Appendix 14

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 5th April 2017

APPLICATION No: LA11/2016/0129/O

APPLICATION TYPE: Outline

PROPOSAL: Lands for housing development - approx 6 dwellings

LOCATION: Lands between 11&12 Evish Grove and 172 Mount Carmel Heights, Strabane

APPLICANT: Mountainview Developments

AGENT: Fleming McKernan Associates

ADVERTISEMENT/STATUTORY EXPIRY: 17/02/2016-10/03/2016

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Recommendation to refuse.

All planning application forms, drawings, letters etc. relating to this planning application are available to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed Development

The application is to develop a section of sloping land between 172 Mount Carmel Heights and Nos 11 and 12 Evish Grove, Strabane. The application is outline but the agent has submitted a design sketch proposing six semi-detached dwellings in three blocks.

2. Site and Surrounding Area

The proposed site is located on lands between Mount Carmel Heights and Evish Grove. The

site frontage is 95 metres long but is steeply sloping along the frontage and the site falls

significantly to the rear, the land rises from 41.5 to 52 along the site with a crash barrier

along a section of the site frontage. There was a school to the rear of the site but this has

closed and the site has been cleared. The site is within the development limits of Strabane as

designated in the Strabane Area Plan and is in white land.

Appendix 14

Appendix 14

Photo 1: Site frontage taken from the road at the edge of Mount Carmel Heights

Photo 2: View of Site from Edge of Cul-de-sac at 11 Evish Grove showing shrubs and level

difference up to the road (crash barrier at road frontage on right of picture)

Appendix 14

3. EIA Determination

The proposal is not EIA development.

4. Site Constraints

In the original application for the housing at Mount Carmel Heights there was a grass area

shown on the plans and shrub planting in the gap site between Evish Grove and Mount

Carmel Heights. The map below shows a section of a plan from the 1999 planning

permission. The area shaded green was identified as a grass area and the planting is shown

on this map. The area shaded red is the current application site and also included the area

shaded green.

Appendix 14

5. Neighbour Notification Report

6. Relevant Site History

J/1999/0573/F- Housing Development Former Convent of Mercy Site, Newtownkennedy

Road, Strabane. Approved 29/8/2000

7. Policy Framework

Strategic Planning Policy Statement

Strabane Area Plan 1986-2001

PPS3 Access, Movement and Parking

PPS7 Quality residential Environment (Addendum)

PPS8 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation

PPS 12: Housing in Settlements

8. Consultee Responses, Internal/External

Transport NI- unable to fully assess the application from the information submitted. The

initial application for the six dwelling units with direct access onto Mount Carmel Heights

seen as impractical due to level differences, the proximity of the road radii to the north and

Appendix 14

the vehicle restraint fence to the south and also the prospect of achieving satisfactory

sightlines from the accesses.

NI Water- No Objection

Loughs Agency- No objection

EHD- Raised issue with the possibility of land contamination on the site due to the close

proximity of a variety of land uses that could give rise to contamination. This could be dealt

with by condition at a later application stage if the principle of the development was

accepted.

9. Representations

There has been three objections received. Two of the objections are from the owner of 1

Mount Carmel Heights and the other objection has been received from 172 Mount Carmel

Heights.

The issues raised in the objections are:

- The development site is small and steep and this development would ‘overwhelm the

site’;

- Could restrict future plans for the development site to the rear;

- Health and safety concerns from having 6 driveways on a hill which is busy with traffic

and has a blind corner;

- Concerns for pedestrians especially children walking from nearby school.

In relation to the traffic issues, Transport NI has raised concerns on how the proposed

accesses would work on this stretch of land. The agent was asked for levels and road details

to address some of these concerns but these were not received. In the absence of this

information I would recommend refusal on PPS3 as the details have not been supplied to

show access and parking arrangements.

10. Planning Assessment and Other Material Considerations

Section 6 (4) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to make

planning decisions in accordance with the local development plan, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise.

