 of 7

119 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O At present there is an outline application LA09/2016/0211/O for a dwelling and garage on the land adjacent and immediately north of the proposed site. Although both the aforementioned application (LA09/2016/0211/O) and the proposal have been submitted separately on behalf of different applicants, I wish to acknowledge that they are handled by the same agent who within associated documentation and supporting statements, refers to them as site 1 and site 2. He requests that both applications are considered in conjunction with one another and suggests together they represent a double infill proposal. For purposes of clarity, this report provides an overview of the assessment of application LA09/2016/0199/O, however planning application LA09/2016/0211/O is a material consideration in this determination. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations - Cookstown Area Plan The Strategic Planning Policy Statement - PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking - PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside The Cookstown Area Plan identifies the site outside the development limits of Cookstown. In line with statutory consultation duties as part of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) 2015 an advert was placed in local newspapers and occupied premises on neighbouring land were consulted by letter. No representations were received. The proposal is an outline application for a dwelling and garage. The policy context for the proposal is provided by PPS21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside with particular reference to policies CTY8 Ribbon Development. Clarification on the interpretation of PPS21 was provided in July 2013 by a written Ministerial Statement and whilst it is recognised this cannot change adopted policy it is a material planning consideration. In September 2015 the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) was adopted and contains a section on development in the countryside. Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 sets out a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development. Policy CTY8 deals specifically with infill development. This policy aims to guard against development which creates or adds to a ribbon of development. An exception is permitted for the development of small gap sites for up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and built up frontage. For the purposes of the policy a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. The new scheme should respect the existing pattern of development in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size. In terms of development pattern, there are four buildings which are considered as part of this assessment. They include numbers 100, 98 and 92 Cookstown Road and a Page 3 of 7

120 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O horticultural shed / coffee shop located at the garden centre 128m north of the proposed site. It can be accepted that for the purposes of this policy there is build up along the road frontage however the issue is whether the break in development represents a a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses. When assessing development pattern, existing site frontages are considered. No.100 is located at the junction of the Drumconnor Road and the Cookstown road on a wedge shaped site. It has a frontage of approximately 140m along the Cookstown Road. The site is well established with trees and hedgerows. Between this property and the site there is a garden centre and an agricultural field. The garden centre has numerous polytunnels and a horticultural shed with coffee shop all located to the north of the garden centre s site curtilage. The frontage of the garden centre is approximately 105m along the Cookstown Road. It is however notable that there is a gap of 55m between horticultural shed and field adjacent (north) the site which has no development. This area is currently being used for display of items sold within the garden centre. I also wish to acknowledge that there is a small timber frame structure within the curtilage of the garden centre located adjacent to the northern site boundary. The structure appears to provide shelter for animals which are kept on the proposed site. It is not of permanent construction and given its temporary nature does not in my view constitute a building within a substantial and built up frontage. Immediately north of the site there is an agricultural field 72m. This land is subject of an outline application LA09/2016/0211/O. To the south dwelling no.98 has a frontage of 60m and no.92 has a frontage of 80m. The totality of the gap in this frontage, between the horticultural shed and no.98 Cookstown road, is 200m. This is spread over the garden centre, the agricultural field and the proposed site. The proposed site while respecting the development pattern would only accommodate one dwelling, it is possible two or three further dwellings could be accommodated in the field to the north and to the southern end of the garden centre. The assessment carried out therefore concludes that the existing gap in built form at this location, having regard to the existing pattern of development, is too expansive to represent a gap site of the nature intended to benefit from this policy. The policy text to CTY8 states that for the gap to be considered small it should only be capable of accommodating up to a maximum of two dwellings and this is not the case here. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: The proposed development is considered unsuitable as an infill development as the gap could accommodates more than two properties. Page 4 of 7

121 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O Refusal Reasons The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of ribbon development along the Cookstown Road. Signature(s) Date: Page 5 of 7

122 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O ANNEX Date Valid 18th February 2016 Date First Advertised 29th February 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 95 Cookstown Road Annahavil Dungannon The Owner/Occupier, 97 Cookstown Road Annahavil Dungannon Date of Last Neighbour Notification 26th February 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested Yes /No Planning History Ref ID: I/2009/0382/A Proposal: Retention of existing road signage and display signs. Address: Adjacent to 100 Cookstown Road, Dungannon signs located 75m north of 169m & 257m south of junction of Drumconnor Road & Cookstown Road, Dungannon Ref ID: I/1998/0462 Proposal: 11KV Overhead Line Address: IN THE TOWNLAND OF ANNAHAVIL SOUTH OLD COOKSTOWN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: I/1997/0166 Proposal: Site for dwelling Address: 100M NORTH OF 92 OLD COOKSTOWN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: LA09/2016/0199/O Proposal: Dwelling and garage Address: Site adjacent to 98 and 210m South of 100 Cookstown Road, Dungannon, Page 6 of 7

123 Application ID: LA09/2016/0199/O Summary of Consultee Responses TransportNI Transport NI have been consulted as part of the process and recommend in that permission is granted, the following condition is applied: A plan at 1:500 scale (min.) shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters application, showing the access point to be constructed in accordance with the attached form RS1. REASON: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access, in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users. Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No.01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department: Page 7 of 7

124 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Target Date: 2/6/16 Proposal: Dwelling and garage Referral Route: Application recommended for refusal. Recommendation: Refusal Location: Site adjacent to garden centre and 74m north of 98 Cookstown Road Dungannon BT71 4BS Applicant Name and Address: Shane Lyons 100 Cookstown Road Dungannon BT71 4BS Agent Name and Address: Seamus Donnelly 80A Mountjoy Road Aughrimderg Coalisland BT71 5EF Executive Summary: The proposed development is considered unsuitable as an infill development as the gap could accommodates more than two properties. In addition it is not acceptable as a dwelling for a non-agricultural business enterprise as a site-specific need to live on or beside the garden centre has not been clearly demonstrated. It is therefore recommended that application is refused. Signature(s):

125 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection No Petitions Received and signatures Summary of Issues No representations received. Characteristics of the Site and Area The site is located in a rural area and outside the settlement limits of Cookstown as defined within the Cookstown Area Plan. It is situated between the A29, Cookstown Road which is a busy trafficked road and a narrow slip road which adjoins the Drumconnor Road. The site is adjacent to an existing garden centre which has a number of polytunnels on site and a large horticultural shed part used as coffee/gift shop. The garden centre and a dwelling further north no.100 Cookstown Road are both under the ownership of the applicant. The site is accessed via the grounds of the garden centre. It is at a lower level to the Cookstown Road and consists of a field with a stoned path to its perimeter. The field boundaries are defined by existing hedgerows which extend to heights of upwards of 2m and the grassed area is bounded by a post and wire fence. Page 2 of 8

126 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Immediately south of the site there is an agricultural field which is subject of planning application LA09/2016/0199/O and further south 2 no. single dwellings no.98 and no.92 Cookstown Road. Description of the Proposal Dwelling and Garage History A part change of use from horticultural potting shed to coffee and gift shop was approved on the site of the garden centre adjacent on At present there is an outline application LA09/2016/0199/O for a dwelling and garage on the land adjacent and immediately south of the proposed site. Although both the aforementioned application (LA09/2016/0199/O) and the proposal have been submitted separately on behalf of different applicants, I wish to acknowledge that they are handled by the same agent who within associated documentation and supporting statements, refers to them as site 1 and site 2. He requests that both applications are considered in conjunction with one another and suggests together they represent a double infill proposal. For purposes of clarity, this report provides an overview of the assessment of application LA09/2016/0211/O, however planning application LA09/2016/0199/O is a material consideration in this determination. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations - Cookstown Area Plan The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) - PPS 3: Access, Movement and Parking - PPS 21: Sustainable Development in the Countryside The Cookstown Area Plan identifies the site outside the development limits of Cookstown. In line with statutory consultation duties as part of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) 2015 an advert was placed in local newspapers and occupied premises on neighbouring land were consulted by letter. No representations were received. There is no planning history on this particularly site. The proposal is an outline application for a dwelling and garage. The policy context for the proposal is provided by PPS21 Sustainable Development in the Countryside with particular reference to policies CTY8 Ribbon Development and also CTY 7 Dwellings for Non-Agricultural Business Enterprises. Clarification on the interpretation of PPS21 was provided in July 2013 by a written Ministerial Statement and whilst it is recognised this cannot change adopted policy it is a material planning consideration. In September 2015 the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) was adopted and contains a section on development in the countryside. Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21 sets out a range of types of development which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and that will contribute to the aims of sustainable development. Policy CTY8 deals specifically with infill development. This policy aims to guard against development which creates or adds to a ribbon of Page 3 of 8

127 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O development. An exception is permitted for the development of small gap sites for up to a maximum of two houses within an otherwise substantial and built up frontage. For the purposes of the policy a substantial and built up frontage includes a line of 3 or more buildings along a road frontage without accompanying development to the rear. The new scheme should respect the existing pattern of development in terms of size, scale, siting and plot size. In terms of development pattern, as stated there are four buildings which are considered as part of this assessment. They include numbers 100, 98 and 92 Cookstown Road and a horticultural shed / coffee shop located at the garden centre adjacent to the proposed site. It can be accepted that for the purposes of this policy there is build up along the road frontage however the issue is whether the break in development represents a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of two houses. When assessing development pattern, existing site frontages are considered. No.100 is located at the junction of the Drumconnor Road and the Cookstown road on a wedge shaped site. It has a frontage of approximately 140m along the Cookstown Road. The site is well established with trees and hedgerows. Between this property and the site there is a garden centre. It has numerous polytunnels and a horticultural shed with coffee shop all located to the north of the garden centre s site curtilage. The frontage of the garden centre is approximately 105m along the Cookstown Road. It is however notable that there is a gap of 55m between horticultural shed and the proposed site which has no development. This area is currently being used for display of items sold within the garden centre. I also wish to acknowledge that there is a small timber frame structure within the curtilage of the garden centre located adjacent to the northern site boundary. The structure appears to provide shelter for animals which are kept on the proposed site. It is not of permanent construction and given its temporary nature does not in my view constitute a building within a substantial and built up frontage. To the south of the site there is an agricultural field with a frontage of 44m. This land is subject of an outline application LA09/2016/0199/O. Further south dwelling no.98 has a frontage of 60m and no.92 has a frontage of 80m. The totality of the gap in this frontage, between the horticultural shed and no.98 Cookstown road, is 200m. This is spread over the garden centre, the proposed site and the agricultural field to the south. It is possible that more than two dwellings could be sufficiently accommodated within this gap. It is possible that up to two dwellings could be accommodated within the proposed site which has a frontage of 72m. A further dwelling could be accommodated in the field to the south and another on the southern end of the garden centre between the horticultural shed and the site. The assessment carried out therefore concludes that the existing gap in built form at this location, having regard to the existing pattern of development, is too expansive to represent a gap site of the nature intended to benefit from this policy. The policy text to CTY8 states that for the gap to be considered small it should only be capable of accommodating up to a maximum of two dwellings and this is not the case here. Page 4 of 8

128 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O The proposal is subsequently considered under Policy CTY 7: Dwellings for Non- Agricultural Business Enterprises which facilitates the development of a dwelling house in connection with an established non-agricultural business enterprise, where a site specific need can be clearly demonstrated that makes it essential for one of the firms employees to live at the site of their work. The existing non-agricultural business enterprise is the garden centre, namely Garden Corner located adjacent to and north of the proposed site. The business employs 6 fulltime staff with 2 additional persons between June and September. It was established by the applicant s father who along with the applicant resides in no.100 Cookstown Rd immediately north of the garden centre. The agent presents the case that the applicant s father who currently manages the business has been diagnosed with a heart condition and has been advised by his doctor to reduce his work commitments. This is supported by a letter from his doctor which states, it is essential that he reduces his commitments and significantly reduces the hours he presently works. Part-time work would offer the best solution. The hours the applicant s father works at present are indicated at over 55 hours per week. While it is acknowledged that the applicant s father requires assistance with the business in order to reduce his hours, the test of this policy is whether there is a site specific need which makes it essential for one of the firm s employees to live at their site of work. The agent in the supporting statement indicates the intention for the applicant to take over the management of the business, stating Given the range of duties and the hours that this will involve, the applicant will need to be on site 24/7,365. The duties are detailed in para 5.3 of the supporting statement as, The Garden Corner opens 7 days a week. However, even when it is closed to the public, work goes on, as all plants must be watered, seeds must be sown, pricked out and potted on, and plants which are at risk of becoming pot bound must be re-potted. In addition, the price of the plants, scrubs and trees must be continually reviewed and changes if necessary, and new plants must be ordered from a range of suppliers in the UK, Ireland, Belgium and The Netherlands. Finally, as with any retail business, the takings must be counted, sorted, bagged and lodged in the bank, and the staff hours must be recorded, wages calculated and payment arranged. While it is recognised that there are a range of duties associated with the business which take place when the garden centre is closed to the public, they do not clearly demonstrate a site specific need to live at or beside the garden centre. It is acknowledged the SPPS supports and encourages economic development and job creation however it also seeks to provide protection of the natural environment. The assessment carried out therefore concludes that the proposal for a dwelling for a nonagricultural business enterprise does not demonstrate a site specific need for the applicant to live on or beside the site. Page 5 of 8

129 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Conclusion The proposed development is considered unsuitable as an infill development as the gap could accommodates more than two properties. It is also not acceptable as a dwelling for a non-agricultural business enterprise as a site-specific need to live on or beside the garden centre has not been clearly demonstrated. It is therefore recommended that application is refused. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: I recommend refusal. Reasons for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policies CTY1 and CTY7 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside and does not merit being considered as an exceptional case in that it has not been demonstrated that there is a site specific need for the proposed dwelling that makes it essential for an employee to live at the site of their work. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in the creation of ribbon development along the Cookstown Road. Signature(s) Date: Page 6 of 8

130 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O ANNEX Date Valid 18th February 2016 Date First Advertised 29th February 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 98 Cookstown Road Annahavil Dungannon Date of Last Neighbour Notification 26th February 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: Z/2002/2031/CA Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for Complete demolition Address: 46 Fortwilliam Park, Belfast. Ref ID: Z/2001/1767/F Proposal: Residential development- 60 units comprising 54 dwellings, 6 apartments and associated landscaping Address: 46 Fortwilliam Park & land behind Ref ID: Z/1998/2777 Proposal: Residential development of 34 dwellings comprising 22 no detached dwellings and 12 semi-detached dwellings. (Outline Application) Address: BT Training Centre, 46 Fortwilliam Park, Belfast BT15 Ref ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Proposal: Dwelling and Garage Address: Site adjacent to garden centre and 74m north of 98 Cookstown Road, Dungannon BT71 4BS, Page 7 of 8

131 Application ID: LA09/2016/0211/O Ref ID: LA04/2016/0313/F Proposal: Two storey side extension Address: 1 Fortwilliam Demesne, Belfast, BT15 4FD, Summary of Consultee Responses TransportNI Transport NI have been consulted as part of the process and recommend in that permission is granted, the following condition is applied: A plan at 1:500 scale (min.) shall be submitted as part of the reserved matters application, showing the access point to be constructed in accordance with the attached form RS1. REASON: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access, in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users. Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No.01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department: Page 8 of 8

132 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0230/O Target Date: Proposal: Site for Infill Dwelling Referral Route: Refusal recommended Location: Opposite 129 Moneysharvan Road Maghera Recommendation: Refusal Applicant Name and Address: Mr B McNally 96 Coleraine Road Maghera Agent Name and Address: James Hughes Architect 10b Fallylea Road Maghera BT46 5JT Executive Summary: Signature(s): Lorraine Moon

133 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Office Statutory NI Transport - Enniskillen Advice Office Non Statutory Environmental Health Mid Ulster Council Substantive Response Received Non Statutory NI Water - Single Units West - Planning Consultations Representations: Letters of Support None Received Letters of Objection None Received Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures No Objection

134 Number of Petitions of Objection and signatures Summary of Issues No Petitions Received Refusal recommended Characteristics of the Site and Area The proposal site is a roadside agricultural field which is also surrounded by agricultural land. The northern boundary of the site is defined by an agricultural access lane, mature trees and shrubs and a post and wire fence, the southern boundary is defined by a post and wire fence, mature trees and shrubs, the western boundary is bounded by a large grass verge and a wooden fence and the eastern boundary consists of a modest agricultural hedge. The site rises quite steeply from the roadside and continues to rise to the rear of the site. There is no immediate development on either side of the proposal site. No 129 Moneysharvan Road is located on the opposite side of the road, this is a detached single storey traditional design dwelling with associated outbuilding. The Moneysharvan Road is a protected route and is a major arterial route with heavy volumes of traffic. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations I have assessed this proposal under the following: SPSS Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 Planning Policy Statement 21 - Sustainable development in the countryside Neighbours: - Owner/occupier of No 129 Moneysharvan Road were notified of this proposal and no objections have been received to date. According to Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 the proposal site is within the rural remainder, the proposed access is to onto Moneysharvan Road which is a protected route. Consultees: - Transportni were asked to comment on this proposal and responded on with no objections subject to conditions. Environmental Health were asked to comment on this proposal and responded on with no objections. NI Water were asked to comment on this proposal and commented on with no objections. In line with legislation this proposal was advertised in several local press publications during March 2016 and no representations have been received to date. The proposal site is located within an agricultural field. The site is defined on the northern boundary by an existing agricultural lane accessing rear farmland and mature trees and shrubs, the southern boundary is defined by mature trees and shrub, the western boundary is defined by a wooden fence, post and wire fence and a large grass verge and the eastern boundary is defined by a modest hedge. The land within the site rises up quite steeply from the road. The proposal site is surrounded by agricultural land. The proposal site is prominent in nature with little integration and if an approval was granted would be a ridge line development, something which is strongly resisted by the planning authority.

135 Directly opposite the proposal site is a detached single storey dwelling of a modest and traditional design, this is the only dwelling or building within close proximity to the proposal site. Planning permission is normally refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development however an exception can be permitted for the development of a small gap site sufficient only to accommodate up to a maximum of 2 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. This proposal site is not located within a substantial or continuously built up frontage, there is no development located on either side of the proposal site and as such this proposal fails to comply with CTY 8 of PPS21. Although the proposed site is bounded on the northern and southern boundaries by mature hedging, due to the topography of the site, surrounding landscape and the lack of rear boundary a dwelling at this location would be unduly prominent in the landscape from a transient perspective when travelling along the Moneysharvan Road. According to Planning Policy Statement 3 planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the intensification of the use of an existing access in an exceptional case, this proposal does not represent one of the exceptional cases stated in this policy and so it fails to meet PPS3 AMP 3. Recommendation: Refusal - Contrary to CTY 8 of PPS21, in that the proposal is not located within a continuously or substantially built up frontage as there is no adjacent development. Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Refusal see refusal reasons below Reasons for Refusal: Refusal Reasons 1. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY1 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that there are no overriding reasons why this development is essential in this rural location and could not be located within a settlement. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY8 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposal would, if permitted, result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside as the proposal site is not an identifiable gap site and not located within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the (building) would, if permitted not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in that area, and the proposal would, if permitted, result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside as the proposal site is not an identifiable gap site and not located within an otherwise substantial and continuously built up

136 frontage resulting in a detrimental change to (further erode) the rural character of the countryside. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed site lacks long established natural boundaries and is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the building to integrate into the landscape and a dwelling on the proposal site would be a prominent feature in the landscape and therefore would not visually integrate into the surrounding landscape. 5. The proposal is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3, Development Control: Roads Considerations in that it would, if permitted, result in the creation of a new vehicular access onto a Main Traffic Route (Protected Route), thereby prejudicing the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety. Signature(s) Date:

137 ANNEX Date Valid 22nd February 2016 Date First Advertised 10th March 2016 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) The Owner/Occupier, 129 Moneysharvan Road Tamnymullan Maghera Date of Last Neighbour Notification 29th February 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: H/1987/0122 Proposal: SITE OF RETIREMENT BUNGALOW Address: MONEYSHARVAN RD MAGHERA Ref ID: LA09/2016/0230/O Proposal: Site for Infill Dwelling Address: Opposite 129 Moneysharvan Road, Maghera, Summary of Consultee Responses Drawing Numbers and Title Drawing No. 01 Type: Site Location Plan Status: Submitted

138 Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

139 Development Management Officer Report Committee Application Summary Committee Meeting Date: Item Number: Application ID: LA09/2016/0262/F Target Date: Proposal: Removal / variation of condition 8 of M/2011/0500/F Referral Route: Objections received Location: 50km of overhead line from Omagh Main Substation to Tamnamore Grid Substation Dungannon in the general area of Laghey Corner Moygashel Greystone Ballyreagh Garvaghy Tattykeel. Proposed Gort Main Substation at Omagh Road Garvaghey Ballygawley. Recommendation: Applicant Name and Address: SONI Limited Castlereagh House 12 Manse Road Castlereagh Belfast BT6 9RT APPROVE Agent Name and Address: Executive Summary: The proposal is for a variation of a condition on a planning permission that allows the removal of vegetation during the bird breeding season. NIEA have advised they have not objections to the revised condition. Signature(s):

140 Site Location Plan Case Officer Report Consultations: Consultation Type Consultee Response Statutory NIEA Error Representations: Letters of Support None Received

141 Letters of Objection 2 Number of Support Petitions and No Petitions Received signatures Number of Petitions of Objection and No Petitions Received signatures Summary of Issues NIE right to obtain planning permission on land within notifying owners Impact on wildlife due to removal of trees Visual amenity Compensation for landowners Access to remove vegetation and impact on livestock Characteristics of the Site and Area The application site stretches from the NIE Sub-station at Drumkee Road Ballynakilly to the Substation at Bankmore Road, Omagh. The electricity line within Mid Ulster Council follows a path from Drumkee Road to the north and west of Killyman wher eit crosses the M1, north of Red Ford where it crosses the Moy Road, north of Eglish where it travels due west before crossing back over the A4 dual carriageway west of Cabragh. It follows a route to the north of Ballygawely towards Garvaghy where a new substation is proposed north of the Omagh Road. It crosses into Omagh and Fermanagh District just beyond this point. Planning Assessment of Policy and Other Material Considerations Members are advised planning permission has been granted for this development and it is currently under construction, the issue that is being asked of the Committee is if a condition relating to the removal of vegetation during the bird breeding season can be changed to allow vegetation removal during the bird breeding season in controlled circumstances. SONI have advised there are a number of areas along the route of the line where wayleaves have not been resolved. This will be resolved through Land Tribunals. They advise the development needs to be progressed while these are resolved and the condition will effectively prevent them from progressing the development following any Land Tribunal. As the condition relates to the protection of breeding birds NIEA have been consulted and they are content with the additional layer of protection offered, ie. that an ornithologist is present and surveys vegetation prior to its removal. Objectors have raised issues with the development, however where they have indicated concern about removal of vegetation and visual amenity, members are advised this decision will not result in the removal of any additional vegetation or have any further visual impact, it relates to the timing of the removal of vegetation and as advised NIEA are content that the condition can be amended. Members are reminded that an applicant does not have to own the land to make an application, they have to notify all land owners and I do not have any evidence to suggest this has not been done. Compensation and issues of access to the site to build the line are matters which should be resolved between the developer and the individual landowners.

142 Neighbour Notification Checked Yes Summary of Recommendation: Approval to the variation of the condition. Informative All other conditions remain in force as stated on M/2011/0500/F for Proposed 110/33kV Electrical Substation and erection of 50km 110kV portal type overhead line to connect proposed substation into both the Omagh main substation and the Tamnamore Grid Substations. To facilitate the connection of renewable energy to the NIE Network and provide network reinforcement to the Ballygawley area. Signature(s) Date: ANNEX Date Valid 25th February 2016 Date First Advertised 10th March 2016

143 Date Last Advertised Details of Neighbour Notification (all addresses) Desmond Montgomery 23 Ballyreagh Road, Ballygawley, Tyrone, Northern Ireland, BT70 2HQ Charles Ivan Somerville 3 Ballyreagh Road, Ballygawley, Tyrone, Northern Ireland, BT70 2HQ Date of Last Neighbour Notification 11th March 2016 Date of EIA Determination ES Requested No Planning History Ref ID: M/1977/0595 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE Address: KNOCKONNY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1987/0082 Proposal: RETIREMENT BUNGALOW Address: TULLYGLUSH ROAD, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1987/0451B Proposal: Dwelling Address: GREENHILL BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1987/0451 Proposal: RETIREMENT BUNGALOW Address: TULLYGLUSH ROAD, GREENHILL, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1984/0398 Proposal: DWELLING AND GARAGE

144 Address: SESKILGREEN, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1980/ Proposal: PRIVATE DWELLING Address: SESSKILGREEN, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1980/0718 Proposal: ERECTION OF DWELLING Address: SESSKILGREEN, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1983/0469 Proposal: DWELLING Address: GREENHILL, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1984/0087 Proposal: BUNGALOW Address: GREENHILL, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1999/0717/F Proposal: Erection of domestic garage/store Address: 5 Tullyglush Road Ballygawley Ref ID: M/1973/0144 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE Address: CAVEY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: LA09/2015/0754/DETEI

145 Proposal: Solar Farm Address: Moy Road, Dungannon BT71 6PS, NRES Ref ID: LA09/2015/0945/PAN Proposal: Full application for the installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure including, photovoltaic panels, mounting frames, inverters, transformers, substations, communications building, fence, pole mounted security cameras for the life of the solar farm and a temporary access for construction traffic Address: Land approximately 100m West of 81 Moy Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2015/0074/F Proposal: Proposed loft conversion including 2No.dormer type windows and 3No.velux type windows Address: 62 Killyliss Road, Dungannon,BT70 1NX, PG Ref ID: M/1985/0558 Proposal: DWELLING Address: DERNAGH ROAD, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: LA09/2016/0157/DC Proposal: Discharge conditions 6 and 7 of application M/2011/0500/F Address: 50km of overhead line from Omagh Main Substation to Tamnamore Grid Substation Dungannon in the general area of Laghey Corner Moygashel Greystone Ballyreagh Garvaghy Tattykeel. Proposed Gort Main Substation at Omagh Road Garvaghey Ballygawle Ref ID: M/2003/0791/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 160 Metres south east of 20 Martray Road, Ballygawley

146 Ref ID: M/1979/0054 Proposal: 11 KV O/H LINE Address: TIRNASKEA, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2003/0335/RM Proposal: Proposed dwelling and garage (Amended Site) (RE-ADVERTISEMENT) Address: 250 Metres East of 110 Goland Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2002/0787/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling and garage Address: 250 Metres East of 110 Goland Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2012/0404/F Proposal: Erection of 1no Microwave Antennae (300mm dia). Incl stand off bracket and ancillary equipment including all cabling to existing comms room. Address: Lisfearty Primary School, 64 Farriter Road, Dungannon, Co Tyrone. BT70 1SH, PG Ref ID: M/1999/0979/O Proposal: Bungalow Address: To the east and adjacent to Lisfearty Primary School, Farriter Road, Lisfearty Dungannon Ref ID: M/2000/1056/RM Proposal: Bungalow and garage Address: East & adjacent to Lisfearty Primary School Farriter Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/1978/0316

147 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE Address: LISFEARTY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1978/0496 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE AND MV U/G SERVICES Address: LISFEARTY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2005/0785/F Proposal: Replacement fence Address: Lisfearty Primary School, Farriter Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1998/0822 Proposal: Construction of layby and footway to facilitate dropping off and collection of school children. Address: LISFEARLY PRIMARY SCHOOL 64 FARRITER ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2001/0898/F Proposal: Proposed Mobile Classroom Accommodation - Part of School Facilities Address: 64 Farriter Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1979/0537 Proposal: PROPOSED MOBILE CLASSROOM Address: LISFEARTY PS, 64 FARRITER ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1977/0424 Proposal: EXTENSION TO DWELLING Address: LISFEARTY, CASTLECAULFIELD

148 Ref ID: M/2001/0083/F Proposal: Erection of single storey dwelling and detached garage. Address: Land 100m NE of 66 Farriter Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2000/0411/O Proposal: Site for dwelling Address: 100 metres East of 66 Farritor Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/0329/O Proposal: 1 3/4 storey dwelling and garage Address: Land opposite 66 Farritor Road, Lisfearty Ref ID: M/2005/1466/F Proposal: New dwelling and detached garage Address: Land off Clontyclevin Road Approx of junction with Farriter Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/1854/F Proposal: Proposed replacement dwelling & garage Address: 82 Castletown Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/1976/0261 Proposal: EXTENSION TO DWELLING Address: CLINTYFALLOW, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1978/0135 Proposal: 11 KV O/H LINE Address: CRANSLOUGH, DUNGANNON

149 Ref ID: M/1987/0113 Proposal: 11 KV RURAL SPUR Address: MARTRAY `K', BALLYGAWLEY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1996/0653 Proposal: Site for dwelling Address: APPROX 70M SE OF 11 MILLIX ROAD BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/2002/0416/RM Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 70 Metres South East of 11 Millix Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2000/0491/F Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: 11 Millix Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/1990/0437 Proposal: Domestic Garage and Store Address: APPROX 60 METRES SOUTH OF NO 11 MILLIX ROAD BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/1979/0595 Proposal: ERECTION OF A BUNGALOW Address: COOLAGEERY, BALLYGAWLEY Ref ID: M/2008/0860/Q Proposal: Additional area for proposed infill

150 Address: Scheme 3A A4 Dungannon to Ballygawley, Scheme 3B A4 Annaghilla Rd & Scheme 3C A5 Tullyvar Rd Landscape areas Ref ID: M/1994/0555 Proposal: Retention of steel fabrication workshop for agricultural equipment Address: 61 WHITEBRIDGE ROAD BALLYGAWLEY DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2001/0108/O Proposal: Site for two storey dwelling & domestic garage. Address: Land approx. 150m south of 34 Findrum Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2005/0492/O Proposal: Proposed two storey dwelling and domestic garage. Address: 160m South West of 34 Findrum Road, Ballygawley. Ref ID: M/2003/1579/RM Proposal: Proposed two storey dwelling and domestic garage Address: 150m South of 34 Findrum Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2000/0485/O Proposal: Site for Bungalow Address: 70m south east of 11 Millix Road Ballygawley Ref ID: M/1992/0169 Proposal: 33 KV O/H Line Address: KNOCKONNY, TIRNASKEA, MILLIX, LEGAROE AND BOCKETS, DUNGANNON

151 Ref ID: M/2001/0185/O Proposal: Site for dwelling & domestic garage. Address: Land approx. 220m SE of 129 Dungannon Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2004/0158/O Proposal: renewal of outline planning permission for dwelling and domestic garage Address: approx 220m SE of 129 Dungannon Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2007/0010/RM Proposal: Dwelling and domestic garage. Address: Approx. 220m SE of 129 Dungannon Road, Innishmagh, Ballygawley, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/0630/RM Proposal: Site for dwelling & domestic garage Address: 130m N.W. of 129 Dungannon Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2001/0183/O Proposal: Proposed Site For Dwelling & Domestic Garage Address: Approximately 130 M North West of 129 Dungannon Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/2004/1535/O Proposal: Erection of dwelling & domestic garage Address: Land approx 120m East of 109 Dungannon Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/1976/0094 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE

152 Address: INISHMAGH, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2010/0192/F Proposal: Proposed Dwelling & Garage Address: 45 Metres North of 51 Coolhill Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: LA09/2016/0262/F Proposal: Removal / variation of condition 8 of M/2011/0500/F Address: 50km of overhead line from Omagh Main Substation to Tamnamore Grid Substation Dungannon in the general area of Laghey Corner Moygashel Greystone Ballyreagh Garvaghy Tattykeel. Proposed Gort Main Substation at Omagh Road Garvaghey Ballygawle Ref ID: LA09/2015/0893/PAD Proposal: Dwelling on a Farm Address: Lands South of 81A Omagh Road, Ballygawley, Ref ID: M/1984/0214 Proposal: DWELLING Address: CULLENRAMMER, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1981/0538 Proposal: ERECTION OF RADIO MAST Address: CULLENRAMER ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2004/1595/F Proposal: Proposed dog kennels for commercial use Address: 2 Cullenramer Road, Dungannon

153 Ref ID: M/2006/1064/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 80m South of 2 Cullenrammer Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1991/0614 Proposal: Erection of dwelling Address: APPROX 180M SOUTH EAST OF 233 CARNTEEL ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2005/0159/F Proposal: Replacement dwelling, stables and garage Address: 235 Carnteel Road (Lisgallon), Dungannon Ref ID: M/2011/0499/F Proposal: Proposed change of house type (reduction in size) from that previously approved under M/2005/0159/F with garage and stables Address: 235 Carnteel Road, Dungannon. BT70 1PJ, Ref ID: M/2004/1412/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling & domestic garage Address: 110m West of 235 Carnteel Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/0242/O Proposal: Dwelling house and domestic garage Address: 100m East of 250 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dunganon Ref ID: M/2005/0090/RM Proposal: Dwelling house

154 Address: Cullenramer Road, Eglish Ref ID: M/2003/1512/O Proposal: dwelling Address: Cullenramer Road Eglish Dungannon Ref ID: M/2003/0345/O Proposal: Renewal of outline (M/1999/0642) Address: 100 Metres North West of 256 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2006/1335/RM Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 100m north west of 256 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2006/0459/O Proposal: Extension of Condition No 01 (time condition) planning reference M/2003/0345/O Address: 100m North West of 256 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1999/0642/O Proposal: Proposed Dwelling Address: 100 M North West of 256 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon, County Tyrone Ref ID: M/2011/0536/F Proposal: Amendment to dwelling under construction. Address: 100m NW of 256 Carnteel Road, Aughnacloy BT70 1PQ,

155 Ref ID: M/2005/1730/O Proposal: Proposed new dwelling Address: 20m North East of 233 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1974/0012 Proposal: ERECTION OF SUBSIDY BUNGALOW Address: DERRYHORE, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2005/1726/O Proposal: Proposed new dwelling Address: North West of 233 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/2053/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling house Address: Opposite 227 Carnteel Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/0813/F Proposal: Extension to Kitchen Address: 235 Carnteel Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/1281/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling and garage Address: Site on the Carnteel Road, 380M South East of 31 Lisgallon Road, Greystone, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/1729/O Proposal: Proposed new dwelling Address: Adjacent to & North West of 235 Carnteel Road, Greystone, Dungannon

156 Ref ID: M/2005/2195/F Proposal: Proposed change of house type from that previously approved under M/2005/0159/F with garage, stables and paddock Address: 235 Carnteel Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2007/1555/RM Proposal: Proposed replacement of dwelling structure with new dwelling and domestic garage. Address: 180m North West of 235 Carnteel Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2009/0713/F Proposal: Proposed Amended siting of dwelling approved under M/2007/1555/RM Address: 180m North West of 235 Carenteel Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/1413/O Proposal: Proposed replacement dwelling & domestic garage Address: 180 m North West of 235 Carnteel Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1993/6034 Proposal: Equestrian Development Derryfubble Road Dungannon Address: Derryfubble Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/1996/0541 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: 2 DERRYFUBLE ROAD EGLISH DUNGANNON

157 Ref ID: M/1996/0673 Proposal: Replacement dwelling Address: NO. 2 DERRYFUBBLE ROAD, EGLISH Ref ID: M/1979/0940 Proposal: FARM RETIREMENT DWELLING Address: BOLAND, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2009/0403/F Proposal: Erection of dwelling & domestic garage Address: Approx 60m North of 1 Derryfubble Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1985/0449 Proposal: BUNGALOW Address: DERRYFUBBLE ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2002/1112/F Proposal: 2 Bedroom and Shower Room rear extension to dwelling Address: 1 Derryfubble Road, Boland, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2003/0653/RM Proposal: Replacement of existing dwelling with new 2 storey and detached domestic garage Address: 149 Old Eglish Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2002/1268/O Proposal: Replacement of existing dwelling house Address: 149 Old Eglish Road, Dungannon

158 Ref ID: M/1990/0088B Proposal: Erection of bungalow Address: OLD EGLISH ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1990/0088 Proposal: Replacement Bungalow Address: OPPOSITE JUNCTION OF DUNSEARIC ROAD AND OLD EGLISH ROAD MULLAGHADALY DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2004/1015/O Proposal: Proposed Site for dwelling & domestic garage Address: 125mts South of No 149A Old Eglish Road, Dunseark, Dungannon Ref ID: LA09/2015/0447/PAD Proposal: Proposed pet crematorium Address: Adj to 2 Cullenramer Road, Greystone, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2012/0024/F Proposal: Proposed dwelling and domestic garage (Change of house type with amended siting from that previously approved under M/2010/0133/RM) Address: 80m SW of 4 Kilnacart Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1996/0628 Proposal: Dwelling Address: KILNACART ROAD GREYSTONE DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2009/0732/F

159 Proposal: Replacement dwelling & garage Address: 4 Kilnacart Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2010/0133/RM Proposal: Proposed Dwelling & Domestic Garage Address: 80 M South West of 4 Kilnacart Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1995/0711 Proposal: Dwelling Address: KINACART ROAD GREYSTONE DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2006/0941/O Proposal: Site for dwelling and garage Address: 80m South West of 4 Kilnacart Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2006/0646/O Proposal: Site for Replacement Dwelling and Garage Address: 4 Kilnacart Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1979/0822 Proposal: PROPOSED DWELLING Address: CULLENRAMER, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1979/0821 Proposal: TWO DWELLINGS (BUNGALOWS) Address: CULLENRAMER, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON

160 Ref ID: M/1993/0661B Proposal: Dwelling Address: OPPOSITE 69 LEGILLY ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1986/0265 Proposal: BUNGALOW Address: LEGILLY ROAD, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1979/0866 Proposal: IMPROVEMENTS TO DWELLING AND CHANGE OF USE FROM STORE TO POST OFFICE Address: GREYSTONE POST OFFICE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2002/0464/F Proposal: Erection of general purpose store and yard area (for agricultural use). Address: Land to the rear and east of 70 Legilly Road, Dungannon. (Townland Tyhan) Ref ID: M/2005/1092/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling house Address: Adjacent to 70 Legilly Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1974/0197 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE Address: TYHAN, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1978/0503 Proposal: GUESTHOUSE Address: 4 KILNACART ROAD, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON

161 Ref ID: M/1979/0880 Proposal: IMPROVEMENTS TO DWELLING Address: TYHAN, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2013/0098/F Proposal: Proposed replacement dwelling Address: Land 200m SSE of 24 Dunamony Road, Dungannon, PG Ref ID: M/2011/0239/F Proposal: Proposed dwelling on a farm Address: Land 225m SSE of 24 Dunamony Road Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1975/0445 Proposal: EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING Address: DUNAMONY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1984/0044 Proposal: FARM WORKER'S BUNGALOW Address: DUNAMONEY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2009/0318/F Proposal: Provision of a new link road connecting Mullybrannon Road South and Syerla Road, the new road will be 720 metres in length and will be 5.5 metres wide with a 1 metre verge on each side of the Carriageway Address: Approximately 0.5kms South of Moygashel, immediately South of A4 Ballygawley Road, located between Mullybrannon Road South and Syerla Road

162 Ref ID: M/1997/0223 Proposal: Erection of Dwelling and Garage Address: DUNSEARK ROAD DUNSEARK DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1990/0679 Proposal: 11 KV Rural Spur Address: LISSAN DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1984/ Proposal: DWELLING HOUSE Address: MULLYBRANNON, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1984/0295 Proposal: DWELLING HOUSE Address: MULLYBRANNON ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1993/0405 Proposal: Domestic Garage Address: 16 MULLYBRANNON ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1982/0421 Proposal: DWELLING Address: MULLYBRANNON, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2008/0391/F Proposal: Internal alterations to dwelling with side extensions to provide sun lounge, 2 bedrooms and toilet with roof space conversion to provide bedroom, recreation area, study and bathroom Address: 28 Mullybrannon Road Dungannon Co Tyrone

163 Ref ID: M/1977/0698 Proposal: 11 KV O/H LINE MV O/H LINE Address: MULLYBRANNON, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2011/0371/F Proposal: Proposed alterations and single storey extensions to the side and the rear of existing dwelling Address: 28, Mullybrannon Road, Dungannon, BT71 7ER, Ref ID: M/1988/0398 Proposal: DWELLING Address: ADJACENT TO 54 DRUMASPIL ROAD, DRUMASPIL, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1986/0208 Proposal: EXTENSION AND REPAIRS TO DWELLING Address: 54 DRUMASPIL ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2009/0585/F Proposal: Proposed 1 No Storey and a Half private domestic dwelling. Address: Site Approx 14m South of No 54 Drumaspil Road Killyman Dungannon Co Tyrone Ref ID: M/1979/0040 Proposal: EXTENSION AND REPAIRS TO EXISTING DWELLING Address: 54 DRUMASPILL ROAD, DUNGANNON

164 Ref ID: M/1992/0667 Proposal: Site for Dwelling Address: ADJACENT TO 54 DRUMASPIL ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2000/0028/RO Proposal: Dwelling Address: Adjacent to 54 Drumnaspil Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1996/0805 Proposal: Site for Retirement Dwelling Address: ADJACENT TO 54 DRUMNASPIL ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1992/0301 Proposal: Site for Dwelling Address: ADJACENT TO 54 DRUMASPIL ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1988/0293 Proposal: 11 KV RURAL SPUR Address: DRUMASPIL, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2008/0081/F Proposal: 1 no free range poultry house, feed bin and generator store Address: Land to rear of 83 Eglish Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2010/0139/F Proposal: Proposed 1no. additional free range poultry house, feed bin and generator store Address: Land approx 120m west of 83 Eglish Road, Dungannon

165 Ref ID: M/1997/0796 Proposal: Dwelling and garage Address: KILLYBRACKEN ROAD DERRYGORTREVY EGLISH DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1997/0796B Proposal: Erection of Dwelling Address: KILLYBRACKEN ROAD DERRYGORTREVY DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2004/0339/Q Proposal: proposed dwelling (alternative site for M/2003/1573) Address: Killybracken Road, Derrygortrevy, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/0869/O Proposal: 1 No.Dwelling Address: adjacent to 68 Killyliss Road, Derrygortrevy, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1998/0486 Proposal: 11KV O/H Line Address: TOWNLAND OF DERRYGORTREVY KILLYBRACKEN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1980/0347 Proposal: IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS TO EXISTING DWELLING Address: DERRYGORTREAVY, GREYSTONE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: LA09/2015/0063/F Proposal: Dwelling in gap site Address: Between 64 and 68 Killyliss Road, Dungannon,

166 PG Ref ID: M/2011/0137/F Proposal: Farm Dwelling House and Garage Address: 30m South West of 64 Killyliss Road, Derrygortrevy, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2004/0191/O Proposal: Proposed Dwelling House Address: Between 64 & 68 Killyliss Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2012/0438/O Proposal: Dwelling and garage (in gap site) Address: Between 64 and 68 Killyliss Road, Dungannon, PG Ref ID: M/2007/1269/F Proposal: Proposed dwelling house and garage Address: Between 64 & 68 Killyliss Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2002/0137/O Proposal: Erection of Dwelling for Private Purposes Address: Land at 64 Killyliss Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2004/2175/F Proposal: Proposed dwelling and garage Address: Site adjacent to 64 Killyliss Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1975/0474 Proposal: 11 KV O/H LINE

167 Address: DERRYGORTREVY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1976/0081 Proposal: 11KV O/H LINE Address: DERRYGORTRAVY, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1976/0305 Proposal: ERECTION OF HOTEL Address: LISSEN, MOYGASHEL, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1981/0085 Proposal: ERECTION OF HOTEL Address: LISSAN, MOYGASHEL, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1992/0371 Proposal: Bungalow and detached garage Address: 400M EAST OF 138 OLD EGLISH ROAD LISSAN DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1989/0138 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: 400M EAST OF 138 OLD EGLISH ROAD LISSAN DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1991/0632 Proposal: Replacement dwelling and garage Address: APPROX 300M EAST OF 138 OLD EGLISH ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1990/0593

168 Proposal: Replacement dwelling Address: APPROX 300M EAST OF 138 OLD EGLISH ROAD LISSAN DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1977/0336 Proposal: HOTEL DEVELOPMENT,CAR PARKING FACILITIES & LANDSCAPING TO FRONT OF HOTEL Address: LISSAN, MOYGASHEL, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2011/0198/F Proposal: Additional electrical plant and equipment installation, control room inside the existing sub-station site. Overhead electrical transmission lines detailed in Form P1. Address: Tamnamore Grid Substation Drumkee Road Dungannon and townlands of Drumkee, Drumnaspil, Cavan, Coash, Lederg and Keenaghan, Ref ID: M/2008/0997/F Proposal: 39.5km of pipeline to transfer drinking water from Ballydougan Service Reservoir, near Bleary, Co Down to Carland Service Reservoir, near Newmills, Co Tyrone via a water pumping station at Moy. Address: Pipeline from Ballydougan Service Reservoir to Carland Service Reservoir via Moy PS Ref ID: M/2007/0545/Q Proposal: Proposed infilling of land to raise the bottom part of field No 2 Address: Land at 81 Moy Road Donnydeade, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1992/4006 Proposal: Improvements and repairs Address: 20 SYERLA ROAD

169 Ref ID: M/1991/0180 Proposal: Erection of dwelling Address: SYERLA ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1974/0265 Proposal: 33KV, 11KV AND KV O/H LINES Address: DONNYDEADE, STANGMORE (KNOX), DERRYCREEVY (KNOX), BERNAGH, COOLCUSH, COOLHIL Ref ID: M/2010/0116/LDE Proposal: Dwelling with health and beauty facilities. The health and beauty facility comprise- 2 treatment rooms, gymnasium, hot tub room and ancillary accomodation. Treatment is by appointment only, with no more than 3 visitors any time. Access is via an existing access and car-parking is provided in curtilage Address: 7 Old Moy Road, Dungannon, BT71 6PS Ref ID: M/2010/0773/F Proposal: Retention of established Health & Beauty facility. The facility comprises 2 treatment rooms, a gym & hot tub suite along with parking and ancillary accommodation. Treatment is by appointment only. Address: 7 Old Moy Road, Dungannon, BT71 6PS Ref ID: M/2011/0510/F Proposal: Two Storey Extension to rear of Dwelling to form Living, Kitchen, Dining Area, 2 Bedrooms, Store and Ancillary Spaces Address: The Cottage, 7 Old Moy Road, Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, BT71 6PS, Ref ID: M/2007/0768/F Proposal: Alterations of existing building, large rear return extension over 3 levels, second access, parking area, access road and turning areas to provide Veterinary Clinic and managers flat. (amended plans and certificate of ownership) Address: 5 Old Moy Road, Dungannon

170 Ref ID: M/2011/0366/F Proposal: Retention of veterinary clinic, parking and turning areas, isolation room and perimeter fencing. Address: 5 Old Moy Road, Donnymeade, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2009/0033/F Proposal: Amendment to previous approval M/2007/0768 to include change of layouts and removal of an access Address: 5 Old Moy Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2000/0367/A41 Proposal: Agriculture Building Address: 16 Old Moy Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2002/0308/O Proposal: Erection of Single Storey Dwelling Address: 16 Old Moy Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2009/0607/F Proposal: Change of use from dwelling to car sales area with sales office/showroom and valeting area. Address: 74 Moy Road, Donnydeade, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2008/0367/F Proposal: Proposed alterations and extension to dwelling. Address: 74 Moy Road, Dungannon, Co Tyrone

171 Ref ID: M/2003/0447/F Proposal: Proposed garage Address: 74 Moy Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2011/0323/F Proposal: Proposed vehicle (40 no.) storage compound and change of use from domestic garage to workshop used in conjunction with Moyway Motors. Address: 74, Moy Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1995/0281 Proposal: Site for dwelling Address: ADJACENT TO 80 MOY ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2003/0734/RM Proposal: Erection of single storey dwelling for widow in garden of existing home Address: 16 Old Moy Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1978/0162 Proposal: RETIREMENT FARM BUNGALOW Address: MOY ROAD, DONNEYDEADE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1979/0496 Proposal: ERECTION OF FARM RETIREMENT BUNGALOW Address: MOY ROAD, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1985/0060 Proposal: DWELLING HOUSE Address: MOY ROAD, DONNEYDEADE, DUNGANNON

172 Ref ID: M/1975/0319 Proposal: HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Address: OLD MOY ROAD, DONNEYDEADE, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1995/0298B Proposal: Extension to Garage to include new stores and showroom Address: 8 MOY ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1995/0298 Proposal: Extension to garage to include new stores and showroom Address: ADJACENT TO 80 MOY ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2000/0862/O Proposal: Site for retirement dwelling Address: Adjacent to 8 Old Moy Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2008/1022/LDP Proposal: Improvements to Moygashel Waste Water Treatment Works Address: Moygashel WWTW, 12 Moygashel Lane, Moygashel, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2005/2148/E Proposal: Improvements to Moygashel Waste Water Treatment Works. Address: Moygashel Lane, Moygashel. Ref ID: M/1993/6006 Proposal: New Dwelling Lisahoy Dungannon

173 Address: Lisahoy Dungannon Ref ID: M/1995/4065 Proposal: Broiler Breeder House Address: 24 CULNAGREW ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2000/0965/PA Proposal: Installation of 1 No. new 15 metres high telecommunications monopole mast, 3 No. dual polar antennae, 3 No. 300mm microwave dishes, 1 No. 600mm microwave dish, 1 No. equipment cabin measuring 3m X 4m X 4m within a 1.8metres high chainlink security fenced compound. Address: 144 metres East-North-East of 30 Culnagrew Road Dungannon Ref ID: M/2012/0441/RM Proposal: Proposed dwelling and detached garage on a farm Address: Site 11m SE of 30 Culnagrew Road, Dungannon, PG Ref ID: M/2011/0423/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling and detached garage on a farm Address: Site 11m S E of 30 Culnagrew Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1990/0124 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: DREEMORE LANE DREEMORE DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2002/1410/O Proposal: Replacement dwelling Address: 150 Metres West of 9 Dreemore Lane, Dungannon

174 Ref ID: M/2006/1673/O Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage. Address: 8 Old Moy Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1995/0766 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: LISNAHOY HOUSE KILLYMAN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/1993/4070 Proposal: Hen House Address: 43 CAVAN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2002/0044/O Proposal: Proposed bungalow & domestic garage Address: 60m S.W of 43 Cavan Road, Killyman, Dungannon Ref ID: M/1992/0141 Proposal: Erection of Cattle Shed Address: 37 CAVAN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2002/0698/O Proposal: Proposed dwelling Address: 70 Metres south west of 43 Cavan Road, Killyman, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2010/0195/Q

175 Proposal: Modifications to 110 kv & 33 kv Overhead Line Connections to Tamnamore Grid Substation Address: Tamnamore Phase 2 Grid Substation ELA Ref ID: M/1975/0400 Proposal: IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING DWELLING Address: CAVIN, KILLYMAN, DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2008/0975/F Proposal: Construction of underground slurry tank Address: At farmyard of 37 Cavan Road, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2000/1293/O Proposal: Site for dwelling and domestic garage Address: Adjacent to No 34 Cavan Road, Killyman, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2011/0633/PREAPP Proposal: Rural Day Care Building Address: Cavan Road, Killyman, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/1993/0118 Proposal: Replacement Dwelling Address: 251 KILLYMAN ROAD DUNGANNON Ref ID: M/2011/0500/F Proposal: Proposed 110/33kV Electrical Substation and erection of 50km 110kV portal type overhead line to connect proposed substation into both the Omagh main substation and the Tamnamore Grid Substations. To facilitate the connection of renewable energy to the NIE Network and provide network reinforcement to the Ballygawley area.

176 Address: 50km of overhead line from Omagh Main Substation to Tamnamore Grid Substation Dungannon in the general area of Laghey Corner Moygashel Greystone Ballyreagh Garvaghy Tattykeel. Proposed Gort Main Substation at Omagh Road Garvaghey Ballygawle PG Ref ID: LA09/2016/0015/PAD Proposal: Full application for the installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure including, photovoltaic panels, mounting frames, inverters, transformers, substations, communications building, fence, pole mounted security cameras for the life of the solar farm and a temporary access for construction traffic Any possible impacts of the proposed development will be assessed and mitigated against through various assessments including landscape and visual, flood risk, biodiversity study and archaeological / heritage assessments. An extensive landscaping plan will be prepared to enhance the proposal. There will be views of this site from the Moy Road, those these will be intermittent. Address: 100m West of 81 Moy Road, Dungannon, Ref ID: M/2010/0264/F Proposal: Proposed Replacement dwelling and detached domestic garage. Address: 34 Findrum Road, Ballygawley, Dungannon Ref ID: M/2009/0294/F Proposal: Extension to rear of existing dwelling Address: 7B Tullyglush Road, Ballygawley Ref ID: M/1984/0411 Proposal: DWELLING Address: TULLYGLUSH ROAD, GREENHILL, BALLYGAWLEY

177 Summary of Consultee Responses NIEA - no objections Drawing Numbers and Title Notification to Department (if relevant) Date of Notification to Department: Response of Department:

178 Deferred Consideration Report Case Officer: Emma McCullagh Summary Application ID: I/2013/0334/F Proposal: Proposed 500kw anaerobic digestion plant with combined heat and power unit (CHP) Applicant Name and Address: Robert Boyce 10 Lismoney Road Moneymore Location: 25m south east of 10 Lismoney Road Moneymore Magherafelt Agent name and Address: 2020 Architects 37 Main Street Ballymoney BT53 6AN

179 Location Map

180 Summary of Consultee Responses: No objections from Consultees. Conditions have been supplied from NIEA and Transport NI. Characteristics of the Site and Area: The site is located within a rural area and it is proposed to access the site via Tullyboy Road. The site is a large, rectangular shaped agricultural field located to the rear of no.10 Lismoney Road which lies to the immediate west. The site is located on top of a gently sloping drumlin. The highest point of the site is located in the eastern portion and the site falls steadily downhill in a north western direction. The northern and southern boundaries are defined by a low hedgerow, approx. 2m in height. The eastern by a post and wire fence, whilst the western boundary is undefined. There is an existing laneway along the southern boundary of the site. Background: Since this application was presented as a refusal at Cookstown Council in June 2014 it was subsequently deferred for further consideration. The reasons for refusal had been; 1. The proposal is contrary to Part (i), (ii) & (iii) of RE 1 of PPS 18 in that the development would, if permitted cause an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity and landscape character of a sensitive landscape, through the scale, size and siting of the anaerobic digestion plant and it has not been proven that it will not a) detrimentally affect public safety, human health, or residential amenity; nor that it would not detrimentally affect biodiversity and nature conservation. 2. As provided for within Article 7 (4) of the Planning (General Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 1993, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Department to determine this proposal, in respect of noise and odour assessments, detailed traffic statement, access details and drainage assessment. 3. The proposal is contrary to Policy WM1 of Planning Policy Statement 11Planning and Waste Management, in that it has not been proved that the proposed development, would if approved, not cause demonstrable harm to human health or result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the environment. 4. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY13 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside, in that the proposed development, would if permitted, be a prominent feature in the landscape, the proposed site is unable to provide a suitable degree of enclosure for the development to integrate into the landscape and would rely primarily on the use of new landscaping for integration. 5. The proposal is contrary to Policy CTY14 of Planning Policy Statement 21, Sustainable Development in the Countryside in that the proposed development, would if permitted, be unduly prominent in the landscape and would therefore result in a detrimental change to the rural character of the countryside.

181 Subsequent to the deferral substantial information has been submitted to clarify a number of issues which had been outstanding with the original submission. Odour & Noise details for EHO, amended plans for Transport NI and further details for DARD & NIE were submitted. The waste codes have changed although still all remain diary (02 codes). The layout has changed and two tanks have been removed, with the remaining tank moved to the NW corner, which overcomes concerns from NIE. The system will remain a closed one. In addition to the digester tank, the proposal will also include a main equipment building and 2 balance tanks. A Drainage assessment is not required as it does not fall under any of the criteria under PPS15 (Revised) to merit one, and the proposed development is not located in an area where there is evidence of a history of surface water flooding. There is no Surface water run-off from the development which may adversely impact upon other development or features of importance to nature conservation, archaeology or the built heritage. Summary of Objections; Visual impact Impact on residential amenity Odour & Noise issues Impact on River Lissan Confusion over waste codes Confliction over involvement of Dale Farm Health & Safety of neighbouring residents Increased traffic movements creating a hazard. All issues raised by objectors have been covered in the planning officer report. Deferred Consideration: Issues raised by consultees due to previously outstanding information have been addressed through additional submitted information; Environmental Health responded to the submitted Acoustic report by REC Environmental Consultants. The nearest dwelling, outside the ownership of the applicant, has been identified as 14 Lismoney Road, who has objected to the proposal. In relation to noise, EHO recommend conditions that the noise from the CHP unit should not exceed 75dB when measured from any facade of the unit, and that tractors are limited on the haul route to the hours of hrs. In relation to Odour, an assessment was submitted and considered by EHO which identified the feedstock s to be used. The feedstock will operate using trade effluent and waste lactose pumped directly from the adjacent dairy factory to the tank. The feedstock will be digested within the Ad plant in completely sealed tanks. The process will create digestive in liquid and solid form which can be used as a high quality fertiliser. All feedstock will be pumped directly to the plant, so no feedstock will be exposed to the air to create odour issues. Plan 01/03 shows the indicative location of the pipe (underground) from Dale Farm supplying AD plant with feedstock. The odour assessment models for the closest ten receptors for any potential odour impact for the proposal. It concludes that the odour impact at these properties will be negligible. EHO recommend a condition is applied to ensure that only the feedstock noted - EWC (materials unsuitable for consumption or processing), (sludge s from on-site effluent treatment) - all are from the dairy products industry, can be accepted at the facility.