Appendix 14

PPS8 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation

The site constitutes open space and is protected by PPS8 Open Space, Sport and Outdoor

Recreation Policy OS1. Open Space is essential in any community for both amenity and

recreation purposes and often contributes positively to the character, attractiveness and

vitality of areas. Annex A of PPS8 provides a definition of Open Space. The application site

would fall under part three and part six listed below:

(iii) amenity green space (most commonly, but not exclusively in housing areas) – including

informal recreation spaces, communal green spaces in and around housing, and village

greens;

(vi) Natural and semi-natural urban green spaces.

Policy OS1 aims to protect existing open space and operates a presumption against the loss

of existing open space stating that development that would result in the loss of existing open

space will not be permitted and this presumption will apply irrespective of its physical

condition and appearance.

The proposed site provides a visual break between two large residential areas. This corridor

of open space provides a valuable visual break and buffer between two large areas of

housing. At one time there was a pathway linking this site to the school grounds behind but

this is no longer in use. From the photographs it can be seen that the area is made up of a

mix of grass and shrubs and softens the context of the surrounding estates.

This can be seen below in the aerial view of the site in photo 3 and the view of the site from

the edge of Mount Carmel Heights in photo 4.

Appendix 14

Photo 3

Photo 4

Although the proposed site is relatively small, this would set a precedent in losing this parcel

of open space. Annex A of PPS8 has identified that open space can perform multiple

functions and provide public value within a housing area. Even without public access, people

enjoy having open space near to them to provide an outlook, variety in the urban scene or as

a positive element in the landscape. As a consequence the Council must protect the open

space within this locality and as such the development on this site is deemed unacceptable

under Policy OS1 of PPS8.

Policy OS1 permits an exception to this policy where it is clearly shown that redevelopment

will bring substantial community benefits that outweigh the loss of open space. The agent

has indicated that there have been no objections to the proposal in relation to the loss of

open space and that the objections raised are in relation to traffic and safety and the impact

on the character of the area.

The agent has stated that the grass area identified on the original plan was for visibility splays

and that the landscaped area of trees along the site frontage can be provided at the back of

visibility splays. No details has been submitted in relation to the planting.

The agent raised a recent appeal (2016/A0078) where OS1 was set aside as the land was seen

as being unzoned. The appeal states that there is a section in the Ballymena plan that states

Appendix 14

that small parcels of unzoned land may be considered to be developed as long as the

development use is acceptable to the location proposed. The Strabane Plan does not contain

any such policy and as such this is a relevant consideration on why this site is materially

different. The appeal does go on to state that a precedent had already been set in the area

where apartment buildings were already constructed on open space and that the

commissioner put the emphasis on the fact that a precedent had already been set in regards

to PPS8. This is a different scenario to the site presented here.

Significant weight cannot be afforded to the applicant’s argument of substantial community

benefit. The construction of 6 dwellings within this locality will not have a substantial impact

upon the housing need figure within the council area or create much employment for the

building sector. The community benefit has not been adequately demonstrated in this case

and as a result this is still unacceptable under OS1.

Proposed concept site layout

PPS 7 Quality Residential Environment Policy QD1 the proposed development will be

required to conform to all the following criteria (a-i):

Appendix 14

(a) The development respects the surrounding context and is appropriate to the

character and topography of the site in terms of layout, scale, proportions, massing

and appearance of buildings, structures and landscaped and hard surfaced areas.

Although the application is outline, the topography of the site is such that it will be hard to

develop without either retaining walls or huge amounts of fill. The photograph below is

taken at the crash barrier looking down at the houses at Evish Grove. Section 4.13 of PPS7

states that the use of prominent retaining walls within and at the margins of sloping sites

will be unacceptable. The developer has failed to demonstrate how this site would work and

as such the proposal at present would fail part (a) of QD1.

Photo 5

(b) Features of archaeological and built heritage, and landscaped features are identified

and, where appropriate, protected and integrated in a suitable manner into the

overall design and layout of the development.

As this is outline, the detailed design has not been addressed.

(c) Adequate provision is made for public and private open space and landscaped areas

as an integral part of the development. Where appropriate, planted areas or discrete groups

Appendix 14

of trees will be required along site boundaries in order to soften the visual impact of the

development and assist in its integration with the surrounding area.

As can be seen by the layout above, the proposed private amenity space afforded to the

proposed dwellings is adequate in the concept plan. However due to steep site gradients and

the consequent requirement to possibly provide a retaining wall it has not been

demonstrated at this stage how houses would work on the site.

(d) Adequate provision is made for necessary local neighbourhood facilities to be provided by the developer as an integral part of the development.

Neighbourhood facilities are not required due to scale of the proposal.

(e) A movement pattern is provided that supports walking and cycling, meets the needs

of people whose mobility is impaired, respects existing public rights of way, provides

adequate and convenient access to public transport and incorporates traffic calming

measures.

As this is outline, these details have not been supplied by the agent at this stage.

(f) Adequate and appropriate provision is made for parking.

Transport Ni have been consulted and details were requested from the agent. It has not

been demonstrated how adequate and appropriate provision is made for parking.

(g) The design of the development draws upon the best local traditions of form,

materials and detailing.

The house types proposed in the concept statement are more suited to a flat site, they do not

take account of the topography of the site. It has not been fully demonstrated at this stage

how the house design would work on this site.

(h) The design and layout will not create conflict with adjacent land uses and there is no

unacceptable adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss

of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

The houses at Evish Grove are at a considerably lower level than the proposed housing.

There is already a retaining structure and planting to the side of number 11 (as seen in photo

2 and photo 5). It is hard to envisage with the developer not supplying the levels that were

requested, how this site could not create an adverse impact to the existing properties and as

Appendix 14

a result it has not been demonstrated how the design will not create conflict with adjacent

land uses.

(i) The development is designed to deter crime and promote personal safety.

Not required due to scale of the proposal.

As a consequence the LPA would argue that the proposal is contrary to PPS7 Quality

Residential Environment as it has not been demonstrated how the design and layout can

address the challenging nature of the site, the provision of access to the proposed housing

land has not been demonstrated also.

PPS7 Addendum Safeguarding the Character of established Residential Area - Policy LC1

In established residential area planning permission will only be granted for the

redevelopment of existing buildings, or the infilling of vacant site (including extended garden

area) to accommodate new housing, where all the criteria set out in Policy QD1 of PPS7 and

all additional criteria set out below are met:

a. the proposed density is not significantly higher than that found in the established

residential area.

b. the pattern of development is in keeping with the overall character and environmental

quality of the established residential area

c. the dwelling units and apartments are built to a size not less than those set out in annex A.

As stated above it is considered that the proposal fails to meet a number of criteria as set out

in PPS7 Policy QD1. For a development proposal to be successful the ratio of built form to

garden area, the proposed layout and the potential impact upon non-residential uses such as

open space needs to be acceptable. It is considered that the proposal has not demonstrated

how housing could be developed on this site whilst keeping with the character and

environmental quality of the residential area and as such would fail LC1.

There was a meeting held with the agent, applicant and planning consultant to discuss the

issues surrounding PPS8 and PPS7 on 8th February 2017. Following the meeting the agent

submitted further information for us to consider. This information has been assessed but the

issues surrounding PPS7 and PPS8 still remain.

Appendix 14

11. Conclusion:

Having considered all material considerations, including the development plan, relevant

planning policies, and consultation responses it is considered that the proposal fails to meet

policies requirements of Planning Policy Statements 3, 7 and 8.

Therefore the Planning Authority recommend refusal of this site for 6 semi-detached dwellings

at this particular location for the following reasons;

Refusal Reasons

1. The proposal is contrary to policy OS1 of Planning Policy Statement 8 Open Space, Sport and

Outdoor Recreation in that the development would, if permitted, have adverse effect the

environmental quality of the urban area by reason of the loss of open space.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 7 (Quality Residential

Developments) Policy QD1 and Policy LC1 of PPS7 Addendum Safeguarding the Character of

established Residential Areas in that it has not been demonstrated that the development

respects the surrounding context and is appropriate to the character and topography of the

site.

3. The proposed development is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 3 Access, Movement

and Parking, as it has not been demonstrated, that the proposal will not prejudice the safety

and convenience of road users since adequate provision has not been demonstrated onto

the existing road.