182 NIE had stated that an 11KV line passes over the proposed development. On the basis the development would infringe on the required NIE equipment NIE had objected. The layout of the tanks were changed and amended plans were submitted. It has now been confirmed with NIE that this issue has been overcome in line with drawing 03/04 dated 5 October 2015 and they have no objections. Transport NI had asked for a number of amendments. The agent submitted a Transport Assessment and revised plans to show road widening to 6m to dual carriageway, section and levels and drainage details. There will be no feedstock haulage routes, as the plant will run on effluent pumped directly from the adjacent factory and so there will be no feedstock deliveries, and no traffic from the lane that joins the Lismoney Road will be used to access or exit the plant in any capacity. Amendments were further made to show the road widening to 6m to dual carriageway including a 6m dimension at the end of the taper. Visibility splays of 4.5 x 90m are shown. Transport NI find this acceptable and have provided conditions to be attached to any approval. HSENI (Health and Safety) were consulted and state they do not specifically make comment on AD plants, unless within a COMAH (Control of major accident hazards regulations) site or 100m within a quarry site, and so they have no comment on this proposal. NIEA (Waste Management) NIEA stated in relation to code EWC, it is not listed as a permitted waste in QP and should be avoided unless accompanied with a written statement. The agent has been asked for this information or the removal of this code. The agent has now submitted an amended document removing the code which is the code NIEA had issue with, otherwise they were content the codes fell under the EWC. Policy Consideration; Planning Policy Statement 11 - Planning and Waste Management. One of the policies dealing with AD plants is Planning Policy Statement 11 - Planning and Waste Management. This proposal is considered to be a waste management facility and within PPS 11 the relevant planning policies applicable to this type of development are Policies WM1 Environmental Impact of a Waste Management Facility and WM2 Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities. One of the main issues (also raised by objectors) with the original submission was that the feedstock had not been identified and therefore no need for the facility has been identified as it was not being linked to an existing farm complex. Policy RE1 of PPS18 states the proposal should be located at, or as close to the source of the resource needed for that particular technology. The applicant has now identified the feedstock for this centralised facility will be provided from the adjacent dairy factory and will be pumped direct to the digester tank. The agent has advised they were in discussions with Dale Farm during the time of the application but now have submitted a letter of intent from Dale Farm s manager. The Corporate Services Director of Dale Farm have expressed an interest in supplying the feedstock but nothing would be signed until any planning permission would be granted which is normal procedure. This would be conditioned to ensure the only feedstock would be that indicated (which are dairy products only). Shared Environmental Services (SES) have also been consulted on the proposal since the deferral of the application. The AD plant is located close to the Lissan Water, which is hydrologically connected to Lough Neagh and Lough Beg SPA/Ramsar and Upper Ballinderry

183 River SAC. Objectors had raised the issue of any impact on Lissan Water. SES concluded that, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 43 (1) of Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regs NI 1995 (as amended), the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the features or conservation objectives of the Upper Ballinderry River SAC or any European site. Planning Policy Statement 18 Renewable Energy Given that this is a proposal with a renewable energy element to it, Policy RE1 of PPS18 is a material consideration of the determination of the application. This policy states that proposals will be permitted provided they do not result in an unacceptable adverse impact. The facility will be properly controlled and mitigation in place to ensure no adverse impact on human health or amenity. Furthermore the facility will be required to be operated in accordance with conditions outlined in any licence/permit issued by NIEA. This would only be granted if NIEA conclude that the environmental impact from the operation would be acceptable. Policy RE1 states that the proposal should be located at, or as close to the source of the resource needed for that particular technology. The feedstock is to come from Dale Farm factory, which is located close to the site so in this regard it is located to the source in line with policy. The Best Practice Guide to PPS18 Renewable Energy highlights the main planning issues that must be taken into account when proposing an AD plant. In terms of site selection, the proposed facility is suitably located in terms of the feedstock source. Odour has been previously discussed and EHO have made no objections. In relation to emission to air, EHO have objections. Furthermore, the facility will be subject to licensing through NIEA which will require the use of BAT which is an additional measure to ensure protection of the environment. The Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) Planning for Sustainable Development was published on 28 September 2015 and consolidated some twenty policies into one document, and it is now a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application. The wider economic, environmental and social benefits of the proposal as a renewable energy project have been given appropriate weight. The proposed facility will have a positive economic impact in terms of construction and operation jobs when built, as well as its impact in terms of producing renewable energy. Planning Policy Statement 21 Sustainable development in the Countryside. As this is a building in the countryside, PPS21 would apply, and CTY13 in terms of integration is a consideration. There are no critical views from Moneymore Road. There is already an existing Dale Farm factory and Dunman and their associated buildings, which the existing residents have as part of their existing view. Landscaping scheme submitted shows all existing vegetation will be retained and new screen planting will be provided to undefined boundaries, this will be conditioned as such. The reduction of the proposal from 3 tanks to one main digestive tank has lessened its visual impact and it has moved to the far NW corner, which it will have the least impact possible within the site for the main objector, No.14 Lismoney Road, due to the distance and the reduction in scale and size of the proposal from that originally submitted. In terms of CTY14 this facility has been designed to be compatible with the character of the surrounding rural area and the area is characterised by the existing Dale farm factory and Dunman factory buildings. It is important to take into account site setting, presence of existing structures

184 close by and impact on amenity. The proposal will be 4.25m to top of the wall, 7.2m to the highest point of the curved roof. The tank will be olive green steel cladding with a galvanised steel roof. The AD plant would not erode the existing character of the area. After considering the relevant policies, objections, plans/information submitted and consultation responses, on balance an Approval is recommended with conditions. Conditions: 1. As required by Article 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. 2. Prior to commencement of development full details of the proposed pipe as shown on plan 01/03 date stamped 5 February 2016 should be submitted to the Council for approval. Reason: To ensure all details of the development have been considered. 3. The noise from the CHP unit should not exceed 75dB when measured 1m from any façade of the unit. 4. Only feedstock s falling under the following European Waste Codes (EWC) can be accepted at the facility: EWC Code Waste Description Animal Manure Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing Sludges from on-site effluent treatment 5. Vehicular movement to and from the site shall only be made between the hours of 07.00hrs and 22.00hrs. 6. The anaerobic digestion plant shall be operated in such a manner so as not to cause nuisance to surrounding residential properties. Reason for Conditions 2 6: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties. 7. The existing natural screenings of this site and those proposed, as indicated in on the approved plan 03/05 date stamped 5 February 2016, shall be retained unless necessary to prevent danger to the public in which case a full explanation shall be given to the Council in writing. Reason: To ensure the development integrates into the countryside and to ensure the maintenance of screening to the site

185 8. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 as amended by the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order No other development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the works necessary for the improvement of Lismoney Road (widening to 6m) have been completed in accordance with the details outlined blue on Drawing Number 10/03 bearing the date stamp 18 February Transport NI 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. 9. The vehicular access, including visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m in both directions, and Forward Sight Distance of 90m shall be provided in accordance with Drawing No 10/03 dated 18/02/2016, prior to the commencement of any other works or other development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure there is a satisfactory means of access in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users. 10. 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 before the development hereby permitted is commenced 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 11. The access gradient(s) 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. 12. Gates or security barriers at the access shall be located at a distance from the edge of the public road that will allow the largest expected vehicle to stop clear of the public road when the gates or barriers are closed and shall be sited so that when open they do not project over the footway, verge, or carriageway. Reason: To ensure waiting vehicles do not encroach onto the carriageway. Signature(s): Date

186 Deferred Consideration Report Summary Case Officer: Phelim Marrion Application ID: LA09/2015/0127/F Target Date: 7 August 2015 Proposal: Change of wind turbine previously approved under M/2013/0567/F to wind turbine with 40m hub height and 54m rotor diameter. Turbine to remain in same location and with output not exceeding 250kW Applicant Name and Address: Aircore Mullyneill Road Ltd Alfred House Alfred Street Belfast BT2 8ED Location: 307m North West of 55 Mullyneill Road Caledon BT68 4XX Agent name and Address: Breen Architects Arthur House 41 Arthur Street Belfast BT1 4GB Summary of Issues: The increase in the height of the turbine and the impact on the surrounding area. Summary of Consultee Responses: Belfast International Airport Responded 25th May 2015 No objections to the proposal. NATS Responded 27th May No safeguarding objections to the proposal. UK Crown Bodies Safeguarding- Responded 29th May 2015, 1st June 2015 and 18th August 2015 with no objections. Ofcom Responded 3rd June 2015 no concerns. Transportni - Responded 17th June No objections to the proposal. Mid Ulster Council Environmental Health - Responded 24th June 2015 with no objections subject to a condition on noise impact. UK Crown Bodies DIO LMS- Responded 19th August 2015 No objections to the proposal.

187 Characteristics of the Site and Area: This site is located in an agricultural field off the Mullyneill Road, Caledon, approximately 2 kilometres north west of the Dyan and 7 kilometres south west of Eglish. The site is accessed via an existing laneway which serves Nos 47 and 55 Mullyneill Road, as well as four poultry houses and a farmyard which are at the end of the lane. The field slopes in a westerly direction and is bound by hedgerow with electricity lines running along the southern boundary. This surrounding area is rural in character with undulating topography and a dispersed settlement pattern. Crieve Lough sits approximately 600 metres to the west and the site does not fall under any designation in the Dungannon and South Tyrone Area Plan. Deferred Consideration: This application was recommended to Committee as a Refusal in February 2016 and was deferred to allow consideration of an amended scheme. The amended scheme reduces the hub height, height of the tower, by 10m to 40m above the ground level and this also reduces the blade tip height by 10m. Members are advised there is an extant permission on this site for a wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and rotor diameter of 30m with an overall tip height of 55m. The proposed development currently under consideration will have a hub height of 40m, a rotor diameter of 54m and rotor tip height of 67m, 12m higher than the tip height of the approved development. Along with the revised application the applicant submitted a visual assessment of how the proposal compares against the approved development, and other approved turbines, from a number of viewpoints in the immediate locality. From my inspection of the site and surrounding area, I am content the proposed turbine will generally be as indicated in the assessment, though I note the location of the turbine is closer to the hedge in CV1 than the plans indicate. While this, in my opinion, is the most important view of the turbine I am content that the turbine as proposed will not be any higher in the landscape than visual assessment indicates. Members are advised there are 3 dwellings off Creeve Lough Road, that face towards the turbine, these are close to and of CV1. These properties will be acutely aware of the turbine, however they are over 500m from it, with the closest of these approx. 520m away and intervening mature vegetation along Creeve Lough Road mitigating against the impact of the turbine. Taking into account the approved turbine, I do not consider there is a significantly greater impact on the residential amenity for these properties. An approved turbine has now been erected to the north west of the application site and while both turbines will be seen from Rehaghy Road, I do not agree these will be seen together along the road and therefore I do not consider there will be a detrimental cumulative impact. Members are being asked to consider an amended nacelle (the engine room for the turbine) a larger diameter hub and increase in length of the blades of 12m. I do not

188 consider this proposal, taking into account the approved development, will have a significantly greater visual impact on this area and accordingly I recommend the application, as revised, is approved subject to the attached conditions. Conditions: 1. As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011, the development hereby approved shall be begun within 5 years of the date of this decision. Reason: Time Limit 2. Within 6 months of the permanent cessation of generation of electricity by the turbine hereby approved, all above ground structures shall be removed and the site restored to a condition which is as close as possible to its original state. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, to restore the site and maintain the landscape quality of the area. 3. The sound power level of the installed wind turbine (including the application of any tonal penalty) shall not exceed 99.5B(A) )(including uncertainty) at all wind speeds up to 10m/s (standardised wind speeds at 10m height). Reason: To control the noise levels from the development at noise sensitive locations. Signature(s): Date

189 Deferred Consideration Report Summary Case Officer: Emma McCullagh Application ID: LA09/2015/0678/F Target Date: Proposal: Two storey extension to side and rear of existing dwelling no. 5 Kildrum (amended description and plans) Applicant Name and Address: Martin Brannigan 5 Kildrum Galbally Dungannon Location: Land between and shared by 5 and 7 Kildrum Galbally Dungannon Agent name and Address: AB Properties The Laurels 206 Gilnahirk Road Belfast BT5 7SH Summary of Consultee Responses: No objections from consultees. Characteristics of the Site and Area: The red line of the application site incorporates the curtilages of dwellings No. 5, 7 and 11 Kildrum and an access road and turning head. The site is located within the development limits of Galbally, a village as defined in the Dungannon and South Tyrone Area Plan No. 5, 7 and 11 Kildrum each form 1 of a set of 2 storey semi-detached dwellings within an existing cul-de-sac. The proposed dwellings are to be sited between properties No. 5 and 7 Kildrum. The character of Kildrum is defined by 2 storey detached and semi-detached dwellings with in curtilage parking. Location Map:

190 Characteristics of the Site and Area: The red line of the application site incorporates the curtilages of dwellings No. 5, 7 and 11 Kildrum and an access road and turning head. The site is located within the development limits of Galbally, a village as defined in the Dungannon and South Tyrone Area Plan No. 5, 7 and 11 Kildrum each form 1 of a set of 2 storey semi-detached dwellings within an existing cul-de-sac. The proposed dwellings are to be sited between properties No. 5 and 7 Kildrum. The character of Kildrum is defined by 2 storey detached and semi-detached dwellings with in curtilage parking. Deferred Consideration: This application was recommended as refusal as '2 semi-detached houses' and presented to Committee in February Additional information was submitted reducing the scheme prior the Committee meeting and Committee members agreed to defer the application to re-consider the amended proposal. Amended P1 form states the new proposal is to No 5 Kildrum and is a 2 storey extension to the side and rear. The relevant policy for a residential extension is 'Addendum to PPS7 - Residential extensions and alterations'. EXT 1 outlines the criteria which should be met for approval of an extension or alteration of the residential property.

191 (a) the scale, massing, design and external materials of the proposal will be sympathetic with the built form and appearance of the existing dwelling. No. 5 Kildrum. It will be two storey to the side and rear and will be set back from the front elevation, with the ridge stepped down. The roof tiles will be black concrete, windows will be white upvc and walls smooth render in light grey. These are in keeping with the existing materials and finishes of the existing house and the proposal 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. The extension will be 7m from the closest dwelling, no.7 Kildrum which is an acceptable separation distance. There will be no windows on the proposed side elevation, so no issues with overlooking. (c) the proposal will not cause unacceptable loss of, or damage to trees or other landscape features which contribute significantly to local environmental quality. (d) Sufficient amenity space remains within the curtilage of the property. To the rear of the dwelling is adequate garden area. To the front is sufficient space for parking and manoeuvring vehicles. Transport NI were re-consulted on the amended scheme and have no objections. Existing on the site is a detached shed which will be demolished to provide room for the proposed extension. It will not extent any further back on the site than the shed does into the garden. Objections had been received relating to the original proposal. This is a much reduced scheme and will not have any significant detrimental impact on the neighbours. Neighbours were re-notified on on the reduced scheme and there has been readvertisement of the amended description and plans. No further objections have been received since this was carried out. Approval recommended. Conditions 1. As required by Article 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. Signature(s): Reason: Time Limit. Date

192 Deferred Consideration Report Case Officer: Emma McCullagh Summary Application ID: LA09/2015/0702/A Target Date: Proposal: Hoarding, up lighting and illuminated static LED display board. Location: Springisland Supermarket 2 Washingbay Road Coalisland Applicant Name and Address: Springisland Supermarket 2 Washingbay Road Coalisland BT71 4ND Agent name and Address: McKeown and Shields 1 Annagher Road Coalisland BT71 4NE Location map

193 Summary of Consultee Responses: Transport NI have no objections subject to conditions. Characteristics of the Site and Area: The site contains a very small section of land, including a part of the perimeter fence located outside the Springisland Supermarket, at the junction of the shop and the Washingbay, in Coalisland. The site is on the same side of the Washingbay Road as the supermarket and sits on top of the fence, the hoarding itself is approx 2. Metres tall by 5 metres wide and it has a smaller 1 metre by 3.5 metre digital board above with LED lit lettering. It is supported by four 2 metre high iron supports. The site lies within the settlement limit of Coalisland and is on the edge of the zoned industry and business area. The area has a wide mix of uses including a tyre centre, supermarket, numerous manufacturing, residential houses and public open space. The proposal seeks planning permission for an advertising hoarding associated with the Springisland Supermarket. Deferred Consideration: The application was presented as a refusal to MUDC in February 2016, on the following basis The proposal does not comply with policy AD1 of PPS17 in that it would if permitted prejudice public safety and convenience of road users since the LED display board, at a busy junction, would distract the attention of motorists, thereby creating a traffic hazard. It was subsequently deferred at the Committee meeting to allow the agent to forward additional information for Transport NI. Additional information was submitted on 5 Feb 2016 and Transport NI were re-consulted to consider it. The agent rebuts the relevant paragraphs e, f and g of policy AD1 of PPS17 - Control of Advertisements. Paragraph (f) related to moving elements, the sign has now be made static and will be conditioned as such. Paragraph (e) relates to illuminated signs. It is suggested the brightness is addressed by condition. Paragraph (g) relates to signs which may be confused with traffic signs. The sign has been amended to display fuel prices and is a permanent sign on private property, and does not resemble a roads sign. Following consideration of this information Transport NI has no objection subject to the conditions noted below; The static display in the advertisement hereby approved shall not change at a frequency greater than once in any two minute period. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users and in the interests of visual amenity The advertisement hereby approved shall not: comprise sequential displays; or otherwise include moving parts or features; or feature intermittent lighting in a manner designed to give the appearance of movement. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users and in the interests of visual amenity

194 The illumination level of the proposed signage must comply with the Institution of Lighting Professionals Technical Report No.5, Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, road safety and convenience of road users. The objection received was fully considered Approval is recommended on this basis. Conditions 1. This is retrospective application and thereby has effect from the date of this decision notice. 2. The static display in the advertisement hereby approved shall not change at a frequency greater than once in any two minute period. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users and in the interests of visual amenity 3. The advertisement hereby approved shall not: comprise sequential displays; or otherwise include moving parts or features; or feature intermittent lighting in a manner designed to give the appearance of movement. Reason: In the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users and in the interests of visual amenity 4. The illumination level of the proposed signage must comply with the Institution of Lighting Professionals Technical Report No.5, Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, road safety and convenience of road users. 5. Upon request by MUDC the operator must provide a report for bonified lighting professional advising of the brightness of the illumination in relation to compliance with the standard. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, road safety and convenience of road users. Signature(s): Date

195 Subject: Mid Ulster District Council s response to three applications being dealt with by Strategic Planning Division, DoE for lands at William Clark and Sons, Upperlands Date of Meeting: 3 rd May 2016 Reporting Officer: Contact Officer: Karen Doyle Dr Chris Boomer 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with a report which will provide the basis of a consultation response to the Strategic Projects Team, DoE. 2 Background 2.1 The Strategic Project team at the Department of Environment have requested a consultation response from Mid Ulster District Council on the following applications: 1. H/2009/0264/O is an application for the demolition of unlisted buildings to facilitate the heritage led regeneration (restoration and retention of listed mill buildings) of the former William Clark and Sons Linen Mill complex incorporating: residential development, leisure and recreational uses, community facilities including museum/exhibition space and other associated site works. 2. H/2009/0270/F is an application for works to listed buildings to include: the extension, and conversion of the former Art Deco Building into a new factory (extending to 4,030 sq. metres); change of use and retention of 1a for car parking; change of use and retention of 14a as a communal space; change of use and refurbishment of buildings 3a and 13a to create 18 apartments; alterations and extension of 2 existing dwellings - buildings 2a and 21a; change of use, extension and refurbishment of buildings 4b, 4c, 4e and 25a for museum/exhibition space and other associated site works. 3. H/2009/0271/LB is a Listed Building application for the proposal under H/ /F.

196 3 Key Issues 3.1 The site itself extends to approximately 34.7 hectares and is located outside the settlement limit of Upperlands as identified in the Magherafelt Area Plan There are 14 listed buildings on the site which will be retained and used for various purposes, most likely residential. A case for enabling development has been made in order to ensure the restoration and future use of the listed buildings. 3.2 Enabling development is defined as development that would be unacceptable in planning terms but for the fact that it would bring public benefits sufficient to justify it being carried out, and which could not otherwise be achieved. The applicant commissioned marketing and conservation reports and the Planning Service has agreed to consider the principle of development to secure the long term conservation of the property. The conclusion of the enabling report demonstrates that the magnitude of the enabling development of some 206 residential units representing the minimum level of development at which the Council may reasonably be confident will bring the conservation and re-use of the listed buildings and the remodelling of the entire site at the former William Clark complex. (Source: Enabling Development report by Turley Associates May 2010). 3.3 The proposal retains the mill complex which contains most of the key buildings, including machinery. In December 2014 NIEA: HBU Historic Environment Division provided a consultation response to DoE, Strategic Planning Division and in this they state that the consider the outline application complies with Planning Policy Statement 5 in that the proposed outline works are unlikely to significantly detract from the setting of the listed buildings on the site. In regard to Planning Policy Statement 32 they also consider that the outline proposals will not significantly detract from the heritage asset/significant place. However they do seek further information on the impact on underground hydrology. 3.4 NIEA: HBU Historic Environment Division also provided comment on the cost information submitted for this case and notes the proposed extra development for the site will not be sufficient to cover the conservation deficit which has been identified. There is a question in regard to the long term viability of this use for the site and it is their view that an Article 40 agreement must be put in place to ensure that the Department realises the desired benefit (sustainable heritage conservation) that the setting aside of area plan housing zoning in this case, would allow. 3.5 The applications seek planning permission for (see attached masterplans): - The retention of the existing employment use relocated to a refurnished and extended listed building (Art Deco Building) comprising c. 4,000 sq. metres;

197 - 219 residential units which comprises: o The creation of 66 units through the subdivision and refurbishment of listed and other buildings of heritage significance; o 153 new build units comprising town houses, semi-detached and detached units and apartments to subsidise the costs associated with the refurbishment and restoration of buildings and structures of heritage significance; - A variety of open spaces including public, private and semi-private spaces dispersed throughout the development; - Creation of new recreational and community facilities including museum/exhibition space to exhibit key pieces of the site s industrial industry; and - Improvements to the existing site access, additional car parking facilities and other ancillary infrastructural works The agent asserts that the proposed development will deliver a host of benefits including adaption and re-use of important listed buildings, retention of local employment opportunities (circa 25), creation of approximately 200 construction jobs, an investment of 27 million in the local economy, provision of new housing and delivery of enhanced physical, social and environmental infrastructure. Whether this enabling development will result in the refurbishment of the listed buildings, given the current market conditions and demand for houses in Upperlands, is open to debate, and as planning officers we cannot guarantee the success of this scheme. We are therefore content that the decision on this matter rests with the Department, as do other issues in relation to all of the material considerations. However, we are concerned that this will result in the creation of 219 residential units and would like some assurance from the Department that this will not affect the distribution and zoning of housing land to meet our Housing Growth Indicator s across Mid Ulster as set by the Department for Regional Development. 4 Resources 4.1 Financial N/A Human N/A Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A 4.4 Other

198 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 That Mid Ulster District Council submit this paper to the Department of Environment for its consideration. 7 List of Documents Attached Proposed Masterplan - North 2. Proposed Masterplan - South 3. Proposed Masterplan - Listed Buildings to be retained.

199 1. Proposed Masterplan - North

200 2. Proposed Masterplan - South

201 3. Proposed Masterplan - Listed Buildings to be retained (highlighted in red)

202 Subject: DOE call for evidence on Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration Date: 3 May 2016 Reporting Officer Chris Boomer Planning Manager Contact Officer Sinead McEvoy 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with details of the response provided to a call for evidence by the DOE on permitted d development for mineral exploration. The call for evidence was issued on the 14 th March and responses are due by the 13 th May Background Permitted development rights for mineral exploration have remained unchanged for over two decades. Technological advancements in the minerals industry, particularly with relation to extraction and exploration methods, mean the Department now feel that the time is right to review these permitted development rights. Accordingly, the Minister of the Environment, Mark H Durkan is now seeking to ensure that permitted development rights reflect the appropriate balance between the regulatory burden placed on the minerals and extractive industries, the need to protect and preserve the environment and the need to facilitate minerals development. 3 Key Issues 3.1 The DOE requested views on the following question, as well as any other aspects of mineral permitted development which it is felt is relevant; Question posed Do you believe that the existing provisions on permitted development rights for mineral exploration provide a suitable balance between supporting operational business activity and environmental protection? Mid Ulster District Council holds the opinion that in its present form, Part

203 16 of the Schedule to The Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 does not provide adequate environmental protection. The modern methods of petroleum exploration have the potential to bring about damaging environmental impacts and it is felt that by allowing permitted development to extend to these types of exploratory works, sufficient consideration is not given to the likelihood and extent of these potential impacts. It is recommended that permitted development rights be granted for exploratory works with the conditions (including the following) attached; i. Exploratory works relating petroleum exploration should be excluded from the permitted development. ii. Developer must notify the council in writing of the proposal as per the existing legislation and the timescale for reply to remove the permitted development rights should be increased from 21 to 28 days. iii. A relevant period be defined and this period must have lapsed for PD rights to apply iv. Conditions regarding the use of explosives and height restrictions must apply. 4 Resources Financial N/A Human N/A Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A Other 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 Members are requested to note the contents of the paper and agree that a response is issued to DOE in line with the contents of this paper. 7 List of Documents Attached

204 7.1 Response to DOE call for evidence regarding permitted development rights for mineral exploration

205 DOE Call for Evidence Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration May 2016

206 DOE Call for Evidence Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration Purpose: In response to a Call for Evidence from the Department of the Environment (DoE), this paper will provide members with comments relating to permitted development rights for mineral exploration under Part 16 of The Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) If agreed, these comments will be forwarded to the DoE to inform the scope of their review of permitted development rights for mineral exploration. Content: The paper provides: (i) (ii) (iii) Explanation of the current permitted development rights governing mineral exploration Consideration of the how the existing regulations achieve a balance between facilitating development and environmental protection MUDC s views on future permitted development rights if a change were to be enacted Recommendation: That the Council note the contents of the paper and agrees that a response be forwarded to the DoE call for evidence along the lines set out in the paper. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide members with a response to the DOE Call for Evidence in relation to permitted development rights for Mineral Exploration. On the 14 th March, the Minister issued a Call for Evidence on permitted development rights for mineral exploration (copy attached at Annex A), to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on this matter. The call for evidence states that the DOE will be undertaking a review of permitted development rights for mineral exploration and the Call for Evidence will help inform the scope of the review. In explaining why they are undertaking the review the DOE have explained that permitted development rights for mineral exploration have remained unchanged for over two decades. Technological advancements in the minerals industry, particularly with relation to extraction and exploration methods, mean the Department now feel that the time is right to review these permitted development rights. 1.2 Accordingly, the Minister of the Environment, Mark H Durkan is now seeking to ensure that permitted development rights reflect the appropriate balance between the regulatory burden placed on the minerals and extractive industries, the need to protect and preserve the environment and the need to facilitate minerals development. The Minister is particularly keen to hear views on whether or not existing permitted development rights provide a suitable balance between supporting operational business activity and environmental protection.

207 2.0 Existing Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration 2.1 Permitted development rights for mineral exploration are set out in Part 16 of the Schedule to The Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (GPDO). A copy of this piece of legislation is available at Annex B and is summarised below. 2.2 The GPDO allows permitted development (PD) rights for exploratory operations which only last for a maximum of four months. 2.3 If the work in question does not exceed this 4 month period, then the drilling of boreholes, the carrying out seismic surveys, the making of any other excavation for the purpose of mineral exploration and the assembly or provision of any structure required in connection with these works will constitute permitted development provided it is not found to be at odds with any of the following criteria: i. The developer must have informed the council in writing of the location and nature of the works, details of plant machinery and operations involved the target mineral and the timeframe involved. ii. Works must not be within an ASSI or an area of archaeological interest iii. Works must not involve the use of an explosive charge of greater than 1kg is to be used iv. Works must not include any structure assembled or provided that would exceed 3m in height and be closer than 3km to an existing airport. 2.4 In addition to these defined criteria, there are also a number conditions which restrict any development which is permitted. These include conditions around the removal of trees, adequate restoration works taking place within 28 days, and the works being in accordance with the written notification previously given to the council. 2.5 Article 7 of the Order states that upon receipt of a written notification by a developer that works permitted under Part 16 of the Schedule (PD) are intended to be carried out, the Council can direct that PD rights will not apply to this development. That is to say that, the council can remove PD rights from exploratory minerals workings in some cases. In these cases, the direction that PD has been removed must be made within 21 days of receipt of the notification by the council from the developer and must be made for one of the following reasons; i. The development is on or will affect land which is included in one of the following designations: Conservation Area; National Park; Nature Reserve; AONB; ASSI; Site of archaeological importance. ii. The development, either by itself or in conjunction with other development, would cause serious detriment to the amenity of the area or would affect the setting of a listed building iii. The development would cause serious nuisance to the amenity of a nearby school, hospital or residential building iv. The development would endanger aircraft which happen to be making use of a nearby airport.

208 2.6 If the Council fail to make a direction within 21 days, then PD rights for the development will automatically apply. If the council directs that the development should not go ahead then the Department has 28 days to consider this direction and can potentially disallow it at any time within that 28 day period. The process is laid out in the diagram below: Exploratory works constitute permitted development under Part 16 of the Schedule Is Council Agreeable? YES NO Permitted Development applies and works are deemed to have planning permission Direction not given in 21 days Council must give Direction under Article 7, removing PD rights, within 21 days DOE disallows Notice Council must notify Department and the developer of this Direction Permitted Development does not apply and the works do not have permission Department has 28 days in which to disallow the Council s Direction. After this 28 day period, the Direction takes effect and permitted development rights are removed 2.7 It should be noted that whilst the council is considering whether or not to issue a direction under Article 7, it may also be required also carry out an EIA determination on the proposed works. If it is found that the works in question constitute EIA development, then they will not qualify for permitted development by virtue of Article 3 of the GPDO which states that permitted development rights will not apply to works which constitute EIA development.

209 3.0 Answer to question posed by Call for Evidence Question posed Do you believe that the existing provisions on permitted development rights for mineral exploration provide a suitable balance between supporting operational business activity and environmental protection? 3.1 The minerals industry has significant economic importance to Northern Ireland and to Mid Ulster. The exploration stage of the mineral development cycle is very important to the mineral industry and as such, it is important that the planning authority seeks to make this as straightforward as possible. Having said this, the goal of environmental protection must be given the same amount of importance as the goal of encouraging economic growth and consequently, exploratory mineral works which would have significant environmental impacts or which would potentially involve techniques about which there is limited environmental evidence, should be guarded against. 3.3 The existing permitted development rights place little in the way of a burden on the minerals industry. Under current legislation, exploratory work for any type of mineral development can take place up to a period of four months without the need to submit a planning application. However, it is Mid Ulster District Council s opinion that whilst the legislation is not overly restrictive on the industry, it fails to offer sufficient protection to the environment and consequently, it fails to provide the suitable balance as referred to in the question. 3.4 It has been argued that modern exploration methods, particularly in relation to petroleum exploration 1, can have potentially harmful impacts such as leakage from drill pipes, spillage and contamination of nearby water supplies. The fact that such exploratory methods can take place without having the likelihood of these associated potential impacts assessed via a planning application means that sufficient consideration is not afforded to the protection of the environment. 3.5 It is for these reasons that Mid Ulster District Council would contend that permitted development rights for exploratory mineral works should be allowed with an exception being made for petroleum exploration i.e. oil and gas exploration. This is the current approach adopted by the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Part 17 Class K) in England and Wales Other matters for Consideration 4.1 The previous sections of this paper refer to the preferred general approach of Mid Ulster District Council to permitted development rights governing exploratory mineral works. There are also a range of other more specific 1 Petroleum exploration can be defined as the process of exploring for oil and gas resources in the earths sedimentary basins. Definition taken from 2 While this is currently the case, the government announced in August 2015, that the exclusion of petroleum exploration from PD rights is under review.

210 issues regarding mineral permitted development which are relevant and these are outlined below; Time Period for Giving a Direction under Article As outlined above, one of the conditions for permitted development is that the developer gives the council notice of their intention to carry out works. Under Article 7 of Order, the council can then give a direction that the works in question will not constitute permitted development. 4.3 This legislative mechanism is a useful tool which enables the planning authority to intervene if it feels that the nature of a specific proposal will be unacceptable for a range of reasons and as such, provides another additional layer of environmental protection. 4.4 However, it is felt that the period wherein the council must give a direction (21 days) is unduly strict and places an unreasonable burden on the planning authority. In some cases, the development in question may or may not constitute EIA development and as such, will be excluded from permitted development rights by virtue of Article 3. In such cases an EIA determination will be required to be made and this will involve a statutory 28 day time period. Therefore, it is difficult for the council to make a decision (within 21 days) on whether or not to agree that permitted development rights being applicable when the appropriate EIA determination will not be completed. 4.5 It is therefore recommended that the time period for the council to give a direction under Article 7 be extended to a minimum of 28 days to eliminate the disparity in the two time periods. Introduction of a relevant period 4.6 As outlined above, if the developer fails to notify the council of his proposal, then permitted development rights will not apply. However, the legislation does not state that following this notification, no work can commence until the council has or has not decided to issue a direction under Article It is recommended that an additional condition be added which states that permitted development will not apply unless a relevant period has elapsed. The relevant period will be the period ending when the council decides either; a) not to issue a direction under Article 7 OR b) if the council do decide to issue a direction, then at the end of the period when the Department can disallow such a direction. 4.8 If the above condition was implemented then it would be clear to the developer that following submission of their notice, in writing, to the council of their intention to carry out exploratory works, they must wait until due consideration has been given to their proposal before they can commence the works in question.

211 More restrictions on blasting 4.9 Part 16 of the Schedule states that permitted development will not apply to exploratory works which use explosives exceeding 1kg. It can be assumed that the reason for this is to safeguard nearby residents or land uses from the obvious impacts associated with blasting. Exploratory works which use excessive blasting would therefore not constitute permitted development and would require assessment through a planning application MUDC would contend that some consideration should also be given to restricting the frequency with which blasting can take place. At present, the size of the explosive charge is restricted but there are no limitations on how often it can be used. Frequent use of small explosives may also have an environmental impact and it is felt that this aspect of the use of explosive should also be controlled by permitted development rights. 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 In conclusion Mid Ulster District Council is of the opinion that in its present form, Part 16 of the Schedule to The Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 does not provide adequate environmental protection. The modern methods of petroleum exploration have the potential to bring about damaging environmental impacts and it is felt that by allowing permitted development to extend to these types of exploratory works, sufficient consideration is not given to the likelihood and extent of these potential impacts. 5.2 It is recommended that permitted development rights be granted for exploratory works with the conditions (including the following) attached; i. Exploratory works relating petroleum exploration should be excluded. ii. Developer must notify the council in writing of the proposal as per the existing legislation iii. A relevant period be defined and this period must have lapsed for PD rights to apply iv. Conditions regarding the use of explosives and height restrictions must apply as well although specialist advice is needed as to what those exact restrictions should be i.e. what height restriction is required and what size of explosive should be used. 5.3 It is also recommended that the time period under which a council can make a direction under Article 7, be extended to 28 days in line with the period required for an EIA determination. An EIA determination may also be required to ascertain if the proposed works constitute permitted development and it is not desirable that the council should be required to issue a direction under Article 7 when there may still be uncertainty regarding whether or not the works are EIA development and therefore, are indeed, permitted development. 6.0 Recommendation 6.1 It is recommended that members note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DOE in line with the contents of this paper.

212

213 ANNEX A Call for Evidence: Permitted Development Rights for Mineral Exploration Launch date: 14 March 2016 Respond by: 13 May 2016

214 Contents Introduction... 3 How to Respond... 3 Background... 4 Why undertake a review?... 5 Purpose and scope... 5 Next steps... 6 Annex A - Permitted development rights for Minerals Exploration... 7 Annex B - Part 16 of the Schedule to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland)

215 Introduction The Department of the Environment will be undertaking a review of permitted development rights for mineral exploration as set out in Part 16 of the Schedule to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) This Call for Evidence will help inform the scope of this review. How to Respond You are invited to submit your views in response to this Call for Evidence by 5.00pm on 13 May Comments after this deadline will not be accepted. All responses must be marked Mineral Exploration and should be ed to the Department at the following address: ppdlegteam@doeni.gov.uk Please note that your response may be made public by the Department. For example, information people provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality. 3

216 Background 1. In Northern Ireland, the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (GPDO) sets out what type of development can be undertaken without requiring a planning application. These are referred to as permitted development rights and often relate to minor development that is noncontentious and has minimal impact to amenity and the environment. A summary of the permitted development rights set out in the GPDO in relation to Mineral Exploration is included in Annex A. 2. Mineral exploration for all purposes is granted permission by virtue of Class A of Part 16 to the Schedule to the GPDO (see Annex B). It consists of development on any land for a period not exceeding four months of the drilling of boreholes, the carrying out of seismic surveys, or the making of other excavations for the purpose of mineral exploration. 3. It also includes for the purpose of mineral exploration the provision or assembly on that land or adjoining land of any structure required in connection with any of those operations. There is a requirement to pre-notify the relevant district council of the proposed exploration and the council may, should it wish, issue a direction restricting permitted development rights ( known as an Article 7 direction) thus requiring the submission of an application for planning permission. 4. Minerals are an important natural resource and their exploitation makes an essential contribution to Northern Ireland s prosperity and well-being. The minerals extraction industry provides employment, often in rural areas, and produces a wide range of products for a variety of purposes in construction, agriculture and industry. The Department wishes to facilitate sustainable minerals development through balancing the need for specific minerals development proposals against the need to safeguard the environment. 4

217 5. It should not be presumed that successful future exploration will guarantee planning permission to exploit any proven reserves. Future extraction proposals must to be subject to the full rigours of the planning process and consideration of the environmental effects of specific proposals as well as all other material planning considerations. Why undertake a review? 6. Permitted development rights for mineral exploration have remained constant for over 2 decades. The existing provisions were designed to deal with onshore oil and gas exploration involving the conventional techniques that were used at that time. The industry has progressed since then with modern exploration and excavation techniques. In addition, the recent emergence of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction techniques means this is a timely opportunity for the views of all stakeholders to be considered. 7. The Minister for the Environment, Mark H Durkan, is aware of the concerns raised by members of the public and colleagues in the Assembly on the potential environmental impacts of exploratory drilling and wishes to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on key matters that they consider pertinent. The Minister wishes to ensure an appropriate balance between the regulatory burden on the minerals and extractive industries and protecting the environment, amenity and public safety. Purpose and scope 8. This Call for Evidence is part of the process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of permitted development rights for mineral exploration. It is intended to provide further information on the operation and impact of the permitted development rights which currently exist and provide up-to-date evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of exploratory development for minerals going forward. 5

218 9. Whilst the Department welcomes comments on all aspects of permitted development rights for mineral exploration (and any other information and evidence that may assist in the forthcoming review) it is particularly keen to hear views on the following key question. Do you believe that the existing provisions on permitted development rights for mineral exploration (as set out in Annex A and B) provide a suitable balance between supporting operational business activity and environmental protection? If not, please provide information to support your answer. Next steps 10. Responses to this Call for Evidence should be made to the Department by 5:00 p.m. on Friday 13 May The information gathered as a result of this Call for Evidence will be considered by the Department and will help inform the future approach to permitted development rights for mineral exploration. 12. Any necessary revisions to permitted development rights under the GPDO would follow the normal policy development process including public consultation on any draft proposals and the normal process of Assembly scrutiny. DoE Planning Policy Division Causeway Exchange 1-7 Bedford Street Town Parks Belfast BT2 7EG 6

219 Annex A - Permitted development rights for Minerals Exploration Background - Minerals Development and PDRs for minerals exploration in Northern Ireland 1. Class A of Part 16 of the Schedule to the GPDO provides permitted development for mineral exploration consisting of development on any land for a period not exceeding four months of the drilling of boreholes, the carrying out of seismic surveys, or the making of other excavations for the purpose of minerals exploration. It also includes for that purpose the provision or assembly on that land or adjoining land of any structure required in connection with any of those operations. 2. Apart from the four month limit there are also specific exclusions that prevent the exercise of the permitted development where:- a. It is within an area of special scientific interest or site of archaeological interest b. Any explosive charge of more than 1 kilogram is used, or c. Any structure assembled or provided would exceed 3 metres in height where such a structure would be within 3 kilometres of an airport. 3. Development permitted by this Class is also subject to a number of conditions to protect trees, to deal with excavated material, and to ensure that the land is adequately restored (including sealing boreholes and having excavations filled). 4. Importantly the developer must also notify the district council in writing giving details of the location of the proposed development, target minerals, 7

220 details of plant and operations and anticipated timescales. This allows the 8

221 district council, should it wish, to make a direction within 21 days of receipt of the notification that the permitted development right should not apply and that the development should not be carried out unless permission for it is granted on a planning application. 5. Such a direction can be issued for a number of reasons including:- a. That the development is to be carried out on land which is within or affects a sensitive area such as a conservation area, a National Park, a nature reserve, an AONB, an ASSI or a site of archaeological interest; b. That the development either taken by itself or in conjunction with other development would cause serious detriment to the amenity of an area in which it is to be carried out or would adversely affect the setting of a listed building; c. That the development would constitute a serious nuisance to the inhabitants of a nearby residential building, hospital or school; or d. That the development would endanger aircraft using a nearby airport. 6. Permitted development rights are automatically excluded if the proposed works constitute EIA development and all permitted development rights are subject to the relevant provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland)

222 Annex B - Part 16 of the Schedule to the Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 PART 16 MINERAL EXPLORATION Class A Permitted development A. Development on any land during a period not exceeding 4 months consisting of (a) the drilling of boreholes; (b) the carrying out of seismic surveys; or (c) the making of other excavations; Development not permitted for the purpose of mineral exploration, and the provision or assembly on that land or adjoining land of any structure required in connection with any of those operations. A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if (a) the developer has not previously notified the council in writing giving details of the location of the proposed development, target minerals, details of plant and operations and anticipated timescale; (b) any operation is within an area of special scientific interest or site of archaeological interest; (c) any explosive charge of more than 1 kilogram is used; (d) any structure assembled or provided would exceed 3 metres in height where such structure would be within 3 kilometres of an airport. 1

223 Conditions A.2 Development is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions (a) the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the developer s written notification to the council referred to in paragraph A.1(a), unless the council otherwise agrees in writing; (b) no trees on the land shall be removed, felled, lopped or topped and no other thing shall be done on the land likely to harm or damage any trees, unless the council so agrees in writing; (c) before any excavation (other than a borehole) is made, any topsoil and any subsoil shall be separately removed from the land to be 1

224 excavated and stored separately from other excavated material and from each other; (d) within a period of 28 days from the cessation of operations unless the council, in a particular case, agrees otherwise in writing (i) any borehole shall be adequately sealed; (ii) any excavation shall be filled from material from the site; (iii) any structure permitted by Class A and any waste material arising from development permitted by Class A shall be removed from the land; (iv) the surface of the land on which any operations have been carried out shall be levelled and any topsoil replaced as the uppermost layer; and (v) the land shall, so far as is practicable, be restored to its condition before the development took place. Interpretation of Part 16 A.3 For the purposes of Part 16 mineral exploration means ascertaining the presence, extent or quality of any deposit of a mineral with a view to exploiting that mineral; structure means a building, plant or machinery or other structure. 1

225 Report to Subject Mid Ulster Planning Committee DOE Call for Evidence on Strategic planning policy for Development in the Countryside Date 3 May 2016 Reporting Officer Chris Boomer Planning Manager Contact Officer Sinead McEvoy 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with a response to the DoE Call for Evidence in respect of Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside. The call for evidence was issued on 7 th March 2016 and responses are due by 6 th May Background DoE published the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) in September The SPPS consolidates some twenty separate policies into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including one for development in the countryside. The aim of the SPPS 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 Regional Development Strategy During the consultation on the SPPS, DoE received a significant number of representations on planning policy for development in the countryside. As a result, the Minister of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for development in the countryside. This Call for Evidence is part of the process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of strategic planning policy. 3 Key Issues 3.1 The DOE requested views on the following question; Question posed How should strategic planning policy assist with achieving sustainable development to support a vibrant rural community,

226 without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance? Member s attention is drawn to the fact that There are no issues with the SPPS objectives for development in the Countryside. They will strategically guide development in a manner that will ensure our natural and built environment is protected whilst we strive to achieve sustainable growth in our rural areas. The SPPS policy approach to cluster, consolidate and group new developments with existing buildings, is a realistic and sustainable approach to development in the Countryside. Regarding the individual regional strategic policies, there are certain aspects of residential and non-residential policies that require clarification and/or amending. It is argued that these changes at a strategic level will ensure that the SPPS will achieve a greater level of sustainable development in the countryside and will ensure greater protection of our natural and built environment. 4 Resources Financial N/A Human N/A Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A Other 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 Members are requested to note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DoE in line with the contents of this paper.

227 7 List of Documents Attached Mid Ulster District Council response to the DoE Call for Evidence on Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside.

228 Call for Evidence: Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside May 2016

229 DOE Call for Evidence: Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside Purpose: In response to a Call for Evidence from the Department of the Environment (DoE), this paper will provide members with comments relating to the strategic planning policy for development in the countryside. If agreed, these comments will be forwarded to the DoE to inform the scope of their review of regional strategic planning policy for development in the countryside. Content: The paper provides: (i) (ii) Comments relating to the aims, objectives and policy approach of the SPPS in respect of sustainable development in the countryside. The views of Mid Ulster District Council on each regional strategic policy in the SPPS regarding development in the countryside. Recommendation: That the Council note the contents of the paper and agrees that a response be forwarded to the DoE Call for Evidence along the lines set out in the paper. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide members with a response to the DoE Call for Evidence in relation to the Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside. On 7 th March 2016, the Minister of the Environment, issued a Call for Evidence (Annex A) to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on key matters that they consider need to be addressed in the full review of regional strategic planning policy for Development in the Countryside. The call for evidence states that the DOE will be undertaking a review of strategic planning policy for development in the countryside as set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and the Call for Evidence will help inform the scope of the review. 1.2 In explaining why they are undertaking the review the DOE have explained that during the consultation on the SPPS, DoE received a significant number of representations on planning policy for development in the countryside. Taking into account issues raised through the consultation and other representations, the Minister of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for development in the Countryside following publication of the SPPS in final form. 1.3 Members will be aware that the SPPS consolidated some twenty Planning Policy Statements (PPS s) into one document, including a regional policy for Development in the Countryside. It is worth noting that while the SPPS does consolidate the numerous PPS s, those PPS s remain in place as the operational policy until such times as the Council has a Plan Strategy 1

230 adopted. Where the SPPS introduces a change of policy direction and/or provides a policy clarification that would be in conflict with the retained policy the SPPS should be accorded greater weight. However, where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policy this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded to the retained policy. 2.0 Key Matters 2.1 Council welcomes the continued recognition of the importance of our rural area as described in the introductory paragraph (6.61) of the SPPS. It also welcomes the introduction of the fact that the NI Countryside is home to a considerable rural population as well as the inclusion of a definition of Countryside. Given the fact that Mid Ulster has approximately 40% of its households located in a rural area, it is important to have a strategic policy for development in the Countryside that is consistent, well informed and which will be successful in achieving sustainable rural communities in line with the RDS objective to sustain rural communities living in smaller settlements and open countryside The DoE Call for Evidence document, in paragraph 7, states that the DoE are particularly keen to hear views on the following key question: How should strategic planning policy assist with achieving sustainable development to support a vibrant rural community, without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance? 2.3 It is considered that the SPPS policy objectives for development in the Countryside are relevant and appropriate to achieving sustainable development in the Countryside. Magherafelt District Council previously provided comments in response to the draft SPPS (Annex B). These comments were made on behalf of all 3 Councils, now known as Mid Ulster District Council. It was noted that if the SPPS was to include an additional core principle to meet the needs of society then the objectives above would need revisited. The core principles in the SPPS have been amended but they do not include one specific to meeting the needs of society. The SPPS has actually reduced and simplified its core principles, with the vein of meeting the needs of society running through each one. As such, Council is now satisfied that these objectives do not require amendments and as they stand, will assist in achieving sustainable development in the Countryside. 2.4 The authors of the SPPS need to be mindful of the fact that different areas of the countryside have differing issues and therefore strategic policy should be worded to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for Councils to tailor it to reflect the issues in their area. 2.5 The policy approach of the SPPS remains as was under the draft SPPS. Council are satisfied that this approach to cluster, consolidate and group new development with existing established buildings and promote the reuse of previously used buildings is the correct approach to take in order to achieve a sustainable rural community. It will ensure that our local landscape 2

231 character and our built and natural heritage are protected whilst rural growth is also facilitated. The strategic policies also allow for some degree of flexibility for new builds and this is also welcomed. In addition to the policy approach to cluster and consolidate, it is clear that strategic policy must give due regard to character, setting and design. This is reflected in the SPPS and is welcomed as it is essential to ensure the protection of built and natural heritage. 2.6 Comments will now be provided on how MUDC views each regional strategic policy in the SPPS regarding development in the countryside. Residential 2.7 New Dwellings in Existing Clusters MUDC are in general agreement with the approach taken in the SPPS with regards to new dwellings in existing clusters, however, we disagree with the distinction being made for this type of development to be outside of a farm. It is felt that the policy should not prevent a dwelling being permitted in a farm cluster provided the cluster comprises 3 or more substantial farm buildings, the site is located within the farm holding and is bounded by a building on at least 2 sides. 2.8 Replacement Dwellings MUDC are in general agreement with this regional strategic policy, however, we would like to point out that there will be occasions where the dwelling to be replaced is so small that the level of visual impact resulting from a new dwelling of modern day standards, will inevitably be significantly greater. This may need to be acknowledged in the policy wording. 2.9 Dwellings on Farms It is often the case that a farm holding may benefit from more than one development opportunity. Like PPS 21, this regional strategic policy requires that in order to obtain approval for a farm dwelling, no dwellings/development opportunities are to be sold/transferred off the holding within 10 years from the date of application. MUDC would argue that this aspect of the policy is too strict and penalises farmers for having other development opportunities on the holding which they may want to transfer off to their children. The situation may also arise where some farmers ensure that they time the submission of their application is such a way that they can avail of all development opportunities. On this basis, MUDC would query how necessary this element of this policy is. It is also felt that this policy should have a provision for siting farm dwellings away from existing farm buildings in exceptional circumstances (eg) to provide for a retiring farmer, to allow for the disposal of the farm or where significant environmental benefits have been demonstrated by the applicant. MUDC would like to draw your attention to problems in interpreting what constitutes an active and established farm for the purposes of getting approval for a farm dwelling. There is a lack of clarity in the SPPS as to whether a 3

232 business number is needed in order to demonstrate that the farm is established. MUDC are of the view that strategic clarity is required on this matter so that confusion at an operational level does not continue and indeed is not carried through to the Local Development Plan. There is also a great deal of confusion over the issue of letting land out in con acre and it appears that in some cases the Planning Appeals Commission are prepared to accept this as evidence of active farming in the absence of a business number. MUDC would ask the Department to give consideration to simplifying the policy, perhaps by accepting that land over a specified hectarage which has been in the applicant s ownership for over 6 years and has been farmed (albeit through letting to another farmer) would meet the farm case. In addition MUDC considers that the imposition of a 10 year hiatus between granting approval of dwellings on an active and established farm is too restrictive. MUDC would request that the Department give consideration to the reduction of the 10 year intervening time period between approvals for dwellings so as to allow farmers to cater for their children s desire to live in the countryside. Alternatively the policy could be amended to allow for more than one dwelling on a farm over the same 10 year period. In many instances farmers have more than one child connected to the farm enterprise and yet the policy necessitates the passing of 10 years or possibly more in order to accommodate them. Within the SPPS, Dwellings on farms, it stresses the importance of accommodating those engaged in the farm business or other rural dwellers. It is the opinion of MUDC that this policy does not cater for other rural dwellers and MUDC would therefore request that the Department considers an alteration to the policy to reflect the fact that MUDC has a significant population that reside in the countryside. Such an amended policy should allow opportunities for new dwellings for those not involved in agriculture, to enable families which have a connection to an area, to continue to reside in the area in which they were raised. On an operational level the functioning of CTY 10 has become even more problematic due to the change in the way farm records are being kept by DARD. As part of their changed practices DARD no longer retain copies of historic farm maps connected to a business I.D. and this presents additional challenges to Development Management staff when assessing such planning applications. This is compounded by the fact that there are businesses operating, that are not registered with DARD, that are letting land in conacre which can be viewed as evidence of farm activity. MUDC would urge the Department to rethink this policy in order to provide greater clarity Dwellings for non-agricultural business enterprises MUDC would argue that this regional strategic policy should be clearer as to what constitutes an established non-agricultural business. It should also 4

233 include criteria which states that the dwelling must be sited adjacent to the existing established business, keeping the policy in line with the approach of the SPPS to cluster, consolidate and group new buildings with existing buildings 2.11 Infill/Ribbon Development MUDC have experienced problems in assessing planning applications for infill development due to the wording of the existing policy in PPS 21. To negate against this confusion, it is felt that this regional strategic policy should define the size of a gap site. In the context of Mid Ulster there are different scenarios where a gap could accommodate either one or two dwellings. If this regional strategic policy defined the size of an acceptable gap then the policy could operate in a more sustainable manner. It would also ensure consistency across neighbouring council districts with regards to infill development Conversion and Reuse of Existing Buildings for Residential Use It is felt that this regional strategic policy is too prescriptive. MUDC would also like the term Locally Important Buildings revisited as Locally Important Buildings could mean different things in different districts. It is also felt that a better approach is to have a policy that states what can t be converted rather than stating what can be converted Personal and Domestic Circumstances MUDC are generally content with this regional strategic policy. It allows for personal and domestic cases of a sensitive nature, which can be dealt with on a case by case basis. However, it possibly doesn t go far enough to accommodate those who provide or avail of care. Recent research carried out for MUDC by Oxford Economics recognises that the numbers of carers within Mid Ulster have increased by 20% over a ten year period. As such, there could be merit in having a regional strategic policy which allows for a dwelling for carer or someone availing of care. In order to be sustainable the dwelling should be attached or be an extension to an existing dwelling. This policy would allow people to remain living in their own communities and would result in less travel both of which are indicators of sustainability Temporary Caravans/Mobile Homes MUDC are in general agreement with this regional strategic policy. It is less restrictive that the current policy in PPS21 in terms of the siting of the caravan/mobile home Social and Affordable Housing It is argued that this regional strategic policy needs revisited. It does not define what constitutes a small settlement. If a need has been demonstrated why is there being a distinction made regarding the size of the settlement? Surely the only test in this scenario should be the needs test. Furthermore, MUDC are of the opinion that this policy is somewhat contradictory. The policy states that it will allow for a small group of dwellings but then goes on to say that the appropriate number of dwellings will depend upon the identified need. This 5

234 contradiction requires clarification Dispersed Rural Communities MUDC notice that there is a complete absence of provision for Dispersed Rural Communities (DRC s) in the SPPS. There are currently 3 DRC s in Mid Ulster. These DRC s contain unique rural communities which deserve to be sustained and protected. MUDC would welcome the re-introduction of a strategic provision for development in DRC s. This could include controls for single dwellings and clachan type development. DRC s are remote areas in the district with very low development pressure where the facilitation of limited residential development would assist in the regeneration of that ruralarea. Non Residential 2.17 Farm Diversification MUDC are content with this regional strategic policy and welcome the recognition that new buildings will be acceptable in exceptional circumstances Agriculture and Forestry Development It is the opinion of MUDC that this regional strategic policy is too restrictive and overbearing. It does not allow for this type of development for someone starting out in the agriculture or forestry industry where they do not have an established farm or where farms have been left to family members and have to be subdivided as a result. The 6 year test for an established agriculture holding or forestry enterprise could be relaxed. This would be beneficial in a strategic context, given the importance of agriculture in rural Northern Ireland. 6

235 2.19 Conversion and Reuse of Existing Buildings for Non Residential Use It is argued that this regional strategic policy is unnecessary. Proposals for converting and reusing existing buildings for a non-residential use are normally assessed in the context of the proposed land use. If this policy is retained it will be important to define what exactly locally important means. What is locally important in one Council District, may not be locally important in another Council District. 3.0 Conclusion It is the opinion of MUDC that there are no issues with the SPPS objectives for development in the Countryside. They will strategically guide development in a manner that will ensure our natural and built environment is protected whilst we strive to achieve sustainable growth in our rural areas. The SPPS policy approach to cluster, consolidate and group new developments with existing buildings, is a realistic and sustainable approach to development in the Countryside. Regarding the individual regional strategic policies, MUDC are of the opinion that certain aspects require clarification and/or amending. It is argued that these changes at a strategic level will ensure that the SPPS will achieve a greater level of sustainable development in the countryside and will ensure greater protection of our natural and built environment. 4.1 Recommendation 4.2 It is recommended that members note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DOE in line with the contents of this paper. 7

236 ANNEX A Call for Evidence: Strategic planning policy for Development in the Countryside Launch date: 7 March 2016 Respond by: 6 May

237 Contents Introduction... 1 How to Respond... 1 Background... 2 Why undertake a review?... 3 Purpose and scope... 3 Next steps... 4 Annex A: Development in the Countryside subject policy as contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for NorthernIreland

238 Introduction The Department of the Environment (DoE) will be undertaking a review of strategic planning policy for development in the countryside as set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS). This Call for Evidence will help to inform the scope of this review. How to Respond You are invited to submit your views in response to this Call for Evidence by 6 May Comments after this deadline will not beaccepted. All responses must be marked Development in the Countryside and should be ed to the Department at the following address: sppsteam@doeni.gov.uk Please note that your response may be made public by DoE. For example, information people provide in response to this call for evidence, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality. 14

239 Background 1. DoE published the SPPS Planning for Sustainable Development in September The SPPS consolidates some twenty separate policy publications into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including regional policy for Development in the Countryside. A copy of the SPPS Subject Policy Development in the Countryside is attached at Annex A. 2. 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 Regional Development Strategy The policy objectives are to: manage growth to achieve appropriate and sustainable patterns of development which supports a vibrant rural community; conserve the landscape and natural resources of the rural area and to protect it from excessive, inappropriate or obtrusive development and from the actual or potential effects of pollution; facilitate development which contributes to a sustainable rural economy; and promote high standards in the design, siting and landscaping of development. 3. The current strategic policy approach is to cluster, consolidate and group new development with existing established buildings and promote the re-use of previously used buildings. The SPPS identifies a range of development types (both residential and non-residential) which in principle are considered to be acceptable in the countryside and provides that other types of development will be considered as part of the development plan process in line with the other policies set out within the SPPS. 15

240 Why undertake a review? 4. During the consultation on the SPPS, DoE received a significant number of representations on planning policy for development in the countryside. Taking into account issues raised through the consultation on the SPPS and other representations from the public and elected representatives, the Minister of the Environment, Mark H Durkan, committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for development in the countryside following publication of the SPPS in final form. Purpose and scope 5. This Call for Evidence is part of the process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of strategic planning policy. The evidence received will improve DoE s understanding of the operation and impact of the existing strategic policy and provide up-to-date evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of development in the countryside. 6. It should be noted that this Call for Evidence relates to the regional strategic policy for development in the countryside rather than local policy which will be brought forward through Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. Councils are responsible for preparing their LDP and in doing so they must take account of the strategic policy set out in the SPPS. 7. Whilst DoE welcomes comments on all aspects of strategic planning policy for development in the countryside (and any other information and evidence that may assist in the forthcoming review) it is particularly keen to hear views on the following key question. How should strategic planning policy assist with achieving sustainable development to support a vibrant rural community, without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance? 16

241 Next steps 8. The information gathered as a result of the Call for Evidence will be considered by DoE and will help inform the upcoming review of strategic planning policy for development in the countryside. 9. Depending, in part, upon the evidence received, the scope of the review will be refined to focus on the key issues where further research should be undertaken. Any necessary revisions to strategic planning policy will follow the normal policy development process. This will entail preparation of a consultation draft policy document which would be subject to full public consultation. DoE Planning Policy Division Causeway Exchange 1-7 Bedford Street Town Parks BELFAST BT2 7EG. 17

242 Annex A Development in the Countryside 6.61 The countryside is recognised as one of our greatest assets, with its highly valued landscapes, an outstanding coastline, a complex variety of wildlife, rich built and cultural heritage, for the ecosystem services it provides, and for its sense of place and history. In addition to its role and function as a recreational and tourist asset the countryside also supports our important agricultural industry, offers potential opportunities for sustainable growth in new sectors, and is home to a considerable rural population. For the purpose of this document the countryside is defined as land lying outside of settlement limits as identified in Local Development Plans (LDPs) To maintain and enhance the attractiveness of the countryside as a place to invest, live and work, the countryside requires a sustainable approach to new development, consistent with the Regional Development Strategy 2035 (RDS) The RDS recognises that to sustain rural communities, new development and employment opportunities are required which respect local, social and environmental circumstances. Facilitating development in appropriate locations is considered necessary to ensure proposals are integrated appropriately within rural settlements or in the case of countryside locations, within the rural landscape Government policy also recognises that there are wide variations across Northern Ireland in terms of the economic, social and environmental characteristics of rural areas. Policy approaches to new development should therefore reflect differences within the region, be sensitive to local needs and be sensitive to environmental issues including the ability of settlements and landscapes to absorb development. This may involve recognising areas that are particularly sensitive to change and areas which have lower sensitivities and thus provide opportunities to accommodate sustainable development. It is also important to take into account the role and function of rural settlements and accessibility to existing services and infrastructure. Such approaches should also reflect and complement the SPPS 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. Regional Strategic Objectives 6.66 The policy objectives for development in the countryside are to: manage growth to achieve appropriate and sustainable patterns of development which supports a vibrant rural community; conserve the landscape and natural resources of the rural area and to protect 18

243 it from excessive, inappropriate or obtrusive development and from the actual or potential effects of pollution; facilitate development which contributes to a sustainable rural economy; and promote high standards in the design, siting and landscaping of development Planning and other environmental policies must therefore play their part in facilitating sustainable development in the countryside but not at the expense of the region s rich natural assets and not at the expense of the natural and built environment. Regional Strategic Policy 6.68 In preparing LDPs councils shall bring forward a strategy for sustainable development in the countryside, together with appropriate policies and proposals that must reflect the aims, objectives and policy approach of the SPPS, tailored to the specific circumstances of the plan area The policy approach must be to cluster, consolidate, and group new development with existing established buildings, and promote the re-use of previously used buildings. This sustainable approach facilitates essential new development, which can benefit from the utilisation of existing services such as access and drainage, whilst simultaneously mitigating the potential adverse impacts upon rural amenity and scenic landscapes arising from the cumulative effect of one-off, sporadic development upon rural amenity and landscape character All development in the countryside must integrate into its setting, respect rural character, and be appropriately designed Development in the countryside must not mar the distinction between a settlement and the surrounding countryside, or result in urban sprawl The policy approach for development in the countryside will also reflect and complement the overall approach to housing growth across a plan area The following strategic policy for residential and non-residential development in the countryside should also be taken into account in the preparation of LDPs and determination of planning applications. Residential Development New dwellings in existing clusters: provision should be made for a dwelling at an existing cluster of development which lies outside a farm provided it appears as a visual entity in the landscape; and is associated with a focal point; and the development can be absorbed into the existing cluster through rounding off and consolidation and will not significantly alter its existing character, or visually intrude into the open countryside; 19

244 Replacement dwellings: provision should be made for the replacement of existing dwellings where the building to be replaced exhibits the essential characteristics of a dwelling and, as a minimum all external structural walls are substantially intact. Replacement dwellings must be located within the curtilage of the original dwelling where practicable, or at an alternative position nearby where there are demonstrable benefits in doing so. Replacement dwellings must not have a visual impact significantly greater than the existing building. In cases where the original building is retained, it will not be eligible for replacement again. Planning permission will not be granted for the replacement of a listed dwelling unless there are exceptional circumstances; Dwellings on farms: provision should be made for a dwelling house on an active 26 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; Dwellings for non-agricultural business enterprises: provision should be made for a new dwelling in connection with an established nonagricultural business enterprise. A site specific need must exist that makes it essential for an employee of the business to live at the site of their work; Infill/ribbon development: provision should be made for the development of a small gap site in an otherwise substantial and continuously built up frontage. Planning permission will be refused for a building which creates or adds to a ribbon of development; The conversion and re-use of existing buildings for residential use: provision should be made for the sympathetic conversion and re-use, with adaptation if necessary, of a locally important building (such as former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings), as a single dwelling where this would secure its upkeep and retention. Provision should also be made for the conversion of a locally important building to provide more than one dwelling where the building is of sufficient size; the conversion involves minimal intervention; and, the intensity of the use is considered appropriate to the locality. A former dwelling previously replaced and retained as an ancillary building to the new replacement dwelling will not be eligible for conversion back into residential use under this policy; A dwelling where there are personal and domestic circumstances: provision should be made for a dwelling to meet the long terms needs of a 26 For the purposes of the SPPS agricultural activity is as defined by Article 4 of the European Council Regulations (EC) No. 1307/

245 person where there are compelling and site specific reasons related to the person s personal or domestic circumstances, and where there are no alternative solutions to meet the particular circumstances of the case; A temporary caravan: provision should be made for a residential caravan or mobile home for a temporary period in exceptional circumstances. These may include the provision of temporary residential accommodation pending the development of a permanent dwelling, or where there are compelling and site specific reasons related to personal or domestic circumstances; and, Social and affordable housing development: where a need has been identified by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, or the relevant housing authority, plan policies should support the development of a small group of dwellings adjacent to or near a small settlement. The appropriate number of social/affordable dwellings permissible will depend upon the identified need and the requirement to ensure the development is sited and designed to integrate sympathetically with its surroundings. Non-residential Development Farm diversification: provision should be made for a farm diversification scheme where the farm business is currently active and established (for a minimum 6 years) and, the proposal is to be run in conjunction with the agricultural operations of the farm. Proposals must involve the re-use or adaptation of existing buildings, with new buildings only being acceptable in exceptional circumstances; Agriculture and forestry development: provision should be made for development on an active and established (for a minimum 6 years) agricultural holding or forestry enterprise where the proposal is necessary for the efficient operation of the holding or enterprise. New buildings must be sited beside existing farm or forestry buildings on the holding or enterprise. An alternative site away from existing buildings will only being acceptable in exceptional circumstances; and, The conversion and re-use of existing buildings for non-residential use: provision should be made for the sympathetic conversion and re-use of a suitable locally important building of special character or interest (such as former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings) for a variety of alternative uses where this would secure its upkeep and retention, and where the nature and scale of the proposed nonresidential use would be appropriate to its countryside location Other types of development in the countryside apart from those set out above should be considered as part of the development plan process in line withthe other policies set out within the SPPS Some areas of the countryside exhibit exceptional landscapes, such as mountains, stretches of the coast or lough shores, and certain views or vistas, wherein the quality of the landscape and unique amenity value is such that development should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Where 21

246 appropriate these areas should be designated as Special Countryside Areas in LDPs, and appropriate policies brought forward to ensure their protection from unnecessary and inappropriate development. Local policies may also be brought forward to maintain the landscape quality and character of Areas of High Scenic Value. Implementation 6.76 The LDP process will play an important role for councils in identifying key features and assets of the countryside and balancing the needs of rural areas and communities with the protection of the environment. This should include an environmental assets appraisal and landscape assessment which will provide the evidence base for the purposes of bringing forward an appropriate policy approach to development in the countryside. This should take into account Landscape Character Assessments In all circumstances proposals for development in the countryside must be sited and designed to integrate sympathetically with their surroundings, must not have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area, and meet other planning and environmental considerations including those for drainage, sewerage, access and road safety. Access arrangements must be in accordance with the Department s published guidance Supplementary planning guidance contained within Building on Tradition : A Sustainable Design Guide for the Northern Ireland Countryside must be taken into account in assessing all development proposals in the countryside. 27 Development Control Advice Note 15 Vehicular Access Standards (Second Edition) August

247 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council ANNEX B MAGHERAFELT DISTRICT COUNCIL Response to: Draft Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland 24

248 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Executive Summary This response to the draft Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland is made on behalf of Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council (hereby referred to as the Council). It addresses each of the 36 consultation questions contained in the draft statement and captures collectively the observations, comments and recommendations of the Council. In particular key issues concerning the implementation of policy, transitional arrangements and renewables are highlighted. Council observes that the proposed transitional arrangements are overly complex and that if the draft SPPS had emerged as a more strategic expression of planning policy there would potentially have been more justification for the arrangements proposed. Council takes the view that a simplification of the transitional arrangements would potentially reduce the pressure on plan making teams, incentivise expeditious completion of plan making, simplify planning for the public and reduce the risk of planning byappeal. It is the Councils recommendation that the SPPS should immediately replace the suite of PPS documents when it becomes operational on 1 April If the Department is concerned about a loss of detailed operational planning policy the important aspects of PPS coverage could be published as guidance SPPG to sit alongside the SPPS. Councils could choose to either rely on SPPG when preparing their development plans or, with the Department s oversight and agreement, make it clear in their development plans that specific provisions supersede equivalent sections of the SPPG. Given the existence of this material within the PPS series it should be possible to publish SPPG quite quickly after the conclusion of the SPPS process. In recognising the importance of a competitive and vital economy, Council recommend that the Economic Section be reviewed and the focus is placed on the promotion of a Competitive Economy. The encouragement for the inclusion of Special Economic Zones both inside and outside zoned land should be tailored to improve local economies as required. The SPPS is an opportunity to clearly establish a strategic policy context that further stimulates economic growth through the delivery of much needed market and affordable housing. The SPPS should make it plain that: housing is very important from a social, economic and environmental perspective objectively assessed need for all types of housing will be met in the most sustainable way achievable this will be dependent on ensuring that there is an adequate and continued deliverable supply of land for all types of housing. Under the new arrangements post April 2015, Council will have the ability to interpret the prevailing policy provisions for the first time and deal with some of the issues around consistency, opportunity and flexibility which emerged in the early phase of planning under PPS21. 25

249 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Council is acutely aware of the challenges posed by renewables and in particular wind farm development. While the SPPS is pitched at a strategic level the key issues such as noise and visual impact concerns should not be diluted from thepolicy. Council support the requirement for LDP s to set out policies and proposals that support a diverse range of renewable energy developments. Council recommends the following additions (which should follow through into the decision taking transitional policies): A revised approach to assessing cumulative impact for wind energy development which takes into consideration the cumulative impact of existing turbines and those which have extant planning permission. Appropriate weighting to be given to the Environmental, Social and Economic benefits in line with the three pillars of sustainable development in the determination of planning applications for renewable energy developments. Council recommends that the policy provisions of PPS18 are reviewed in the SPPS and in addition applicant s are required to fully quantify the community benefits associated with their proposed development. 26

250 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 1 The Purpose of Planning Do you think the purpose of planning set out in this SPPS is appropriate for Northern Ireland? If no, please explain how this could be improved. Council welcome the expression of purpose as outlined in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.4 and would observe that this statement of intent similar to what should be our equivalent of the National Planning Policy Framework s (NPPF) golden thread does not work its way through the entire document. The purpose of planning as currently described resonates strongly with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as currently set out in paragraph It also strongly emphasises the Executive s Programme for Government (PfG) and the emphasis on economic growth. There is a sense that the central purpose at the forefront of the document is lost as the draft includes quite significant levels of detail around matters such as noise and air quality and also a ver y descriptive series of sections on how the new planning system will operate. Council acknowledges that this SPPS is drafted for all users of the planning system and that it has been issued at a critical point ahead of the Reform of Public Administration but would respectfully suggest that it may be possible to include parts of the first 30 pages as appendices to allow a more successful carriage of the central purpose of planning and the key core principles. Council suggests that it would also be in the interest of users for a comprehensive set of guidance notes to be issued along the SPPS consistent with the advice contained in the report of stakeholder engagement discussions of Spring/Summer Consultation Question 2 Core Planning Principles Do you think the Department has identified suitable core planning principles for the reformed two tier planning system? If no, please provide further information? As one of the new planning authorities, Council recognise that there is a need to explain how the planning system works and that the SPPS needs to be easily understood by all, including members of the public as users of the system. Council takes the view that there may be an opportunity for further consolidation of this front section of the draft. In terms of an addition, Council suggests the inclusion of a core principle centred on meeting the needs of society. This would go some way towards striking a balance in terms of the weight to be afforded to economic considerations. 27

251 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 3 Furthering Sustainable Development Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. Given the central importance of sustainable development to planning, Council considers that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be repositioned in the draft. Presently it is located at page 30 of the document which is at the end of what is essentially the new version of PPS1. This reference should be at the beginning of the document either within the Purpose for Planning or where furthering sustainable development is set out as the first of the core planning principles. As an iteration of the existing paragraph 59 of PPS1, and to immediately carry through the text on the purpose of planning, it is important that it features prominently, at the beginning of the SPPS. The preference would be within the Purpose for Planning section given the fundamental need for emphasis of this point which would suggest that it should sit apart from the core principles. Council notes the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) and understands the importance of each, as well as the need for discretion in the weight to be attached to each strand depending on the analysis of the issues raised by individual development proposals. Council is at present observes that there is disconnect between the purpose of planning, as drafted and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Council was interested in the Scottish experience with its SPP where the direction of travel is to essentially subsume what was previously a clear focus on sustainable economic development within a new expression for the presumption of sustainable development. The Scottish Government reinforces that this does not mean development at any costs, it requires an assessment of the costs and benefits of a proposal. The draft policy states that due weight should be given to net economic benefit. This approach is similar to the English system andnppf. Council recognises the challenge of establishing an approach which both embraces the prospect of positive development/growth and provides sufficient comfort to provide a basis for the refusal of poor quality, unsustainable or environmentally damaging proposals. Council also notes the strong rural amenity of its district area with a balance to be established between protection of assets and promotion of the economy at all levels including rural businesses and developments. Essentially what emerges is the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless there would be harm to interests of acknowledged planning importance. The difficulty is the approach to sustainable development in the early sections which is somewhat more ambiguous and unnecessarily cautious than the presumption itself. What should be an identifiable and coherent golden thread through the document is sometimes quite difficult todiscern. 28

252 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 4 Improving Health and Wellbeing Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. The majority of the content under this heading is focused on new operational policy referencing noise and air quality two areas which are currently outside the parameters of the suite of Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). Their inclusion at this point both interrupts the flow of this part of the document and represents an unnecessarily detailed tangent within what is a reasonably strategic part of the document. The linkage to these detailed issues is also perhaps somewhat inconsistent with the intention of the inclusion of well-being in the legislation. Consideration should be given to relocating these statements to another part of the SPPS perhaps within the subject policy section. Consultation Question 5 Creating and Enhancing Shared Space Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. Council welcome the inclusion of this core planning principle. Were the Department minded to further streamline the document, this relatively succinct core planning principle could be consolidated within the design and place making core principle given the resonance in subject matter. Consultation Question 6 Delivering Spatial Planning Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. Council observe that it would be helpful to fully explain by definition what Spatial Planning means. Currently paragraph 3.29 refers to both the presumption (positively, in favour of development) and proactive approach (essentially a point of approach and practice) rather than deal with the central point about how spatial planning goes beyond land use planning to provide a new constituency for the function with more far reaching and better quality outcomes. The Department has sought to articulate a link between community planning and spatial planning. It is not clear to Council how the aspiration set out in paragraph 3.31 can be met if there is a lack of clarity about how the new local planning authority deliver spatial planning. Council note there must be mechanisms to have strong input into the applications which will have major impact on local constituents. Reference is made to integration with other programmes, plan policies and projects, and this section provides an opportunity for further explanation of how the status 29

253 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council and role of the Regional Development Strategy, Community Plan and LDP interlink in the delivery of spatial planning. That said, Council stresses the importance of flexibility in decision making and empowerment to make decisions and set its own direction fully reinforced by the provisions of the Community Plan and LDP. Consultation Question 7 Observing a Plan-Led System Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. Paragraphs are reiteration of the legislation provisions. Council note that there may be benefits to cross reference the provisions on prematurity (paragraph 5.34) given the need to understand how to consider what weight should be given to plans at different stages of their life (as outlined in paragraphs of the NPPF). An observation is that the Department has taken a view not to introduce similar provisions to those found in the English and Welsh equivalents where there are clear statements to the effect that where plans are outdated or silent there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policies which are not in conformity with the key principle of sustainable development should not be given any weight in the determination of planningapplications. The SPPS as currently drafted places great weight on a robust plan led system (paragraph 3.45 for example) but until the new LDP s are in place, where plans are out of date, there needs to be a robust presumption led approach. Consultation Question 8 Supporting Good Design, Positive Place-Making, and Urban and Rural Stewardship Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. The Department outlines the 10 principles of quality places from Living Places and provides a separate set of principles for good place making in the countryside from Building on Tradition. Council welcomes the distinction between urban and rural but observes that the countryside principles are very structure focused and do not take into consideration the wide range of development in the countryside (e.g. farming/industrial/minerals) which would benefit from reference to design consideration. Consultation Question 9 Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement and Front-loading. Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. 30

254 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council This core planning principle provides a summary of the obligations as set out in legislation. Council would welcome further clarification within the final document on the requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement (paragraph 3.41) and how this would be undertaken, along with linkages to Community Planning. Council also notes the consultation on thresholds between the different categories of development in the development management hierarchy and looks forward to the opportunity engage in the preparation of associated secondary legislation. Consultation Question 10 Enhancing Local Democratic Accountability Do you think that this is an appropriate approach for this core planning principle? If no, please provide further information. Council views this approach as broadly acceptable but consideration for an amendment to address issues around how the Department as a central planning authority will interact with the councils as local planning authorities under the new regime may be considered. Members of the public will wish to understand what the limits are to local decision making and why they have been set. Consultation Question 11 Decision-taking Principles and Practices Do you consider the decision taking principles and processes outlined above are appropriate for a reformed two-tier planning system? If no, please provide further information. This question considers a substantial section within the SPPS which is dedicated to both the preparation of LDPs and the development management process associated with making decisions on planning applications. Council provides the following comments: Local Development Plans Council notes the further expression of the presumption in paragraph 4.7 and would question whether this is an appropriate location for such a statement (see earlier comments at Question 3). Paragraph 4.14 refers to a statutory requirement to monitor a plan on an annual and five year basis. It is unclear which part of the legislation is being referred to at this point (check). It is unclear in this section how the Department will secure co-operation between Councils. Given the significant powers available to the Department to intervene (paragraph 4.25 for example), additional guidance would be welcomed on this point. The 40 month indicative timeline for the preparation of both parts of the new development plan is challenging. Members are, however, confident that the new Council, assisted by the resources from the Department, will strive to achieve thisobjective. Development Management In light of previous comments, given the importance in determination of proposals, this section ought to commence with the presumption in favour of sustainable development rather than close with it. 31

255 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Council comment that a substantial departure from a development plan (paragraph 5.6) need not necessarily be a regionally significant application and could be determined locally, or potentially fall within the major category which would allow a call in but not as requisite. Council would welcome early sight of the call in criteria for major planning applications (paragraph 5.7). Paragraph 5.9 could be linked/expanded to refer also to the officer delegation schemes referred to in paragraph 5.14 to ensure all application categories are referenced in the development hierarchy. Council anticipate that the new local planning authority will indeed make performance agreements available to developers proposing major developments but would welcome the opportunity to agree this prior to the Department making a commitment on its behalf (paragraph 5.11). Council would welcome further advice on the circumstances outlined in paragraph 5.13 where major developments are referred to the Department for call in-consideration but are returned to council. In the interests of completeness, it may be appropriate to refer to the award of costs at appeals after paragraph There is an implicit suggestion in paragraph 5.28 that where there is a choice between planning conditions and planning agreements, conditions are preferable. This mirrors the current position as provided for in PPS1. Council suggests that this principle should be made more explicit in the final version of the SPPS. The principle set out in paragraph 5.29 and continued into paragraph 5.30 should be expanded to deal with the matter of viability in the planning system. As noted elsewhere there is very limited reference to the important matter of viability in the SPPS. It is unclear whether the forthcoming consultation on developer contributions will extend beyond affordable housing. If it does not there is a need to review the SPPS with specific reference to viability considerations in planning. Consultation Question 12 Archaeology and Built Heritage Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Archaeology and Built Heritage? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council observe that the heritage policies have become less clear and precise in establishing their intent and that the presumptions in favour/against which are currently in PPS6 have been deleted. Specific examples include such references within BH1, BH5, BH7 and BH10. Council observe that the heritage policies have been detrimentally weakened as part of this consolidation process. Policy controlling development of or near heritage assets must be made explicitly clear. Council recommend that the policy be more specific on the use of sympathetic materials, details and techniques employed in the extensions or alterations of a Listed Building, or provide supplementary guidance. Council note the absence of any required commitment to redevelop a site post demolition of buildings in a Conservation Area. The normal expectation was commitment to a programme for redevelopment. 32

256 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council In general the Council note that the thrust of policy is generally similar to that in the NPPF and set out in a similarly clear way. Change in some terminology is viewed as a weakening of the policy and particularly where clear direction isrequired. Consultation Question 13 Coastal Development Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Coastal Development? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council offers no comment on this proposedpolicy. Consultation Question 14 Control of Outdoor Advertisements Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on the Control of Outdoor Advertisements? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. The provisions of Article 67 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 requires the Department to make regulations for restricting or regulating the display of advertisements, so far as it appears to the Department to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety. This is transposed into Article 130 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which outlines that any such regulations may provide for requiring the consent of the Council to be obtained for the display of advertisements. This section of the SPPS sets out that the policy objectives for the control of outdoor advertisements are to ensure that they respect amenity and do not prejudice public safety, the SPPS introduces an additional test that requires advertisements to contribute positively to the appearance of the environment. Due to the control of outdoor advertisements being covered in primary legislation (which will remain the case) Council does not consider it necessary to include a separate subject policy on advertisements in the SPPS akin to the SPP and NPPF. Whilst the SPP makes no mention of advertisements, the NPPF refers to signage in paragraphs 67 and 68 under the heading of Good Design. Council recommends that this approach is applied in the SPPS. Council suggests to the Department to remove the additional policy test from the SPPS, that is, delete the wording contribute positively to the appearance of the environment, which is above and beyond the legislative requirements. Additionally, Council suggests that a simple design guidance document on advertisements is produced centrally by the Department, which would replace the need for the LDP to include operational policies on advertisements. 33

257 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 15 Development in the Countryside Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Development in the Countryside? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council welcome the recognition of the importance of our rural area as described in the introductory paragraphs of this SPPS. Northern Ireland has a different pattern of settlement and culture of living in the open countryside than other parts of the United Kingdom. This is not recognised or taken account of in the prevailing policy context. Planning applications for single dwellings and other buildings represents the single largest category of applications across the three pats of Mid Ulster. Paragraph 6.56 sets out the familiar aim of the need to balance environmental protection and sustaining rural communities. The policy objectives in paragraph 6.57 are an expression of the need for this balance and the sustainable approach set out in paragraph 6.58 is the crux paragraph which speaks of the need to cluster, consolidate, group and re-use. These objectives may need to be revisited should the Department accept that an additional core principle focused on meeting the needs of society be introduced. Council also observe that aspirations of a rural community as expressed in a community plan (still to be quantified) may not sit comfortably with a spatial plan that does not allow for flexibility beyond reuse, consolidation and clustering. Council requires sufficient flexibility to produce its own strategy for development in the countryside provided this reflects the aim, objectives and approach of the SPPS and which resonate with PPS21. Under the new arrangements post April 2015, Council will have the ability to interpret the prevailing policy provisions for the first time and deal with some of the issues around consistency, opportunity and flexibility which emerged in the early phase of planning under PPS21. It is clear, however, that PPS21 is essentially retained in strategic, outline form and currently does little to address the well known issues around the scale of opportunity for non farming ruraldwellers. Council presumes that in issuing the SPPS in its current form, the Department has, with due regard to the Ministerial Statement of July 2013, determined that there is no need to revisit this aspect of the policy. In the circumstances, Council would welcome an early indication of exactly what flexibility it has in preparing what will be the local expression of the existing strategic policy context, particularly the extent to which it is bound by the familiar range of opportunities currently listed. 34

258 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 16 Economic Development, Industry and Commerce Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Economic Development, Industry and Commerce? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Despite the fact that Council endorse the overall policy objectives and support the aim in the SPPS of facilitating the economic development needs of Northern Ireland, Council observes that the content of the economic section is overly prescriptive, too focused on operational policy and less strategic in nature. In recognising the importance of a competitive and vital economy, Council recommend that the economic section be reviewed and that the first subject topic listed is the promotion of a competitive economy. The language used throughout the policy section should be positive and flexible to adapt to changing circumstances and new (emerging) business sectors. The encouragement for the inclusion of special economic zones both inside and outside zoned land in rural areas should be tailored to improve local economies asrequired. Council is of the view that current policy is blighting sites by prohibiting the re-use of existing and previously used zoned employment/industrial land for economic uses that fall out with the current definition. It is recommended that same definition as the English NPPF, is used, B Use Classes, public and community uses and main town centre uses (but excluding housing development). Council requests that the SPPS explicitly sets out within the document that Council can apply significant weight to the economic benefits of a proposal in the assessment of any future planning application. Furthermore, the policy should allow scope for alternative uses on sites where it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose, and can adapt to address emerging growth businesses. There is little or no scope for small scale rural enterprise to grow within the very narrow confines of the policy. A more flexible policy which supports rural enterprise and allows for small scale growth in the open countryside outside of the parameters of farm-diversification is required and is not allowed for in the SPSS. The Council recommends that paragraph 6.83 be deleted. Consultation Question 17 Flood Risk Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the emerging planning policy approach on Flood Risk as expressed in PPS 15 Revised (Draft) Planning and Flood Risk? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Clarification is required in respect of the relationship between this consultation and the consultation for draft PPS15. Council note that the SPPS policy does not accommodate for exceptional circumstances where culverting or canalisation is required. 35

259 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Council request that the following exceptional circumstances (as set-out in PPS15) should be reintroduced. Where such works are necessary as part of a flood relief scheme; Where the culverting of a short length of a watercourse is necessary to provide access to a development site or part thereof; or When it is demonstrated by the applicant that there is no practicable alternative to the culverting of the watercourse. Consultation Question 18 Housing in Settlements Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, existing planning policy on Housing? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Facilitating the delivery of housing is a key purpose of the planning system. Council recognise that the purpose of the SPPS is to reduce the body of planning policy but the brief reference to the significance of housing, from an economic, social and renewal perspective in paragraph is disproportionate to the importance of housing, particularly in the case of a rural district where rural housing supports the rural economy. Whilst there is also a brief reference in the social element of sustainable development on page 9, Council suggest that there is potential to secure the desired emphasis by introducing a new Core Planning Principle (CPP) centred on meeting people s needs. Alternatively more needs to be made of the multi-dimensional importance of housing in the introductory section of the SPP which moves quickly into a description of process. Particularly in Northern Ireland there is a need to emphasise the crucial role played by the provision of housing in regenerating communities. As the SPPS will be a key reference point for all users of the planning system and not just local authority planners and consultants, it is important that it conveys the key messages succinctly and successfully. The SPPS is an opportunity to clearly establish a strategic policy context that further stimulates economic growth through the delivery of much needed market and affordable housing. An adjustment is needed to make it plain that: housing is very important from a social, economic and environmental perspective objectively assessed need for all types of housing will be met in the most sustainable way achievable this will be dependent on ensuring that there is an adequate and continued deliverable supply of land for all types of housing The largest proportion of text on housing in the SPPS relates to processes for allocating housing land in LDP s and measures to be contained in future LDP s. This material is quite detailed and directive in character and overlaps, to an extent, with a similar body of guidance in the RDS. The measures essentially read as something of a checklist for new planning authorities. Council welcome the indication of how to plan for housing and what to include in its new LDP but is slightly concerned that the approach could limit the opportunity for sensible flexibility when it comes to plan preparation. 36

260 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council These requirements are the same as those set out in PPS12 which have guided the Department s latest round of plan making but they have not been refined to reflect the new approach to plan making set out in the Planning Act and the first part of the SPPS. Without some flexibility in application there is a risk that a tick box approach would drive new Councils to prepare LDP s which look very like the old system plans. Furthermore, there is a need for flexibility to allow a specific response to the characteristics of the planning context faced by each individual Council. For example, the SPPS has an emphasis on the use of previously developed land and contains references to regeneration. This may, in a period of recovery, mean that there is less flexibility to respond with the type of land demanded by the market. Perhaps more significantly, Council also questions whether some of this material could be subsumed within an Appendix to create space for more strategic, higher level statements which emphasise the most important aspects of planning for housing. For example, in a new evidence based approach to planning, and in line with the suggested re-emphasis on meeting needs, it seems reasonable to start the planning for housing section by reference to the Housing Need Assessment rather than move straight into what is essentially a descriptive process plan. Thereafter, the focus could turn to how need will be met sustainably, at which point it would perhaps be more appropriate to bring in the sequential approach which currently opens this section. Beyond this a key aspect of planning for housing, currently missing in the SPPS, should be the onus on local authorities to act to maintain a five year land supply, with appropriate definition around what constitutes effective supply. Whilst emphasising the importance of tracking, the section on implementation, monitoring and review (paragraph 6.123) falls well short of this central plank of planning policy in other jurisdictions. Council would suggest that a more strategic approach, which emphasises the most important aspects of planning for housing, could be introduced without sacrificing some of the operational detail which, for obvious reasons, the Department has been keen to retain. Given the significance of the subject matter a revised approach to the drafting of this section would be a time investment well worth making. Council would welcome an opportunity to understand and reply to the separate consultation on developer contributions and affordable housing as soon as possible. Without prejudice to the next consultation, Council wishes to comment more generally that the SPPS is conspicuously silent in relation to assessing and responding to development viability matters. This is at odds with published and widely available guidance on development viability in the plan making process from other jurisdictions. To an extent the approach to the decision-taking section within this SPPS depends upon how the Department responds to Council s suggested changes to transitionary arrangements. As it currently stands, the draft incorporates much of the thrust of PPS7 in relation to, for example, Policy QD1, and also the main thrust of the second addendum to PPS7 in respect of established residential areas. However the Department may wish to further reflect on how these operational policies would work in the event that the PPSs were not longer applicable as soon as the SPPS became operational. 37

261 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 19 MineralsDo you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Minerals? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council welcomes the policy which outlines a requirement for minerals development to be addressed against the need to protect and conserve the environment and the protection of the landscape and natural heritage features. Consultation Question 20 Natural Heritage Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Natural Heritage? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council notes that each policy from PPS2 has been transposed into the SPPS subject policy with similar wording and subject matter. The subject policy introduces Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ s) as a designation to be afforded appropriate decision making weight under National Designations. Council notes the reference to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) at 6.174, detailing that AONB Management Plans should be considered in the assessment of proposals. It should be noted as a point of reference that the Sperrin AONB does not have a current Management Plan. Consultation Question 21 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council agrees with the basic thrust and objectives of this section of SPPS and this should carry through into the final document. Council note a number of recommendations to improve policy. For the purposes of creating LDP s and making decisions on planning applications and appeals the SPPS should provide a definition of the types of spaces which should fall under the definition of Open Space. The new definition of Open Space should be varied from the current definition set out in PPS8 which is overly restrictive. Within the existing definition amenity green space and natural and semi-natural urban green spaces are too broad resulting in the protection of a wide variety of spaces which are not always of public value. 38

262 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Council observe that the SPPS should require a dedicated Open Space Strategy (OSS) as part of the LDP process. The OSS should identify how existing open spaces throughout the Plan Area can be strengthened and linked to provide a more robust open space network. New strategic open space zonings should be identified in the LDP and opportunities for developer contributions should be considered in the OSS and delivered through Key Site Requirements in the LDP. An up to date audit of all types of existing open space should be completed to inform the OSS. This will in turn allow the Council to plan the provision of valuable public spaces and facilities in a more meaningful manner. Council endorses the 6 Acre Standard for the OSS. Council agrees with the general presumption against the loss of open space but in line with above recommendations suggest more flexibility, to allow for the redevelopment/rezoning of existing and/or previously zoned open spaces for alternative uses where those spaces are identified as not providing a public value. Local councils are primarily responsible for the provision of open space in Northern Ireland and are key enablers of sporting and recreational facilities. Councils have a statutory requirement to secure the provision of adequate recreational facilities and are also charged with asserting, protecting, and keeping open Public Rights of Way. The protection of existing and or proposed open spaces is too rigid insofar as local councils are concerned. The final SPPS should allow greater flexibility for local councils to redevelop existing open spaces and proposed open spaces in LDPs given the Council carry out their responsibility for open space in the public interest. Regarding the provision of new open space as part of new residential development proposals Council recommend opportunities for on-site and/or off-site provision depending on the local and site specific circumstances. All too often open space provided within residential developments does not provide any true public value, if better opportunities exist off site policy should facilitate this. Council endorses the policy regarding Intensive Sports Facilities (ISFs) but recommends that policy facilitates expansion of existing ISFs in urban and rural area. The SPPS should also encourage the principles of dual use for new facilities and spaces to ensure maximum benefit is derived from the facilities. Consultation Question 22 Renewable Energy Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and update, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Renewable Energy? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council recommend the policy context for renewable energy is stated more robustly citing the ambitious renewable energy targets laid down by the EU, UK and NI as the key driver behind the policy approach. The SPPS is pitched at a more strategic level than some of the other topic areas in the document and Council questions the appropriateness of this approach given key issues such as noise and landscape concerns. Council recommends that the policy provisions of PPS18 are reviewed in the context of the SPPS. 39

263 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Council support the requirement for LDP s to set out policies and proposals that support a diverse range of renewable energy developments. However, within the section which sets out the factors to be included in LDP s to assist decision-making, Council recommends the following additions (which should follow through into the decision taking transitional policies): A revised approach to assessing cumulative impact for wind energy development which takes into consideration the cumulative impact of existing turbines and those which have extant planning permission. Appropriate weighting to be given to the Environmental, Social and Economic benefits in line with the three pillars of sustainable development in the determination of planning applications for renewable energy developments. Council recommend that policy should require developers to demonstrate the acceptability of projects considered against environmental, planning and general amenity considerations much akin to the approach mandated in PPS18 including such measures as noise. In addition, developers should have to demonstrate in fully quantifiable terms what benefits will be derived from their schemes. Where there are Environmental, Social and Economic benefits, these should be given appropriate weight and considered in the context of contributions to sustainable development in the determination of applications. The viability of schemes relative to the available renewable resource should also be demonstrated at planning application stage, as should the likelihood of connecting to the NIEGrid. Council recommends the inclusion of a policy for small medium energy projects to ensure proportionality in the assessment of projects. Consultation Question 23 Telecommunications, Public Services and Utilities Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Telecommunications, Public Services and Utilities? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council observe that this consolidated policy omits one of the PPS10 objectives for facilitating the continuing development of telecommunications infrastructure in an efficient and effective manner. Council note the LDP policy function to bring forward local policy but highlights that stronger telecommunications policy to address the imbalance in communication infrastructure in rural areas should be included here. Council notes this revised policy is much less specific on the content of application for telecommunications equipment. For example, PPS10 requires that planning applications be accompanied by an International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Certificate. Supplementary guidance may be required if no change is proposed to the policy. 40

264 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 24 Tourism Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Tourism? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved The tourism section is generally strategic in nature and advocates the tourism policy objectives that duplicate those in the existing PPS. The core themes of tourism can be woven through the SPPS in a similar approach taken in the NPPF and SPP, and Council is of the opinion that there is no need to have an individual subject policy for tourism Tourism policies are referenced throughout the NPPF and SPP, particularly within the rural and town centre policy sections. However, they are silent on tourism policies to the extent that both documents do not contain discrete tourism policy sections. Council favours the existing operational PPS16 in so far as it relates to tourism developments within settlement limits. Council does not support the overly-prescriptive approach adopted for tourism developments in the open countryside and would advocate a more flexible and pragmatic approach similar to the SPP and NPPF. The NPPF encourages tourism development within rural areas where it supports sustainable rural tourism developments and mainly in circumstances where tourist facilities are currently lacking. The SPP supports high quality tourism related development, including the provision of appropriate facilities in key urban and rural locations. The policy outlines that development plans should promote economic activity and diversification in all small towns and rural areas, including development linked to tourism and farm diversification. The design policies set out in PPS16 can be covered within the Good Design section of the SPPS. Council does not consider it essential to retain PPS16 during the transitional period subject to the above being incorporated into the final SPPS. Consultation Question 25 Town Centres and Retailing Do you think a town centres first / sequential test is the appropriate policy approach for the location of future retail and other main town centre uses in Northern Ireland? If no, please set out and justify any alternatives. Council supports the Town Centres First approach, where, town centres are the preferred location for new retail development, which plays an important part in protecting the vitality and viability of town centres. Council is also very supportive of a sequential test being applied to proposals for new retail development and other town centre uses outside town centres. 41

265 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 26 Town Centres and Retailing Do you agree that councils should undertake an assessment of need or capacity for retail and other main town centre uses to inform local development plans? If no, please provide further information. Empirical evidence will assist the Council in assessing planning applications for retail development and other town centre uses. It will help highlight the degree of need for such uses in plan areas and will be a useful guide to developers in deciding where best to bring forward new development proposals. Consultation Question 27 Town Centres and Retailing Do you think that councils should prepare town centre health checks as described? If no, please provide further information. Council agree that town centre health checks are an essential indicator of the vitality and viability of town centres. Such health checks highlight the strengths and weaknesses of town centres to provide an invaluable source of information for Councils when it comes to plan making by identifying for example, areas of need, early signs of decline or potential, and also assisting Councils in assessing out-of-centre developments. Consultation Question 28 Town Centres and Retailing Do you think a call for sites consultation is an appropriate mechanism to assist with site allocations in a local development plan? If no, please provide further information. Council understands that the LDP can be used to undertake a call for site in the consideration and allocation of the various individual town-centre uses. This would assist Council in understanding the availability of such sites and appreciate realistic opportunities rather than relying on dormant sites with no prospect of development. In addition to this exercise Council also support the current mechanism of identifying Development Opportunity Sites in plans which further provides flexibility for the location of town centre uses. 42

266 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council Consultation Question 29 Town Centres and Retailing Do you agree that 300m from a town centre boundary is an appropriate threshold for a site to be considered as edge of centre? If no, please provide further information. Factors determining the linkages between sites and town centres vary such as the presence of roads, footpaths, cycle paths, public transport facilities and physical constraints. Council is of the view that there should be no default distance of 300 metres to define sites as edgeof-centre. The adopted SPPS should reflect that sites should be assessed on their individual merits and within their locational context to determine if they are edge-of-centre. Consultation Question 30 Town Centres and Retailing Do you think 2,500 sq metres (gross) is the appropriate threshold for requiring a proportionate retail impact assessment? If no, please provide further information? Council note that the application of a 2,500 square metre threshold to Northern Ireland brings policy in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Consultation Question 31 Town Centres and Retailing Do you agree with the factors to be addressed as part of a retail impact assessment? If no, please provide further information. Council consider it appropriate to address the factors listed in the SPPS within a Retail Impact Assessment. Consultation Question 32 Transportation Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Transportation? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council note that the policy allows for undertaking local transport studies and includes a number of matters for consideration. Council observes that the policy is overly urban centric and should allow for further development of a comprehensive rural transportation network as appropriate. The Council would also welcome a policy which requires a real commitment by developers to the implementation of Travel Plans. It is clear to Council that Travel Plans are viewed as a tick in the box when securing agreement on planning applications, but with no real follow-up or delivery that effects change in peoples transport habits. 43

267 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council The Council understand that DRD Roads Service sit outside the local authority structure. Clear guidance is required in support of new transportation policies so no conflict arises in the decision making process were a recommendation from Roads Service is contrary to the view of Council. Consultation Question 33 Waste Management Do you consider that the SPPS has appropriately reflected and updated, in a strategic way, the existing planning policy approach on Waste Management? If no, please explain how the SPPS can be improved. Council considers that the SPPS has appropriately reflected in a strategic way the existing planning policy approach on waste management. It is noted that the policy objectives and the factors to be considered in determining planning decisions on waste management developments are identical to the extant PPS11. However, locational criteria are omitted from the SPPS. Council welcome the discretion to decide local policies for the siting of waste facilities. Consultation Question 34 Implementation and Transitional Arrangements Do you agree that transitional arrangements as described above are required in the short to medium term? If no, please provide further information. Council considers that the proposed transitionary arrangements are overly complex and could potentially lead to challenges defining the appropriate policy context for determining planning applications, as well as issues around investment. Council view is that the draft SPPS, has gone far in summarising and consolidating the existing suite of PPS s. By observation compared to, for example, the NPPF, the SPPS it is more simplified than strategic. If the draft SPPS had emerged as a more strategic expression of planning policy, like the NPPF, there would potentially have been more justification for the transitionary arrangements proposed. As it stands, however, with the ability, subject to amendments and adjustments outlined in this submission, to find almost all of what was previously covered within the PPS series, it is difficult to understand the reason why both the SPPS and the vast majority of the PPS series need to operate in parallel until such times as Council plan making processes have been completed. Council intend to complete its plan making process as expeditiously as possible and approaches the task with a determination to conclude the process in a timeline as close as possible to the 40 months suggested in the draft. Notwithstanding the changes to the plan making system which the Department are confident will truncate timelines from those currently experienced, it has to be acknowledged that this will be the Council s first plan making process and there is no certainty that the projected timelines will be delivered. Council takes the view that a simplification of the transitionary arrangements would potentially reduce the pressure on plan making teams, incentivise expeditious completion of plan making, simplify 44

268 Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland Cookstown District Council, Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council and Magherafelt District Council planning for the public and reduce the risk of planning by appeal. Council s suggestion is that the SPPS should immediately replace all PPSs when it becomes operational on 1 April If the Department is concerned about a loss of detailed operational planning policy, the draft should be revisited to include more of what has is considered to have been lost. Alternatively, what might be considered to be important aspects of PPS coverage could be published as guidance SPPG to sit alongside the SPPS. Councils could choose to either rely on SPPG when preparing their development plans or, with the Department s oversight and agreement, make it clear in their development plans that specific provisions supersede equivalent sections of the SPPG. Given the existence of this material within the PPS series it should be possible to publish SPPG quite quickly after the conclusion of the SPPS process. Consultation Question 35 Other SPPS Comments Do you have any other comments on the SPPS? If so, please specify the relevant section and/or paragraph. Council makes the observation that the timing of this consultation has been such that it has not been possible for the new Mid Ulster Council to respond to the draft SPPS. It is anticipated that there may be aspects of the SPPS which the new Council will wish to be able to comment on. Cookstown, Magherafelt and Dungannon Council would respectfully request that thesuccessor Council is afforded the opportunity to engage with the Departmental team preparing the SPPS after the consultation period formally closes. Consultation Question 36 Interactive Digital Engagement Do you consider that the provision of the interactive digital consultation document has been a successful initiative? If no, please tell us why? Council welcomes the flexibility offered by the ability to provide digital consultation response. Itshould be noted however that the views of responding Councils should receive due consideration as they will be required to implement these policies going forward. 45

269 Report to Subject Mid Ulster Planning Committee DoE Call for Evidence Renewable Energy Development Date 3 May 2016 Reporting Officer Chris Boomer Planning Manager Contact Officer Sinead McEvoy 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with a response to the DoE Call for Evidence in respect of Strategic Planning Policy for Renewable Energy. 2 Background DoE published the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) in September The SPPS consolidates some twenty separate policies into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including one for Renewable Energy. The aim of the SPPS in relation to renewable energy is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve Northern Ireland s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. During the consultation on the SPPS DoE received a significant number of representations on planning policy for renewable energy. As a result of this and recommendations made by the Wind energy Inquiry, the Minister of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for renewable energy. This Call for Evidence is part of the process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of strategic planning policy. 3 Key Issues 3.1 Member s attention is drawn to the fact that;

270 The general thrust of the aims, objectives and policy approach as set out in PPS 11 Renewable Energy is retained in the SPPS. This approach is broadly supported by Mid Ulster Council. Strategic policy should provide a greater steer on other renewable energy developments, such as anaerobic digestion and solar farms, rather than focusing on wind energy. Strategic policy or guidance should provide greater clarification on how the economic and environmental impacts of renewable development is determined. That greater emphasis is given to other forms of renewable energy production such as solar power and anaerobic digestion. That the Department updates the Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment in liaison with local authorities or provides the resources to fund a full Landscape Character Assessment. That the SPPS explicitly empowers councils to introduce areas of constraint on wind turbines through the area plan process where justified. That greater policy weight is to be given to neighbouring amenity, particularly in relation to visual dominance, and a minimal separation distance be set. That Mid Ulster Council supports the review of ETSU 97 guidelines. That clarity is given to the difference between community benefits and economic or social benefits. It is Mid Ulster Councils opinion that planning agreements should be used to secure community benefits. It is argued that these changes at a strategic level will facilitate the siting of renewable energy facilities in appropriate locations in order to achieve renewable energy targets without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. 4 Resources Financial N/A Human N/A Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A Other

271 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 Members are requested to note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DoE in line with the contents of this paper. 7 List of Documents Attached Mid Ulster District Council response to the DoE Call for Evidence on Strategic Planning Policy for Development in the Countryside.

272 Call for Evidence: Strategic Planning Policy for Renewable Energy 1

273 Development in the Countryside Purpose: In response to a Call for Evidence from the Department of the Environment (DoE), this paper will provide members with comments relating to the strategic planning policy for Renewable energy If agreed, these comments will be forwarded to the DoE to inform the scope of their review of regional strategic planning policy for Renewable Energy. Content: The paper provides: (i) (i) Comments relating to the aims, objectives and policy approach of the SPPS in respect of renewable energy The views of Mid Ulster District council on each regional strategic policy in the SPPS regarding Renewable Energy Recommendation: That the Council note the contents of the paper and agrees that a response be forwarded to the DoE Call for Evidence along the lines set out in the paper. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide members with a response to the DOE Call for Evidence in relation to the Strategic Planning Policy for Renewable Energy contained within the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) in September On the 7 th March 2016, the Minister of the Environment, issued a Call for Evidence (Appendix 1) to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on key matters that they consider need to be addressed in the full review of regional strategic planning policy on Renewable Energy. The call for evidence states that the DOE will be undertaking a review of strategic policy for development in the countryside as set out in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement (SPPS) and the Call for Evidence will help inform the scope of this review. 1.2 In explaining why they are undertaking the review, the DOE advises that during the consultation on the SPPS, it received a significant number of representations on planning policy for renewable energy. Taking into account issues raised through the consultation and other representations, and through the Environment Committee s Wind Energy Inquiry, the Minister of the Environment committed to undertake a review of regional strategic planning policy for renewable energy following publication of the SPPS in final form. 2

274 1.3 Members will be aware that the SPPS consolidated some twenty Planning Policy Statements (PPS s) into one document, including a regional policy for Renewable Energy. It is worth noting that while the SPPS does consolidate the numerous PPS s, those PPS s remain in place as the operational policy until such times as the Council has a Plan Strategy adopted. Where the SPPS introduces a change of policy direction and/or provides a policy clarification that would be in conflict with the retained policy the SPPS should be accorded greater weight. However, where the SPPS is silent or less prescriptive on a particular planning policy matter than retained policy this should not be judged to lessen the weight to be afforded to the retained policy. 2.0 Key Matters 2.1 Mid Ulster Council welcomes the fact that the key themes and objectives of PPS 18 Renewable Energy have been retained in the SPPS. Council also welcomes the greater acknowledgement of the contribution the renewable energy industry makes to the wider economy, as well as benefiting our health and well-being and our quality of life (para 6.216). 2.2 Given its nature and its overall contribution to the renewable energy generation, regional policy unsurprisingly focuses on wind energy development. Council feels however, that the opportunity exists to increase the focus on other increasingly popular renewable technologies, such as anaerobic digestion and solar farms, to help ensure associated issues are more comprehensively addressed at strategic level. 2.3 The Call for evidence invites comment on all aspects of strategic planning policy for renewable energy, but is keen to hear views on the following key questions; 1. How should the Northern Ireland planning system best facilitate sustainable renewable energy development in appropriate locations without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance? 2. How can strategic planning policy best assist with addressing potential amenity issues that may arise as a result of facilitating all types of renewable energy development (e.g. wind, solar, water (hydropower), geothermal energy, biomass)? 2.4 Although the general thrust of PPS 18 and the SPPS are broadly similar, there are some key differences. The replacement of the word significant with appropriate in terms of the weight that should be given to how wider environmental, economic and social considerations are assessed, is a welcome change. This clarification should give more discretion to decisionmakers when balancing the wider economic benefits of proposals against potentially adverse local impacts. 2.5 Central to this assessment however, is a clear understanding of the environmental, social and economic outputs of renewable developments. Measuring these three strands of sustainability in the context of determining 3

275 applications for renewable developments in the public interest is often difficult, and sometimes problematic. It is considered that the opportunity exists for DOE to go beyond a simple policy change and provide clear strategic guidance on this issue, with particular regard to wind energy development, but also in relation to other renewable developments such as anaerobic digestion. 2.6 An audit into the effectiveness of PPS 18 in determining both the environmental and economic outputs of wind energy, as currently undertaken by DoE, should go some way to providing a strong basis for providing robust direction and guidance on this issue. Similar audits in relation to the environmental and economic outputs of other renewable energy developments, such as solar farms and biomass developments, would also be welcome. 2.7 Mid Ulster Council considers that, with some minor changes, PPS 18 can continue to be effective in the context of the aims and objectives of the SPPS i.e. facilitating renewable energy development without compromising environmental assets. It is intended however, that the forthcoming LDP for Mid Ulster will give greater weight to environmentally sensitive areas and afford greater protection to neighbouring amenity. Whilst there may be scope for achieving this aim in the context of the existing SPPS, improvements in strategic regional policy and associated guidance can help facilitate this further. 2.8 For example, Mid Ulster Council may seek to introduce a more restrictive policy in specific sensitive landscapes within the district, such as the Lough Neagh Fringes and the High Sperrins, in order to protect them from inappropriate development such as wind turbines. DOE guidance such as the Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment (2000) has been successfully used in the past to support and inform such designations. As recognised by the Planning Appeals Commission, the strength of the NILCA document lay in its independence, but also in the level of detail with regards to unique features and distinct character of areas. 2.9 Mid Ulster Council acknowledges the recent publication of the Regional Landscape Character Assessment which aims to supplement the NILCA 200 document. It is considered however, that this will be of limited practical use for informing designations such as Areas of Constraint, Areas of High Scenic Value, Countryside Policy Areas or Local Landscape policy Areas. A similar up-to-date, independent Landscape Character Assessment to NILCA 2000, would provide a more robust evidence base for proposing such designations in the forthcoming LDP s, and aid consistency in approach across all council areas. Unfortunately, Mid Ulster Council does not have the resources or funding to undertake a full landscape assessment itself An up-to-date detailed Landscape Character Assessment, in addition to the Wind Energy in Northern Ireland Landscapes guidance, would also help identify localities outside of designated area which may have a greater capacity for accommodating wind energy development. Regional guidance such as this will therefore help facilitate sustainable renewable energy 4

276 development, particularly wind development, in appropriate locations, without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance. Amenity 2.11 The question has also been posed by DOE as to how amenity issues can be further addressed through strategic policy. Given the nature of the wind energy development, it has proven to be particularly problematic with regard to neighbouring amenity issues. In more recent times, the increased average sizes of single turbines has raised issues of dominance as well as noise and visual amenity. To address this, it is suggested that regional policy or guidance could provide greater clarity as to what an acceptable separation distance would be between single turbines and occupied dwellings. In response to a similar recommendation made by the Committee for The Environment following the Wind Energy Inquiry, the Department directed that Best Practice Guidance contains advice on this issue. Although paragraph of this guidance gives advice in relation to turbine fall over separation distances, Mid Ulster Council is not aware of any specific guidance in relation to separation distances between single wind turbines and dwellings Mid Ulster Council would recommend that the current set-back distance that applies to wind farms should also apply to high single wind turbines. The council suggests that high turbines would be defined as those above 15 m s to the hub to align with The Planning (EIA) Regulations NI Council is currently considering an approach in the forthcoming Local Development Plan whereby the separation distance for all wind energy development above (15 metres to the hub) is 10 times the rotor diameter but no less than 500m s, unless it can be demonstrated to the councils satisfaction that that the owner of relevant properties are content for the turbine to be closer. This is seen as an appropriate way of addressing local concerns raised in relation to noise and dominance of single turbines while at the same time allowing sufficient flexibility to suit certain circumstances. It is noted that a similar approach has been recommended in the Republic of Ireland as part of its review of policy on wind energy development. Noise Guidelines 2.13 Mid Ulster Council supports the proposed review of the use of the ETSU-97 noise guidelines. The introduction of a more modern and robust guidance for measurement of wind turbine noise in line with World Health Organisation guidelines would help address concerns in relation to the potential for noise from wind energy development and how it is assessed. Current ETSU-97 guidelines are viewed by many as being out of date and it is felt that research carried out in intervening years could be used to inform a more suitable approach to noise assessment. Community Engagement 2.14 In terms of community engagement, Mid Ulster Council looks forward to the publication of the cross-departmental Community Energy Action Plan as led by DETI. It is considered that this document, in addition to the DoE Practice Note on Pre-Application Community Consultation (PACC), will be a valuable 5

277 tool in promoting best practice on community engagement on renewable energy projects. Community Benefit 2.15 In some circumstances, community benefits may be offered voluntarily by developers to communities likely to be affected by development. In order to assist in the decision making process, it may be useful in the context of renewable energy development, to clarify the difference between community benefits and economic or social benefits. It is considered that the Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments would be useful reference tool for guidance on this issue. It is Mid Ulster Councils opinion that in some circumstances planning agreements should be used to secure community benefits Mid Ulster Council. Conclusion 3.0 It is recommended that DoE takes account of the issues highlighted above in its forthcoming review of the renewable energy policy. It is considered that the changes suggested will help ensure that the SPPS provides the appropriate context for delivering sustainable renewable energy development in appropriate locations without compromising assets of acknowledged importance. It will also help address potential amenity issues that may arise as a result of facilitating renewable energy development. 4.0 Recommendation 4.1 It is recommended that members note the contents of this paper and agree that this response is sent to the DOE to with the following recommendations; That greater emphasis is given to other forms of renewable energy production such as solar power and anaerobic digestion. Strategic policy or guidance should provide greater clarification on how the economic and environmental impacts of renewable development is determined. That the Department updates the Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment in liaison with local authorities or provides the resources to fund a full Landscape Character Assessment. That the SPPS explicitly empowers councils to introduce areas of constraint on wind turbines through the area plan process where justified. That greater policy weight is to be given to neighbouring amenity, particularly in relation to visual dominance, and a minimal separation distance be set. That Mid Ulster Council supports the review of ETSU 97 guidelines. That clarity is given to the difference between community benefits and economic or social benefits. It is Mid Ulster Councils opinion that planning agreements should be used to secure community benefits. 6

278 Call for Evidence: Strategic planning policy for Renewable Energy development Launch date: 7 March 2016 Respond by: 6 May 2016

279 Contents Introduction... 1 How to Respond... 1 Background... 2 Why undertake a review?... 3 Purpose and scope... 3 Next steps... 4 Annex A: Renewable Energy subject policy as contained in the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland... 5

280 Introduction The Department of the Environment (DoE) will be undertaking a review of strategic planning policy for onshore renewable energy development as set out within the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS). This Call for Evidence will help inform the scope of this review. How to Respond You are invited to submit your views in response to this Call for Evidence by 5.00pm on 6 May Comments after this deadline will not be accepted. All responses must be marked Renewable Energy and should be ed to the Department at the following address: sppsteam@doeni.gov.uk Please note that your response may be made public by DoE. For example, information people provide in response to this call for evidence, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality. 1

281 Background 1. DoE published the SPPS Planning for Sustainable Development in September The SPPS consolidates some twenty separate policy publications into one document, setting out strategic planning policy in relation to a wide range of subject policies, including regional policy for Renewable Energy development. A copy of the SPPS Subject Policy Renewable Energy is attached at Annex A. 2. The aim of the SPPS in relation to renewable energy is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve Northern Ireland s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. 3. The regional strategic objectives for renewable energy are to: ensure that the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity - impacts associated with or arising from renewable energy development are adequately addressed; ensure adequate protection of the Region s built and natural, and cultural heritage features; and facilitate the integration of renewable energy technology into the design, siting and layout of new development and promote greater application of the principles of Passive Solar Design. 2

282 Why undertake a review? 4. During the consultation on the SPPS, DoE received a significant number of representations on renewable energy planning policy. Taking into account issues raised through the consultation, other representations from the public and elected representatives and as a result of the Environment Committee s Wind Energy Inquiry, the Minister for the Environment, Mark H Durkan, committed to undertake a review of the regional strategic planning policy for renewable energy following publication of the SPPS in final form. Purpose and scope 5. This Call for Evidence is part of the process of gathering the necessary information to inform the subsequent review of strategic planning policy. The evidence received will improve DoE s understanding of the operation and impact of the existing strategic policy and provide up-to-date evidence on the social, environmental and economic impacts of renewable energy development. 6. It should be noted that this Call for Evidence relates to the regional strategic policy for renewable energy rather than local policy which will be brought forward through Local Development Plan (LDP) policies. Councils are responsible for preparing their LDP and in doing so they must take account of the strategic policy set out in the SPPS. 7. Whilst DoE welcomes comments on all aspects of strategic planning policy for renewable energy (and any other information and evidence that may assist in the forthcoming review) it is particularly keen to hear views on the following key questions. How should the Northern Ireland planning system best facilitate sustainable renewable energy development in appropriate locations without compromising our natural and built environment, and other assets of acknowledged importance? 3

283 How can strategic planning policy best assist with addressing potential amenity issues that may arise as a result of facilitating all types of renewable energy development (e.g. wind, solar, water (hydropower), geothermal energy, biomass)? Next steps 8. The information gathered as a result of this Call for Evidence will be considered by DoE and will help inform the upcoming review of strategic planning policy for renewable energy. 9. Depending, in part, upon the evidence received, the scope of the review will be refined to focus on the key issues where further research should be undertaken. Any necessary revisions to strategic planning policy will follow the normal policy development process. This will entail preparation of a consultation draft policy proposal which would be subject to full public consultation. DoE Planning Policy Division Causeway Exchange 1-7 Bedford Street Town Parks Belfast BT2 7EG 4

284 Annex A Renewable Energy Northern Ireland has significant renewable energy resources and a vibrant renewable energy industry that makes an important contribution towards achieving sustainable development, and is a significant provider of jobs and investment across the region Making appropriate use of renewable energy sources is supported by wider government policy, including the Regional Development Strategy 2035 (RDS) which emphasises the need to increase the contribution that renewable energy can make to overall energy mix. This commitment is affirmed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment s (DETI) strategic aim for a more secure and sustainable energy system, as contained within the Strategic Energy Framework for Northern Ireland Renewable energy reduces our dependence on imported fossil fuels and brings diversity and security of supply to our energy infrastructure. It also helps Northern Ireland achieve its targets for reducing carbon emissions 50 and reduces environmental damage such as that caused by acid rain. Renewable energy technologies support the wider Northern Ireland economy and also offer new opportunities for additional investment and employment, as well as benefitting our health and well being, and our quality of life The main sources of renewable energy are wind, sun (solar energy), moving water (hydropower), heat extracted from the air, ground and water (including geothermal energy), and biomass (wood, biodegradable waste and energy crops such as for use in an Anaerobic Digestor) The aim of the SPPS in relation to renewable energy is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve Northern Ireland s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. Regional Strategic Objectives The regional strategic objectives for renewable energy are to: ensure that the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity impacts associated with or arising from renewable energy development are adequately addressed; ensure adequate protection of the region s built, natural, and cultural heritage features; and 50 The PfG contains a target for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by at least 35% on 1990 levels by

285 facilitate the integration of renewable energy technology into the design, siting and layout of new development and promote greater application of the principles of Passive Solar Design Renewable energy development proposals in the marine environment are managed under a separate consenting regime within the framework of the UK Marine Policy Statement. It is important for both terrestrial and marine environments to work together. Regional Strategic Policy Councils should set out policies and proposals in their Local Development Plans (LDPs) that support a diverse range of renewable energy development, including the integration of micro-generation and passive solar design. LDPs must take into account the above-mentioned aim and regional strategic objectives, local circumstances, and the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of renewable energy development. Moratoria on applications for renewable energy development whilst LDPs are being prepared or updated are not appropriate Particular care should be taken when considering the potential impact of all renewable proposals on the landscape. For example, some landscapes may be able to accommodate wind farms 51 or solar farms more easily than others, on account of their topography, landform and ability to limit visibility A cautious approach for renewable energy development proposals will apply within designated landscapes which are of significant value, such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the Giant s Causeway and Causeway Coast World Heritage Site, and their wider settings. In such sensitive landscapes, it may be difficult to accommodate renewable energy proposals, including wind turbines, without detriment to the region s cultural and natural heritage assets Development that generates energy from renewable resources will be permitted where the proposal and any associated buildings and infrastructure, will not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the following planning considerations: public safety, human health, or residential amenity; visual amenity and landscape character; biodiversity, nature conservation or built heritage interests; local natural resources, such as air quality, water quality or quantity; and, public access to the countryside The wider environmental, economic and social benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations that will be given appropriate weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted Active peatland is of particular importance to Northern Ireland for its biodiversity, water and carbon storage qualities. Any renewable energy development on active peatland will not be permitted unless there are imperative reasons of overriding 51 Defined as development comprising more than 2 turbines. 6

286 public interest as defined under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 as amended For wind farm development a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property, with a minimum distance not less than 500m, will generally apply. Implementation In decision-taking, the planning authority must carefully consider all development proposals for renewable energy development, including proposals which include micro-generation, and passive building design measures. Consideration of all renewable energy proposals will take account of their contribution to the wider environmental benefits arising from a clean, secure energy supply; reductions in greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions; and contributions towards meeting Northern Ireland s target for use of renewable energy sources The factors to be considered on a case by case basis will depend on the scale of the development and its local context. In addition to those factors set out at paragraph proposals will also be assessed in accordance with normal planning criteria, including such considerations as: access arrangements, road safety, good design, noise and shadow flicker; separation distance; cumulative impact; communications interference; and, the inter-relationship between these considerations It will not necessarily be the case that the extent of visual impact or visibility of wind farm development will give rise to negative effects; wind farm developments are by their nature highly visible yet this in itself should not preclude them as acceptable features in the landscape. The ability of the landscape to absorb development depends on careful siting, the skill of the designer, and the inherent characteristics of the landscape such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys, and vegetation Where any project is likely to result in unavoidable damage during its installation, operation or decommissioning, developers will be required to indicate how such damage will be minimised and mitigated, including details of any compensatory measures, such as a habitat management plan or the creation of a new habitat. These matters will be agreed before planning permission is granted Some proposals for renewable energy development may require a connection to the National Grid. The grant of planning permission does not guarantee grid connection. Connection to the grid falls within the remit of Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) and therefore liaison with NIE at an early stage of any renewable development but particularly a wind turbine / farm development is considered to be paramount in relation to the viability of such a scheme In relation to developments such as wind farms and solar farms, applicants will be required to provide details on future decommissioning, including proposals for site restoration. In such cases planning conditions (or a legal agreement where appropriate) should be used. 7

287 6.234 The supplementary planning guidance Wind Energy Development in Northern Ireland s Landscapes and other relevant practice notes should be 8

288 Subject Consultation Paper A Consultation on Ecclesiastical Exemption Date 3 rd May 2016 Reporting Officer Contact Officer Chris Boomer, Planning Manager Sinead McEvoy, Principal Planner Officer 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide members with a response to the public consultation paper on Ecclesiastical Exemption for Places of Worship issued by the Department of Environment, Historic Environment Division (HED), March 2016 and provide Mid Ulster District Council s response to the questions posed within the paper. 2 Background 2.1 Under Section 85(8) of the Planning (NI) Act 2011 listed ecclesiastical buildings are exempted from the need to apply for listed building consent for changes that may affect their architectural or historic interest. In Northern Ireland the ecclesiastical exemption has been in place since In practice the exemption means that Listed Building Consent is not required for: Works to a listed building whose primary use is as a place of worship and which is currently being used as a place of worship; Works to an object or structure within such a building; and Works to an object or structure fixed to the outside of such a building or within its curtilage, except where such an object or structure is itself listed In GB, the exemption is premised on individual denominations having their own system of controlling and managing change which is as rigorous as secular control. This provides listed places of worship in GB parity of protection. Such parallel systems for authorising works are monitored by government and where they are shown to be ineffective, the exemption can be removed. In Northern Ireland the Department s experience has shown that equivalent parallel systems either do not exist or are not robust enough to allow parity of protection. There is therefore no body formally required to consider the impact of proposed changes on the special architectural or historic interest of ecclesiastical buildings. In the Republic of Ireland there is no ecclesiastical exemption. Bodies responsible for a place of worship included on the list of protected structures are required to gain agreement from the local authority for any works of alteration both inside and out.

289 2.4 In 2014, the Historic Buildings Council of NI wrote to the Minister on this issue. They were concerned by the unnecessary loss of detail in some churches which had led to their delisting and of proposals for significant change to others which would remove much of their special architectural and historic interest. A subcommittee was set up to review the current situation and their recommendation is that the exemption be removed and replaced with clear guidance as the exemption as it currently stands is not protecting our ecclesiastical heritage. 3 Key Issues 3.1 A review in 2014 highlighted four issues, which when considered together indicate that the current situation is unsustainable and that it is timely to make the change now. During the second survey of NI s Listed Buildings 45 places of worship were delisted due to inappropriate alterations and many were found to have lost significant amounts of special architectural or historic interest. Faith communities throughout NI are changing and some are experiencing unprecedented growth. With that growth commonly come proposals for substantial meeting/ greeting spaces, extensions and internal reorganisation. Some of these schemes involve such radical alteration, very little of special interest would survive if such schemes go ahead. Other places of worship are struggling to survive and need to find new uses. New uses often bring public benefit, but may result in a wish for major internal alterations and / or re-ordering. In such situations it is particularly important that proposals are discussed and agreed within the framework of the Listed Building Consent process, as would be the case for all other listed buildings. The transfer of planning powers to council in April 2015 and the transfer of responsibilities held by DoE to the Department of Communities in May 2016 provide an opportunity to revise the existing system Planning permission must be obtained for any alteration or extension that materially effects the external appearance of an existing place of worship. When considering a planning application a local authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or any features of special interest. It has not been the normal practice to request a planning application for a minor work e.g. replacing windows or doors etc. However, the cumulative impact of such changes can result in the place of worship losing its listed status. The Department will be issuing revised guidance advising that such minor works which materially affect the external appearance of the building should require planning permission. (Section 23(3)(a) Planning Act (NI) 2011). It is the view of the Department that the most effective way to ensure the appropriate management of NI s rich listed ecclesiastical heritage is to: Develop best practice guidance on the alteration and adaption of NI s listed places of worship; Clarify within this guidance that listed places of worship do not enjoy permitted development rights and that external changes, such as

290 removing and replacing windows and doors, taking off render or changing roof details are development and require planning permission; Issue an order that the Ecclesiastical Exemption is removed in Northern Ireland; and Advise councils that styles of worship or liturgical requirements should also be considered when assessing Listed Building Consent applications for places of worship There are six questions posed within the consultation paper. The following responses are recommended: Q.1 Do you agree with the Department that the Ecclesiastical Exemption should be removed? YES Given that such buildings are among the most important and iconic listed buildings in Northern Ireland it is important that minor alterations and / or changes are brought under the remit of planning control to facilitate the consultation with Historic Environment Division which is the competent body with regard to the protection, conservation and enhancement of statutorily protected historic buildings and structures. Q.2 The Department could have proposed a parallel system of consents based upon the English model. It rejected this because it was likely to require a complex system of control which would be costly to administer without clear benefits to owners/ custodians or to the protection of ecclesiastical heritage assets. Do you agree with this approach? YES Given the current financial austerity issues within all section of Government it would not be feasible or desirable to attempt the introduction of a new, separate and costly system of control when one already exists in the form of planning control. Q.3 The Department is proposing that the liturgical requirements of places of worship become a material concern in determining relevant applications for listed building consent for such buildings. Do you agree? YES It is important that local authorities recognise and support the various individual religious and cultural practices within Northern Ireland. Given that such practices can result in a physical impact on the external and internal appearance and character of listed buildings of worship it is justified that the liturgical requirements be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application for a place of worship. Q.4 Do you agree that best practice guidance on the alteration and adaption of Northern Ireland s listed places of worship should be developed in parallel to the process of removal of the exemption? YES It is important that such a change in legislation and practice is highlighted and well publicised once commenced so that all local authority planning officers are fully aware of the new procedures and processes. Clear, concise, authoritative and expert best practice guidance would be of great benefit to both the professional and the public regarding this matter. Q.5 Do you agree that the guidance should clarify that listed places of worship do not enjoy permitted development rights and that external changes such as removing windows, doors, taking off render, or changing roof details are development and require planning permission?

291 3.10 YES It is very important that both professional officers and the general public are aware of what constitutes development and what requires planning permission or consent. Q.6 Do you agree that what is understood by liturgical requirements should be clearly defined in the guidance? YES It is important that this new concept is clearly defined if it is to be regarded as a material consideration. 4 Resources 4.1 Financial None 4.2 Human None 4.3 Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support None Other 4.4 None 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 Members are requested to consider and agree the recommendation that the existing Ecclesiastical Exemption should be removed and the above written response submitted to the Department for its consideration. 7 List of Documents Attached 7.1 N/A

292 Subject DoE Historic Environment Division (HED) Consultation on Proposals for a Historic Environment Fund. Date 3 rd May 2016 Reporting Officer Contact Officer Chris Boomer Planning Manager Sinead McEvoy 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with a response to the call for evidence for DoE HED consultation on the proposed new heritage fund Historic Environment Fund. 2 Background The Historic Environment Division of Department of Environment, DoE (to be replaced by Department of Communities, DoC), is responsible for the recording, conservation and protection of the built heritage in NI. The statutory authority to provide funding for listed buildings and scheduled monuments is detailed in Sections 199 and 225 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 and Articles 19, 23 and 24 of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order The Minister requested that consideration be given to the creation of a Historic Environment Fund to provide strategic direction to the funding of the historic environment. This consultation paper concisely sets out the context and justification for the provision of financial assistance to the Historic Environment by way of a Historic Environment Fund. The consultation paper seeks to engage the opinion of local District Councils. The consultation was issued on the 14 th March 2016, with a closing date of 6 th June The paper has set out 20 questions related to the introduction of a new Historic Environment Fund. 3 Key Issues Purpose: To support and sustain vibrant communities and a strong economy through realising the significant, ongoing value of our historic environment. It is proposed that the Historic Environment Fund will encompass four key strands: Heritage Research, Heritage Regeneration, Heritage Repair and Heritage Revivial. It is suggested that the Fund s aims should include:

293 Increasing understanding of our shared resource and facilitating excellence through Heritage Research schemes; Strengthening local communities, supporting third sector capacity and regeneration initiatives through Heritage Regeneration schemes; Encouraging sustainability and the preservation of the historic environment through helping to fund Heritage Repairs; and Promoting the social value of our historic environment and the innate contribution to wellbeing through our Heritage Revival initiatives. It is anticipated that funding proposals will be judged against well-defined criteria tailored to the specific objectives of each programme quadrant, against which applications will be assessed to help HED identify the best projects. Criteria will be published in advance to provide transparency and help applicants to design projects that fit the requirements of the funding streams. For example an applicant should seek to address their scheme s contribution to: Conservation and enhancement of the historic environment Economic impact contribution to tourism and to supporting communities Economic impact supporting the construction and associated industries Social benefits creating broader and deeper understanding of our heritage Social benefits enhancing public engagement with the historic environment Aid the key principles of sustainable management of our historic built environment It is important to note on page 10 of the document the following; Because Departmental budgets for coming years will not be confirmed until later this year, the consultation does not indicate the budget available to the fund. It indicates, instead, that the application of all of these proposals will be subject to funding availability and that it may not be possible to proceed with all in a given year. The consultation paper indicates clearly that there is an assumption that Councils will provide, on a partnership basis, financial support to the Historic Environment Fund. Although the overall purpose, aims and objectives of the Fund are to be commended, like the HED, Mid Ulster is subject to the same austerity issues in terms of finance. Council budgets for the next four year period cannot be confirmed in advance. Therefore, the application of all the funding proposals which require partnership funding from the Council will be subject to funding availability in any given year. Mid Ulster supports the introduction of the Historic Environment Fund and recognises that there is a need to balance funding streams between grants

294 3.7 to owners and education programmes to raise awareness regarding the value of the historic built environment in terms of the economy, the environment and society. It will be vital that any such fund will clearly complement and work in partnership with existing funding sources for the historic built environment such as those available from Heritage Lottery Fund. Mid Ulster has some reservations regarding the practical implementation of some of the funding streams given current financial restrictions both at central and local government level and other resource implications in terms of staffing. 4 Resources Financial N/A Human N/A Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A Other 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 It is recommended that members note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DoE in line with the contents of this paper. 7 List of Documents Attached Mid Ulster Council Response to consultation on Proposals for a Historic Environment Fund

295 Public Consultation: Consultation on Proposals for a Historic Environment Fund May 2016

296 DoE Public Consultation on Proposals for a Historic Environment Fund Purpose: Content: In response to a Public Consultation from the Department of Environment (DoE), this paper will provide members with comments relating to proposals for a Historic Environment Fund. The paper provides: (i) (ii) Background to the proposals for the Historic Environment Fund The key themes and funding stream proposals under the Historic Environment Fund Recommendation: That the Council note the contents of the paper and agrees that a response be forwarded to the DoE Public Consultation along the lines set out in the paper. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to provide members with a response to the DoE public consultation in relation to Proposals for a Historic Environment Fund. On the 14 th March 2016 the Minister of the Environment issued a public consultation. (Annex A) to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to express their views on the proposals for the Historic Environment Fund. 1.2 The built heritage, which includes historic buildings and monuments, is an irreplaceable cultural asset. Managed well, it can: help to maintain local identity contribute to the quality of life for residents and communities plan an important /leading role in local regeneration projects; and assist with tourism and economic development initiatives. 1.3 The Historic Environment Division of Department of Environment, DoE (to be replaced by Department of Communities, DoC), is responsible for the recording, conservation and protection of the built heritage in NI. The statutory authority to provide funding for listed buildings and scheduled monuments is detailed in Sections 199 and 225 of the Planning Act (NI) 2011 and Articles 19, 23 and 24 of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order In July 2015 a workshop for key stakeholders consulted that the general view of the group was that the contribution which the built heritage currently makes to the economy and society was not very well understood, particularly by the high level decision makers. The importance of the built heritage, and the Department s role in managing and protecting this, needs to be better and much more strongly articulated.

297 1.5 The Study on the Economic Value of Northern Ireland s Historic Environment published by DoE in 2012 noted Although its contribution to the local economy is significant, the historic environment in NI produces significantly lower levels of output, employment and GVA than that of its neighbouring jurisdictions, when assessed on a per capita basis. This suggests that there is significant potential to further develop the historic environment sector in NI. 1.6 The Minister requested that consideration be given to the creation of a Historic Environment Fund to provide strategic direction to the funding of the historic environment. It is proposed that the Historic Environment Fund will encompass four key strands: Heritage Research, Heritage Regeneration, Heritage Repair and Heritage Revival. The feedback from stakeholders was that there was a clear need to articulate the potential of the sector in a more coherent way. 1.7 This consultation paper concisely sets out the context and justification for the provision of financial assistance to the Historic Environment by way of a Historic Environment Fund. The consultation paper seeks to engage the opinion of local District Councils. The paper has set out 20 questions related to the introduction of a new Historic Environment Fund. 1.8 It is important to note on page 10 of the document the following; Because Departmental budgets for coming years will not be confirmed until later this year, the consultation does not indicate the budget available to the fund. It indicates, instead, that the application of all of these proposals will be subject to funding availability and that it may not be possible to proceed with all in a given year. 1.9 The consultation paper highlights that there is an assumption that Councils will provide, on a partnership basis, financial support to the Historic Environment Fund. Although the overall purpose, aims and objectives of the Fund are to be commended, like the HED, Mid Ulster is subject to the same austerity issues in terms of finance availability. The Council budgets for the next four year period cannot be confirmed in advance. Therefore the application of all the funding proposals requiring partnership funding from Council will be subject to funding availability within any given year. 2.0 The Proposal for an Historic Environment Fund (Section One) 2.1 Purpose: To support and sustain vibrant communities and a strong economy through realising the significant, ongoing value of our historic environment. 2.2 The historic environment is a key component of our cultural heritage, contributing, through the archaeological heritage, architectural heritage and historic landscapes to our sense of place and shared cultural identity. It enhances quality of life and adds local distinctiveness. It is an important economic and social asset. It is therefore vital that our historic environment is

298 appreciated, protected and made accessible to present and future generations. 2.3 It is proposed that the Historic Environment Fund will encompass four key strands: Heritage Research, Heritage Regeneration, Heritage Repair and Heritage Revivial. It is suggested that the Fund s aims should include: Increasing understanding of our shared resource and facilitating excellence through Heritage Research schemes; Strengthening local communities, supporting third sector capacity and regeneration initiatives through Heritage Regeneration schemes; Encouraging sustainability and the preservation of the historic environment through helping to fund Heritage Repairs; and Promoting the social value of our historic environment and the innate contribution to wellbeing through our Heritage Revival initiatives. 2.4 It is anticipated that funding proposals will be judged against well-defined criteria tailored to the specific objectives of each programme quadrant, against which applications will be assessed to help HED identify the best projects. Criteria will be published in advance to provide transparency and help applicants to design projects that fit the requirements of the funding streams. For example an applicant should seek to address their scheme s contribution to: Conservation and enhancement of the historic environment Economic impact contribution to tourism and to supporting communities Economic impact supporting the construction and associated industries Social benefits creating broader and deeper understanding of our heritage Social benefits enhancing public engagement with the historic environment Aid the key principles of sustainable management of our historic built environment 2.5 Question 1: Do you agree with the overall approach to the Historic Environment Fund as outlined in section 1? Mid Ulster supports the overall purpose of the Historic Environment Fund, as set out in Section 1 of the consultation paper. 2.6 Q1a: In summation, the Council recognises that the historic environment can play a vital role in the revitalisation of our towns and villages and providing significant economic benefits, particularly in areas of recognised deprivation. Heritage can be a key catalyst for regeneration projects and the proposed HEF provides an opportunity to encourage private sector investment and make a positive contribution to Mid Ulster s local economy. Whilst there are no guarantees in terms of money, the proposed HEF indicates the desire from the Minister to develop structures to channel money where it is needed, as and when he is able to secure central Government funding.

299 2.7 Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed four key strands and their associated aims? Mid Ulster supports the Fund s proposed four key themes and the four associated aims. 2.8 Q2a: A key issue requiring further consideration will be the selection criteria against which funding applications will be assessed. It is important that there is on-going debate regarding any such criteria and that the Council, as a key consultee should be involved in any such debate. 3.0 Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment 3.1 HED is developing a framework for the sustainable management of our historic environment. They have identified six key principles: The historic environment is a shared resource Everyone will be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment Understanding the significance of historic assets is vital Historic assets will be managed to sustain their values Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent Documenting and learning from decisions is essential 3.2 Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals to include a framework for the Principles for the sustainable management of the historic environment to include the six identified Principles? Mid Ulster agree with the overarching concept of a sustainable management framework and that there needs to be clear, concise and defined Principles associated with such a framework. 3.3 Q3a: In 2011 a NIAO report 1 stated that need for a clear performance measurement framework. The inclusion of a framework helps to provide clarity, structure and guidance to support sustainable management of the historic environment. The proposed six Principles would need to be accompanied by clear definitions and guidance with regard to their interpretation particularly in relation to the significance of a historic asset and what its individual values are. In addition, with regard to the last proposed Principle the requirement to disseminate the data to local authorities and the wider public needs to be included. 4.0 Strategic Areas for Funding (Section Two) Historic Environment Fund Heritage Research Understanding and facilitating excellence of our shared resource Historic Environment Research Fund Publications Fund Heritage Regeneration Facilitating heritage led regeneration strengthening local communities by supporting third sector capacity & regeneration initiatives 1 Safeguarding Northern Ireland s Listed Buildings, March 2011, NIAO

300 University Fund Post-Excavation Fund Incubation-Innovation Fund Archaeological Investigation Funding Conservation Plan seed Funding 10-20% of fund allocation Heritage Repair Rewarding & encouraging best practice in conservation encouraging sustainability & best practice in conservation & preservation Management Agreements Listed Buildings Funding Stream Historic Window Repair Funding Stream Thatched Buildings Funding Stream Small works Listed Places of Worship Funding Stream 40-60% of fund allocation Community Engagement Seed Fund Council-enabled Management Agreements Council Engagement-Pilot Project Fund HAR (Heritage at Risk): recording, acquisition fund, holding repairs fund, council owned structures fund, exceptional circumstances fund 10-30% of fund allocation Heritage Revival Promoting social value of heritage Annual Heritage Awards Historic Environment Support Fund Skills development with training and education activities Heritage Schools Transport Fund Promoting the social value of our historic environment and the innate contribution this can make to wellbeing 10-20% of fund allocation 4.1 Question 4: Do you agree or disagree with the percentages of funding allocated for each of the quadrants of the Historic Environment Fund? Mid Ulster would agree that the largest percentage of the funding, if available, should be allocated to Heritage Repair. 4.2 Q4a: Further consideration should be given to the need for more outreach and capacity building programmes focusing on the economic, social and environmental value of the local historic built environment. Such educational programmes need to clearly set out the benefits of protecting, conservation and enhancing our local built environment for all sections of the community in terms of economic growth, historical and cultural aspects and environmental sustainability objectives. The reuse of our existing historic built heritage stock is one of the best ways to meet our sustainable development and management targets while retaining a physical link to our shared social past. 4.3 Therefore there may be merit in allocating a larger percentage of the fund to Heritage Revival focusing on capacity building at the local level among local council representatives (Councillors / Committee Members) and key Council Staff (Directors and Head of Service). Heritage Research Achieving Excellence (Section Three) 4.4 The consultation paper sets out a number of ways in which HED intend to fund schemes and /or research projects which would develop an increased understanding of our shared historic environment and develop innovative ways to protect it from harm and enrich skills and expertise to help care for it.

301 4.5 Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of proposed funding streams under the outcomes of a Heritage research funding stream? Mid Ulster agrees in general with the seven proposed types of funding streams under the Heritage Research theme. 4.6 Q5a: However, further information related to each of these proposed funds would be useful in terms of clear aims, objectives and outcomes, particularly those were HED see a role for local authorities e.g. Historic Environment Research. It is essential that the range of open and target programmes complement and link with the suite of programmes offered by Heritage Lottery Fund i.e. Townscape Heritage Initiative. Targeted development support under the Council Engagement Pilot Project Funding should encourage more local authorities to submit projects. In addition, there is some concern that given limited budgets related to funding for the Historic Environment there may be too many proposed streams under this theme. Heritage Regeneration Benefitting the Community 4.7 HED proposes to offer funding to help deliver tangible benefits to local communities and local economies. Under this funding theme applications which encourage participate in and invite engagement with the public at all levels from grassroots (community), local authority and regional central government will help to broaden the awareness of economic, social and environmental impacts of best practice. There will be a focus on Heritage at Risk assets. It is envisaged that a capacity building fund with District Councils will help raise awareness across the region. Through partnership funding, strategic support mechanisms will be enabled for third sector organisations and councils, to assist in our efforts to reduce the numbers of Heritage at Risk assets. 4.8 Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of proposed funding streams under the outcomes of a Heritage Regeneration funding stream? There are nine proposed funding streams under the theme of Heritage Regeneration. 4.9 Q6a: There is some concern that given limited budgets related to funding for the Historic Environment there may be too many proposed streams under this theme. Further information and clarification on the proposed aim, objectives and outcomes of each proposed funding stream is needed, particularly if HED see a partnership role for local councils. For example, the paper refers to a capacity building fund with District Councils will help raise awareness across the region. Mid Ulster would stress the importance and need to engage with local councils at an early stage as any such programme will have direct implications on resources (both financial and staff) Six of the proposed funding streams relate directly to Heritage at Risk issues. Further information is required with regard to the function of the Heritage at Risk Register. For example will HED continue to prepare and publish the BHARR NI? It is not clear from the paper how this existing register will be

302 maintained and monitored in the future. HED need to clearly and concisely set out the role, remit and responsibilities that they envisage for Councils. There may be a link between the proposed Heritage at Risk funding streams and the Council s new planning powers in the form of Urgent Work Notices (UWN) and Building Preservation Notices (BPN) but further discuss on this particular area of heritage protection is needed Mid Ulster recognises the need to support the sustainability of voluntary heritage organisations such as Building Preservation Trusts (BPTs). The introduction of a funding stream focused on those structures at risk which have no economic use such as follies, fountains and bridges is to be encouraged. Heritage Repair Rewarding and encouraging best practice in conservation 4.12 HED propose to allocate funding via the Heritage Repair theme which will assist owners and custodians to repair and maintain their heritage assets, in turn helping to develop and sustain heritage skills and providing for greater public understanding of the historic environment It is recognised that extra costs apply to conservation works at heritage structures, public funding serves as a catalyst for unlocking the scale of economic benefits embodies in heritage assets. Traditional skills training, mentoring and skills development will be a key focus in the assessment of Repair funding streams. Applicants will need to consider how their project might contribute to increasing skills and providing opportunities for training and qualifications. The paper suggests that there may be scope for collaboration with district councils, CITB, HLF, local colleges or training providers to encourage apprentice type opportunities for encouraging the interest in heritage skills Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of proposed funding streams under the outcomes of a Heritage Repair funding stream? There are five proposed funding streams under this theme all of which will potentially protect, conserve and enhance existing built heritage assets from deterioration and dilapidation. Mid Ulster supports these five funding streams under this theme and particularly welcomes specific funding for windows and places of worship Q7a: It is also proposed that this theme receive the majority of the HEF allocation 40-60%, Mid Ulster would agree with this proposal as the need for funding streams for the physical repair of heritage buildings and structures and archaeological monuments and sites is clear. Heritage Revival Promoting the social value of heritage 4.16 It is acknowledged that the historic environment is a shared resource and it is important that both HED and local authorities work together to promote our shared historic environment. Under this funding theme it is suggested that funding for incentives and rewards for owners, custodians and guardians who

303 demonstrate a clear commitment to the HED aim should be made available. There are four funding streams proposed consisting of: Annual Heritage Awards; Historic Environment Support Fund; Skills Development with Training and Education Activities; and Heritage Schools Transport Fund Question 8: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of proposed funding streams under the outcomes a Heritage Revival funding stream? Mid Ulster supports the provision of funding focused on the promotion of our historic built environment in terms of both its social and economic value to local communities, local authorities and the wider public including linkages to local tourism opportunities, urban regeneration initiatives and conservation schemes Q8a: A key issue for the protection, conservation and enhancement of the historic built environment is the need to clearly articulate the tangible and intangible value of these heritage assets in terms of their benefits to the local economy, local social history / culture and local environment i.e. sustainable development. It is noted that in terms of funding allocation only 10-20% of the HED fund has been suggested. Mid Ulster would suggest that until there is a clear understanding of the value of heritage assets both in general and site specific cases there will be difficulties securing match funding for heritage projects, initiatives and schemes. HED should consider allocating more of the HEF to education, proactive promotion and building grassroots support from local community groups. Local authorities are potentially a key partner with regards to funding opportunities for heritage led and community led schemes. There is a need for closer liaison between HED and local authorities regarding funding issues and a proactive capacity building programme for Council Members and Council Staff Furthermore, the proposed fund to support travel costs associated with the Heritage Schools Initiative is important. Introducing the concept of our shared heritage and culture via the historic built environment to children at primary and post primary school level provides a format for integrated learning, an understanding of our shared history and sustainability theories. 5.0 Supplementary Matters (Section Seven) Restrictions to Fund retention of capping, processing and batching 5.1 A two stage financial management system for the high value schemes will be introduced to determine eligibility and demand. Capping will be retained and capped at 50K per scheme, subject to review and funding availability. Batching of applications for high-value schemes will be considered three times a year. Proposals will be competitively scored and weighted against agreed criteria and priorities. The benefits of the project(s) should align with HED s aim. HED will also consider how funding through the HEF can be most appropriately aligned with government s financial years, including whether it is appropriate to break larger schemes down into smaller elements and fund these individually.

304 5.2 Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed restrictions to the fund-retention of capping, processing, batching and prioritisation aligned to financial forecasting? In general, Mid Ulster agrees with the concept of capping, processing and batching. 5.3 Q9a: Can further clarification be provided as to why the cap is 50,000, what is the reasoning behind this figure. Listed buildings are graded based on their special architectural and historic merit, it is reasonable to assume that the cost of repairs can vary depending on Grade i.e. Grade A repairs generally will cost more than Grade B2 repairs because of the nature of the historic fabric of the building. Has any consideration been given to a scale of capping dependent on Grade or scope to vary grants depending on the scale of the property involved? 5.4 It is vital that HED consider how the proposed HEF funding will be implemented in practice. It is clear that there will be a need for partnership funding from other organisations including Heritage Lottery Fund, Local Authorities and other voluntary organisations. Local Authorities allocate funding based on the financial year, it is unlikely that such funding can be secured over more than one time period. It is therefore important that larger scaled projects are allocated funding on a phased basis with a clear link to overall aims and objectives e.g. clear schedule of works or terms of reference. Consistent monitoring and evaluation must also be incorporated into any proposed funding stream. Dispersal of Fund 5.5 In order to build capacity across the region, applicants will be asked for details of all other government funding received in the previous three years (including Challenge Funding), in order to ensure the maximum dispersal of funding and avoid cold spots of funding take up. 5.6 Question 10: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to request details of other sources of recent funding from applicants to avoid cold spots of funding? Mid Ulster agrees to this proposal. 5.7 Q10a: Given the Minister is seeking to use the budget widely rather than focusing scarce budget on a few projects, it will be important to request such details from applicants. This will also help to build capacity and encourage participation in the historic environment. It is also worth considering how to tailor support for individual applicants taking account of their experience. Simplifying the programme requirements should be a priority, the volume of work and timescale involved in the application process can put many potential clients off making an application. Priorities in the event of restricted funding 5.8 In the event of a restricted funding situation for Heritage Repairs, HED will give priority to: Structures on the HAR register*;

305 Thatched buildings; Those applicants qualifying for enhanced rate of grant (applicants in receipt of specified means tested state benefits are eligible for 90% grant aid); Structures on the World Monuments at Risk Register *The owners of buildings on the HAR register, as part of their application, will have to demonstrate that measures to address water damage by, for example, preventing water ingress and /or securing wall heads etc. through temporary means, have been undertaken in order to safeguard scarce public funding. 5.9 Question 11: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to prioritise the four categories above in the event of restricted funding? Mid Ulster agrees that in the event of restricted funding availability there needs to be a priority list. It is important that funding is allocated to the most vulnerable protected buildings and structures i.e. those identified on the Buildings at Risk Register and the World Monuments at Risk Register. Q11a: In addition, Mid Ulster would suggest that priority should also be given to projects in areas of recognised economic and social deprivation Question 12: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require proof of temporary measures to be undertaken to address water ingress for the owners of buildings on the HAR register? It is vital that all owners must show willingness to protect and conserve the special architectural or historic features of the Listed Building(s). Owners must provide proof that adequate maintenance has occurred on a regular basis to prevent water ingress Q12a: In addition, there is scope for collaborative working with regards to the protection and conservation of historic buildings / structures at risk between HED and local authorities, particularly via the Council s new powers of Urgent Work Notices and Building Preservation Notices. However, there needs to be more constructive liaison between HED and local authorities to establish good clear lines of communication, protocols and procedures. Funding Maintenance Plans 5.12 In recognition of the importance of maintenance as key to ensuring long term benefits for public investment. HED will introduce as a condition on all offers for listed buildings over 20,000, the submission of an appropriate maintenance plan. The preparation of these plans may be an eligible cost, and will be limited to 75% of the costs, up to a maximum of 200. A condition of any future offer will be that the maintenance detailed in the plan has been carried out Q13: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to fund maintenance plans? Mid Ulster supports this requirement, a clear, concise and enforceable maintenance plan must be submitted in order to receive funding.

306 5.14 Q13a: There is a need to focus on sustainability and maintenance or many projects will fail quickly resulting in poor use of public monies. In addition, the ongoing maintenance and regeneration of the historic environment will help to support strong, safer communities and maintain a sense of place. Clarification regarding the reasoning for selecting the figure of 20,000 would be helpful. For example, why not require a maintenance plan for all projects receiving HEF, the maintenance plan could be proportionate to the funding being allocated. In addition, is there scope to request appropriately accredited professionals to carry out the Funding Maintenance Plans? Retention of enhanced levels of grant aid to owners in receipt of qualifying benefit, exclusions and claw back 5.15 The enhanced rate of support for eligible applicants for listed building support will be maintained at 90% of eligible costs and capped at 50%. Current exclusions for listed building support will remain. Government and public bodies, Housing Associations funded by public monies and large commercial organisations, including but not exclusively limited to, financial institutions and multi-national companies, are excluded from the scheme Question 14: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to retain the enhanced level of grant aid for owners in receipt of qualifying benefit? Mid Ulster agrees with this approach Question 15: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to continue to exclude Government and public bodies, Housing Associations funded by public monies and large commercial organisations, including but not exclusively limited to, financial institutions and multi-national companies? Mid Ulster agrees with this approach Question 16: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to include a claw back clause for the repayment of the funding in the event of the failure of a scheme to progress through acquisition funding or in the event of sale of a building funded through an enhanced scheme (90% funding)? Mid Ulster agrees with this approach. Funding Condition Reports and Forward Plans 5.18 Where there is a history of applications for one heritage asset or for assets in common ownership, or where phasing is proposed, applications must be based on a full condition report and forward plan outlining the future development of the property or properties over the next 5 years. The report, prepared by an accredited conservation professional, should identify those works that are urgent, and those likely to be required in the medium and longterm. The preparation of these documents will be an eligible cost. Funding will be available for up to 75% of the total cost, and will be capped at 1K. This will be paid on commencement of the first work phase.

307 5.19 Question 17: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to continue to fund Condition Reports and Forward Plans? Mid Ulster agree with this approach Q17a: It would be useful if further clarification could be issued with regard to what consists of a full condition report and/ or a forward plan? Are these similar to Structural Engineer reports regarding the structural soundness of the protected structure and / or conservation management plans? Requirement to appoint accredited conservation professionals on funding building schemes over value of 10K 5.21 As a condition of support, where the total cost of eligible work is estimated at 10,000 or more (including fees and VAT), applicants will be required to appoint an accredited conservation professional to specify and oversee the works. This will be introduced in 2017, to facilitate applications for accreditation to be achieved by the relevant professions Question 18: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to requirement the appointment of accredited conservation professionals on funding schemes over value of 10K? Mid Ulster supports this approach Q18a: Further information regarding why the value of 10K was chosen would be helpful, for example why choose a limit of 10,000 projects for accreditation, should all projects not involve accredited conservation professionals? In addition, clarification with regard to the type of accreditation required would be helpful. Publicity and outreach of schemes 5.23 As a condition of support, all recipients of suitable offers will be required to agree to an appropriate level of the public access for five years from the date of the final payment being made by HED, such as European Heritage Open Days. Additional publicity including description of proposals, photographs and information including financial award(s) will be available for web dissemination and/ or printed promotional literature Question 19: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require all recipients of suitable offers will be required to agree to an appropriate level of public access for 5 years from the date of the final payment? Mid Ulster supports this approach Q19a: One of the key principles of the HEF is to provide opportunities for the enjoyment and celebration of our heritage. Heritage should be protected for the future and everyone should have the chance to explore and share it. Therefore, Mid Ulster would support a pre-condition that following the support, the project provides public access for a minimum period of 5 years Question 20: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require all recipients of suitable offers to facilitate publicity of award of funding including description of proposals, photographs and information including financial

308 award(s). All to be available for web dissemination and / or printed promotional literature? Mid Ulster agrees with this approach Q20a: Such a proposal will help to promote wider awareness of the opportunities and benefits of the HEF, thus encouraging participation. Mid Ulster would request that the economic impacts of HEF project expenditure is assessed and communicated e.g. number of jobs created and sustained, leverage, number of people benefiting from skills training, visitor numbers, contribution to wider regeneration programmes and image/perception of the area. 6.0 Recommendation 6.1 Mid Ulster supports the introduction of the Historic Environment Fund and recognises that there is a need to balance funding streams between grants to owners and education programmes to raise awareness regarding the value of the historic built environment in terms of the economy, the environment and society. It will be vital that any such fund will clearly complement and work in partnership with existing funding sources for the historic built environment such as those available from Heritage Lottery Fund. 6.2 Mid Ulster has some reservations regarding the practical implementation of some of the funding streams given current financial restrictions both at central and local government level and other resource implications in terms of staffing. 6.3 It is recommended that Members note the contents of this paper and agree that a response is issued to DoE in line with the contents of this paper.

309 Subject Planning Department Service Improvement Plan Reporting Officer Contact Officer Chris Boomer Planning Manager Sinead McEvoy and Melvin Bowman 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To provide members with a copy of the Service Improvement Plan for the Planning Department for the period Background The attached Service Improvement Plan shows how the services provided by the Planning Department will contribute towards the Councils three chosen corporate level improvement objectives. A Service Improvement Plan (SIP) was in place for the period and a section of the attached SIP sets out the performance overview for that period. Also included is a Work Plan and Action Plan for the period to address the various actions to be undertaken by this Service over the new reporting period. 3 Key Issues 3.1 There are a number of actions and outcomes set out within the attached SIP which the Planning Department will report on over the course of the period Also included are a number of risks for the Planning Department and details of the mitigation in place to control these in the most effective way. 4 Resources 4.1 Financial N/A 4.2 Human N/A 4.3 Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A 4.4 Other N/A

310 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 It is recommended that the attached Planning Department Service Improvement Plan is noted and agreed by members. 7 List of Documents Attached Planning Department - Service Improvement Plan

311 Planning Department Date Consulted within staff team 07/04/ 2016 Discussed Updated: & signed Version off by Director 26/04/2016 SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2016 / 17

312 Service Improvement Plan CONTENT SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER 1.0 OVERALL PURPOSE & SCOPE OF THE SERVICE 1.1 Purpose and scope of the service Responsibilities Customers & Stakeholders Performance Overview in 2015/ SERVICE WORK PLAN / Budget / Staffing Complement 2016/ Work Plan 2016/ IMPROVING OUR SERVICE / Action Plan / Risk Management of Service 1

313 Service Improvement Plan 1.0 OVERALL PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE SERVICE 1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Service The Planning Department is led by the Planning Manager and it is responsible for the delivery of a number of planning functions including the following: receiving and making decision on planning applications; enforcing breaches of planning control; making tree preservation orders and providing advice on conservation area developments; and producing a local development plan which will outline how land in Mid Ulster should be used and developed in the future. 1.2 Responsibilities In order to deliver these services the Planning Department is divided into two separate functions. Development Management The Development Management function is made up of the following area teams all of which are based at the Councils offices on the Ballyronan Road, Magherafelt: 1. Cookstown and Torrent 2. Dungannon and Clogher 3. Magherafelt, Carntogher and Moyola The Development Management function has the following responsibilities: Determining Major, Local planning applications Providing Pre-application advice and facilitating Pre-application discussions Dealing with Non-material changes to planning approvals Determining Certificates of Lawfulness. Development Plan, Environment and Enforcement The Development Plan team are responsible for the production of the new Local Development Plan for Mid Ulster District. The Environment team are responsible for consideration of environmental issues including the carrying out the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment of the new Local Development Plan as well as providing advice on conservation matters and Tree Preservation Orders. The Enforcement team are responsible for investigating and responding to enforcement complaints regarding breaches of planning control. 2

314 Service Improvement Plan 1.3 Customers & Stakeholders Customers & Stakeholders applicants agent / architects objectors complainants in relation to breaches of planning control Planning Committee Council officers and elected representatives Statutory Consultees Local Development Plan Consultation Bodies Mid Ulster residents, businesses and interested parties 1.4 Performance Overview in 2015/16 The following table provides a progress summary and impact made by last years Service Improvement Plan ( ). It also details key successes, remaining challenges for the Service and how it made a difference. 2015/16 Performance Overview To improve the Planning Services and ensure decisions are made in an open and transparent manner. the Planning Service has provided access to planning staff by ensuring face to face contact at the Magherafelt Office, appointment s at local clinics and access to a planning officer by phone / during office hours) This has assisted with the Council s single 2015/16 Corporate Improvement Plan, which was: To enhance Council Services by adopting a standardised approach to delivery across Mid Ulster To determine 50% of all Major applications within 30 weeks Target has not been met and remains a key challenge moving forward. To determine 50% of all local applications within 15 weeks Target as of Feb 2016 has just been missed at 15.4 weeks. This represents a great achievement and is a performance which has improved through- out reflecting also on the benefits of the recruitment of temporary staff. There is however a remaining challenge to meet the target. To ensure effective reporting on all planning applications The successful functioning of the Planning Committee has led to confidence in the decision making role of the Committee also assisting in developing a standardised approach to the delivery of this important Council service. To obtain agreement on the Statement of Community Involvement The SCI has been agreed by the Council and is currently with the Department to agree. This is an important document for the LDP as the sets out how the Council will consult and engage during the plan making process. 3

315 Service Improvement Plan To ensure officers are available in the council office in Magherafelt and on the telephone to receive enforcement complaints or queries during normal working hours With the move of planning staff into Mid Ulster for the first time we have ensured that officers are available in the Magherafelt office. To progress 70% of all enforcement complaints to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint This target has been met and exceeded during Q1, Q2 and Q3 and based on the figures for January and February it is highly likely that the target will also be met and exceeded for Q4. This is an important achievement and ensures that cases are progressed in a timely manner and has assisted with the Council s objective to enhance Council Services by adopting a standardised approach to delivery across Mid Ulster. To complete all preparatory work on the Local Development Plan which will provide a statutory framework for accommodating growth Work on all preparatory evidence gathering position papers has been completed and workshops with elected members and officers have also been concluded. This represents an important achievement and puts the Council in a positive position to shortly commence formal work on the Local Development Plan (LDP). The LDP Timetable has also been agreed by Council and is currently with the Department to agree. Work on planning policy reviews have been ongoing during the year and a number have been completed. While they have not been completed it is hoped that they will be concluded by end of April To prepare an Enforcement Strategy within 6 months of the operation of MUDC. An Enforcement Strategy has been agreed by the Planning Committee and adopted by the Planning Department. This is an important achievement as it provides a clear and transparent framework to explain how alleged breaches of planning are investigated. To set up a Steering Group to oversee work on the Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). The first meeting of the Steering Group took place in early February 2016 and the SA/SEA Scoping Report has been issued to the Consultation Body (NIEA) for comment. This is a significant piece of work and achievement. To provide customers with responses to planning queries within 21 days. This target has not been met during the past year however 89% was achieved during Q4 and it remains a challenge to achieve 100%. This has been and continues to be a focus to ensure that this target is achieved. 2.0 SERVICE WORKPLAN 2016/17 The following tables confirm the resources, financial and people, which the Service has access to throughout to deliver its actions, activities and core business. 4

316 Service Improvement Plan 2.1 Budget 2016/17 Service Budget Headings Salaries 1,633,087 General Administration Expenses (GAE) 90,407 Advertising 52,000 Travel and Subsistence 43,240 Gross Budget 1,818,734 Income 1,385,000 Net Budget for , Staffing Complement /17 Planning Manager Chris Boomer Head of Development Management Melvin Bowman Business Support Manager Jean Connolly Head of Development Plan & Enforcement Sinead McEvoy 5

317 Service Improvement Plan Head of Development Management Melvin Bowman Team Lead Magherafelt Karen Doyle Team Lead Cookstown Emma McCullagh Team Lead Dungannon Phelim Marrion Planning Officers 3.8 FTE Planning Officers 2.5 FTE Planning Officers 2.6 FTE Head of Development Plan & Enforcement Sinead McEvoy Development Plan Team Lead Elaine Heagney Environment & Conservation Team Lead Michael McGibbon Team Lead Enforcement Maeve McKearney Planning Officers 4 FTE Planning Officers 2.9 FTE Planning Officers 3 FTE 6

318 Service Improvement Plan Businees Support Manager Jean Connolly Administration Managers 1.8 FTE Officers 7.6 FTE Staffing No. of Staff Planning Manager 1 Heads of Service 2 Managers 6.8 Professional & Technical 18.8 Officers Business Support Officers 9.4 FTE Total 38 7

319 2.3 Work Plan /17 This plan confirms the core activities and actions which will form your Service Work Plan for This should be a high level capture of the Service activities and work which it will focus on throughout The Plan links to the Council s Corporate Plan priorities Corporate Plan Priority No. (2) Creating Growth Actions By When Outcome Expected To determine 50% of all Major planning applications within 25 weeks End of Q To have improved processing times towards the 50% target. (2) Creating Growth To determine 50% of all Local planning applications within 15 weeks End Q To have achieved the target within specified timescales. (1) Delivering for our people To provide representation for Council for all planning appeals and Judicial Reviews. Quarterly To deliver statements / evidence within required dates set. (2) Creating Growth To respond to all correspondence within 21 days. Quarterly To achieve target on quarterly basis (2) Creating Growth To publish the Local Development Plan Preferred Options Paper (POP) and related Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Interim Report by end of Q End of Q To have published POP and related SA/SEA Interim by end of Q3 (1) Delivering for our people (3) Sustaining Our Environment To process 70% of all enforcement cases to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint. To provide internal consultation advice on conservation matters on 90% of cases within 10 working days. Quarterly To achieve target on a quarterly basis Quarterly To achieve target on a quarterly basis Updated: Version

320 Service Improvement Plan (1) Delivering for our people To provide submissions on Appeals, Judicial Reviews, Consultations and Calls for Evidence. Quarterly To achieve 100% response within the timeframe set by external bodies 1

321 3.0 IMPROVING OUR SERVICE 3.1 Action Plan /17 This action plan (the excel spreadsheet) Identifies responsibilities/accountability and the resources needed to achieve service improvement through clear links to financial planning/risk management, how people s skills and associated resources will be used to best effect (the means of achieving your actions, the measures used and the outcomes gained). This details those actions which will contribute towards the delivery one or other of the Council s agreed Corporate Improvement Objectives for : (i) (ii) (iii) Consolidating and Improving the Delivery of Services Improving our Management of Waste Promote and assist in the growth of the economy Updated: Version

322 Updated: Version

323 2 Service Improvement Plan

324 3.2 RISK MANAGEMENT OF SERVICE The purpose of risk management is to manage the barriers which prevents the Council from achieving its objectives. This section of the service improvement plan includes space for the Service to input their key risks (in summary form), which have been identified during the business planning process. The Council uses risk management to maximize opportunities and minimize risks. This improves its ability to deliver priorities and improve outcomes. This is why the Council deems it important to link business planning and risk management. Risk Management aims to: Help the Council achieve its overall aims and objectives Manage the significant risks the Council faces to an acceptable level Assist with the decision making process Implement the most effective measures to avoid, reduce and control those risks Balance risk with opportunity Manage risk and internal controls in the most effective way. Updated: Version

325 This table illustrates the risks identified to deliver the Services business in Risk Ref Description of Risk Risk Rating Mitigation Activity Number 1. Failure to meet Major planning application targets 8 Develop a strategy to deal more efficiently with Major planning applications 2. Failure to meet local planning application targets 3 Use of monthly group meetings and targeted case processing. 3. Failure to publish the the Local Development Plan Preferred Options Paper (POP) and related Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Interim Report by end of Q3 4. Failure to progress 70% of all enforcement cases to target conclusion within 39 weeks of receipt of complaint 4 A number of Development Plan staff will return from maternity leave during the period of May-August Completion of preparatory work during Q1. 3 Use of monthly group meetings and targeted case processing. 5. Failure to finance planning service 4 No actions considered necessary beyond quarterly monitoring. Rating Descriptor Extreme Risk (immediate action required) High Risk (urgent action required) 7-9 Moderate Risk (action required) 1 6 Low Risk (keep under review) Updated: Version

326 Subject: Planning Appeal decisions. Date of Meeting: 3 rd May 2016 Reporting Officer: Melvin Bowman Contact Officer: Dr Chris Boomer 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To inform members of recent Planning Appeal decisions. 2 Background The Planning Appeals Commission has issued the following appeal decision. An analysis of this decision is provided below for information. 3 Key Issues 3.1 M/2013/0430/F Change of Use from Existing Dwelling to 3. No Apartments at 10 and 10a Circular Road Dungannon for Mr Robert Carson. (appeal dismissed) The main issues in this appeal were whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the safety and convenience of road users and if it would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of an adjacent occupier The appeal proposal involved the use of an existing access to serve the car parking arrangements associated with the proposed apartment scheme. Having accepted that the applicant had no alternative means of access other than onto the Main Traffic Route, The Commissioner took the view that on a carriageway which carries some 9,865 vehicles per day that, all in all, it would seem that the existing substandard access arrangement is highly unsatisfactory and somewhat dangerous. The appellant advanced two arguments regarding the assessment of whether or not the appeal proposal would result in intensification in the use of the existing access. Even allowing for the two spaces associated with the existing dwelling the

327 addition of one more car parking space accessed by the laneway would exceed 5% intensification in its use 3.4 Regarding his second approach based on TRICS data, the Commissioner analysed that the access currently supports vmpd (vehicle movements per day)associated with the four dwellings that use it. 5 % of the current usage is The addition of one apartment and taking account of the conversion of the dwelling at No 10 Circular Road to two apartments would result in 2015/A0141 an overall increase of vmpd based on the appellant s table 2 and this exceeds the 5% threshold. Therefore, even using the lower TRICS data the appeal proposal would result in intensification in the use of this substandard access onto a protected route. In addition the Commissioner was not persuaded that appropriate visibility splays of 2m x 60m could be provided. The appeal was subsequently dismissed being contrary to PPS3 Policy AMP2. 4 Resources 4.1 Financial N/A 4.2 Human N/A 4.3 Basis for Professional/ Consultancy Support N/A 4.4 Other 5 Other Considerations 5.1 N/A 6 Recommendations 6.1 That members note the attached appeal decision.

328 7 List of Documents Attached 7.1 Copies of PAC decisions.

329

330

331

332

333